|
|
#61
10-23-2007, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
Well, bunk it up with the Milgram studies and you'll know that people don't really act very idealistically, they don't always act rationally, they often do what someone else tells them too and they don't always mind coercion [/ QUOTE ] We're just going in circles now. The original point was that people accept this one a widescale level but certainly not on a personal level. People on a day to day basis certainly try to make the best possible decisions for their everyday life, acting rationally. And they certainly DO mind if they're being coerced on a personal, tangible level. i.e. people are going to mind if they get mugged. [ QUOTE ] and there is usually a coercer or too hiding out in any modestly large group of people. [/ QUOTE ] Ok...I've already admitted as much. What's your point? 
|
|
#62
10-23-2007, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Find a "near AC society" in history, and you'll find a society that failed for the very reasons that the board "statists" have maintained are ACs weaknesses as a theory or as a practical possibility. [/ QUOTE ] Strange, I can't recall the Western U.S. failing. Seems to be doing pretty well actually. I guess it would have failed if statism hadn't crept in and taken over. [/ QUOTE ] ACism failed, if that wasn't clear from my comment I apologize. In the case of the Western US (if was ever really "near AC", I'll grant ou that) ACism failed because of the natural human predliction toward government. The Western states ASKED to become states. If AC were such a great thing, they would have stayed independent. I've anticipated your response...I'm ready, whenever you are. [/ QUOTE ] They asked to become states at a time when the federal government followed the Constitution and had practically zero interference in what states did. A time when we didn't go around invading random countries or have Social Security, Welfare, a War on Drugs or an Income Tax. They certainly made a mistake that they likely wouldn't make again with the same information. I wouldn't call making a mistake that future generations can learn from and not make again "failing" though. [/ QUOTE ] Whether they misjudged the government they petitioned or not, they still wanted SOME government. Were they "accidental ACists" who didn't realize how good they had it, or is mankind predisposed to wanting to cede authority over some decisions/responsibilities to a "state" so they can go about their daily lives doing what they are best at?
|
|
#63
10-24-2007, 07:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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... [/ QUOTE ] I finally realized AC-ists treat human as a subject. I guess any debate here is pointless.
|
|
#64
10-24-2007, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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... [/ QUOTE ] I finally realized AC-ists treat human as a subject. I guess any debate here is pointless. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this further please? I don't understand what you mean.
|
|
#66
10-24-2007, 10:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
object. sorry [/ QUOTE ] ACists treat humans as an object? I'm still gonna need some more explaination here. Plus a definition of the word object if at all possible.
|
|
#67
10-24-2007, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC-ism in history?
[ QUOTE ]
object. sorry [/ QUOTE ] Actually just 180 degrees off. ACists view humans as capable of deciding for themselves and responsible for themselves. By your posts, I'd guess you view people as more like objects requiring some other entity to take care of them and make their decisions for them for their own good. People aren't plants. Sorry if this bothers you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
