AC-ism in history?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Laughably hideously wrong.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Laughably hideously wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for reply. Since i really don't know much about AC, could someone give me some help in explaining which mentioned human rights would be greater in AC-ism? Thx for reply (and please don't give me some links; just try to explain it in a few words please).

[calmB4storm]

Wikipedia:
[ QUOTE ]
A few groups, such as conceptually divide rights into negative and positive rights. By this distinction, "negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American legal tradition of natural rights, are rights that a government and/or private entities may never take action to remove. For example, right to life and security of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of speech, religion, assembly; the right to bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see how the government is better at protecting any of these. Do you?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Since i really don't know much about AC, could someone give me some help in explaining which mentioned human rights would be greater in AC-ism?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fundamental belief on which AC is built is universal recognition of property rights. Government undermines property rights with most of it's actions. There's one.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are quite wrong. For starters, what is a "corporation" where there is no government to define corporations under the tax and legal system?

Further, your entire set of posts in this thread seems to be based on the following unsupported belief: "Currently, big business attempts to control every aspect of my life and oppress me at every turn and the only thing stopping them is the government. I can't see how removing the government could result in anything other than more oppression by big business." Since anyone who believes in ACism will wholely reject this basis for your arguments, you can't have a serious discussion with them about the costs and benefits of more/less government.

[zasterguava]

lol @ native americans being an example of acism

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ native americans being an example of acism

[/ QUOTE ]

?

[Felz]

There has never been any large society that even came close to ACism.