AC-ism in history?

[bocablkr]

The replies in this thread from the pro ACer's makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a history book.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if Hitler had conquered us in WWII, that would have been a failure of our form of government? Interesting theory, but I don't agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also all those democracies that were overthrown by the US show that democracy is a failure and totalitarianism is a success.

[/ 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.

[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?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 100% certain. Anyone who thinks it does doesn't understand what AC is about.

Also, if it were true, the corporations "running our government" would be moving us towards AC and not away from it...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The replies in this thread from the pro ACer's makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a history book.

[/ QUOTE ]

The replies in this thread from the trolls makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a book.

[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.

[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 ]

?