Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

How about this angle: Humans are selfish by nature (not completely, but mostly). In that sense, an organized body with the right authority is needed to help distribute resources, reduce separation between classes, etc. Obviously not to the extreme (communism) but enough to give the poor decent conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans' selfish nature works in favor of capitalism as trades usually benefit both parties. A lumberjack cuts down trees, but there is no sense in hoarding cut trees so he trades some of them to a guy who makes furniture, but it doesn't make sense for the guy to hoard furniture so he trades them for food, ect, ect. Henry Ford is a classic example of this, he organized an auto plant in such a way that he was able to produce cars cheap enough for the majority to afford them. At the same time that he did this his workers were getting paid some of the highest wages in the country, and at the same time as this Henry Ford got rich as [censored].

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are selfish by nature (not completely, but mostly). In that sense, an organized body with the right authority is needed to help distribute resources, reduce separation between classes, etc. Obviously not to the extreme (communism) but enough to give the poor decent conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dont you see how contradictory this statement is? Humans are selfish so we need a representative democracy to make sure people stay in line. wtf?

People arent selfish, people actually care a lot about others in their communities and abroad. We know this because they vote in leaders who claim to take care of the poor!

The sad thing is, is that people lack complete information (oh wait dont we need government to solve this too?) of how little the government helps the poor and so people arent going to go above and beyond what they pay in taxes. Hence, you get this impression that people dont give to charity. But everyone is already giving to charity, even if they dont want to.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just add really quick, I am no longer an advocate of democracy. It's time and age is gone. There was a time when it became needed, in order to increase effeciency to elect representatives. This is no longer the case. Anyone can choose to rep himself of ask anyone to represent him. Democracy was fantastic for the era of the recent past.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes you a fan of democracy, just not a fan of representative democracy.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scarce resources are the primary cause of poverty.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a view. I think that unequal, unbalanced, unfair, distribution and withholding, and waste, of scarce resources are the primary cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

unequal, unbalanced- this logically has nothing to do with poverty unless you measure it in only relative terms. For example, a millionaire in Beverly Hills is poor compared to his billionaire neighbor. I don't think you are concerned about this case. If it is the case, you are assuming there is only a fixed number of resources and that fixed number is very close to what we currently have. This isn't the case. In fact, by making things more "equal", there is also a great deal of loss in total resources. If you are an egalitarian who pities the millionaire in Beverly Hills due to his relative poverty, and would rather be a pauper in a society of paupers, this argument won't help much, and I don't think most people would agree with you.

unfair- This is entirely subjective. If someone redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the poor, this may be considered just as unfair as someone who is poor. Also, many resources cannot be transfered. For example, take hmk and his enormously small penis. He can never match up to Borodog and his enormous dong and therefore cannot have as hot of a wife. Do you intend to provide him a UBV (Universal Basic Vagina)?

distribution and withholding- you'll have to describe how this creates poverty. This just seems like a form of scarcity.

waste- agree that waste causes poverty. This is one of the reasons that I am against redistribution and unaccountable government agencies trying to "fix" these problems.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

Humans are selfish but they are going to vote for a caring compassionate government to have power over them.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually not the contradiction you make it out to be. Part of the reason that governments work is that they create a social contract, whereby everyone is forced to provide their own share of the public good. We all may want to end poverty, but left on our own we may be willing to let others take care of it. Reasons for this may be that we like the idea of giving money to charity but don't really ever feel like doing it at any given moment, we may feel (as many do) that "what can I do" feeling, etc.

Taxation/forced volunteer work/similar programs give everyone a structure within which they can feel they are doing their part, the problem is being solved and society is a cohesive unit.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) Failure to find a shade of grey to their absolute property-rights

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is impossible to have any meaningful debate on this point without someone legitimizing the exclusive ownership thousands of acres of land (which was here millions of years before them and will be here millions of years after them) with an argument like: "of course this is the case because you aren't sharing your apple with the whole world" or some other stark contrast that is irrelevant in the debate. They are almost evangelical on this point and just as blind to their irrationality. You could ask them: What makes humans so different from every other species in that humans can stake out a territory and just by staking that territory out they automatically assume exclusive rights to it for the rest of their lives and every other member of their species should respect that? But it wouldn't matter, they would fail to see the point.

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit. Rather than name who falls into this group (would be a long list), I'll just name the only two I can think of off the top of my head that do not: AlexM and hmkpoker.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

valenzeula-

It was pretty clear from the beginning that you never really understood ACism. Your arguments for it were always incredibly weak. I am not the least bit surprised that you have fallen for the arguments of people like moorobot and Phil153, who while are misguided, are fairly intelligent. I have my doubts that keep me from being a true ACist, but your arguments against it are among the weakest I have ever seen.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You agree that claim is subjective and then agree that it is a black and white issue once such claim is "legitimized" whatever that means. So thank you for illustrating my point regarding ACists to a tee.

If a polar bear has some claim over an area of ice, the only thing that makes it "legitimate" is his ability to defend it. Sure he can convince the other polar bears to respect his notion of "property rights" (and all power to him), but if he then claims legitimate sovereignty over such land, that doesn't make such a claim absolute. Another polar bear may disagree with his notion of property rights and say to hell with his claim. Such a polar bear is not acting immorally, as you apparently believe, just because he doesn't believe that another polar bear should control such a fine area. This is reality. Humans are no different. We can convince each other to respect our notion of property rights (and more power to those of us who try), but that will never make our notion of property rights an absolute truth and it will never make those who disagree with us "immoral".

Edit: And as a former raving capitalist cheerleader, I can say that most on this board who fail to see this point remind me of myself at 25. It wouldn't help you much to argue this point with me then as I was set in my views and would argue the same tired cliches like "tragedy of the commons" as pvn and others roll out in lieu of more rigorous thought. Now in my late 30s I see that my beliefs then were built on a house of cards. That doesn't mean that libertarian beliefs on property are bad goals -- they are excellent goals. They just are not absolutely true (no more "true" than socialist thought) and are only "legitimate" in the sense that you convince others to accept them or you defend them with force if necessary.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Polar bears are in morally different categories to human beings. They cannot reason to anywhere near the same extent and have no understanding of morality. Even a 6 month old child has notions of morality and quite clearly defined ideas about right and wrong inbuilt. It takes a lot of conditioning and abuse before a person can become confused about moralities "grey" areas.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Val, here's another fundamental reason to forgo the koolaid:

You can't get rid of the state. Even if smashed, a new one will quickly reconstitute itself.

The only way to get rid of a state is with powerful insurgent organizations, which then become the new state. They won't dissolve once the state is smashed because there are so many advantages to remaining.

Re: the "education" counter argument. ACists like to believe that their education efforts will magically take hold and everyone will simply stop enabling the state. But information does not dissolve interests. The state has enormous dependent constituencies that will not become ACists no matter how pretty the speeches. It only takes a small minority of support to maintain a state. So the state has to be smashed, then you are back to previous paragraph.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read all of PVN's posts, but I doubt that he has ever stated (or at least no believes) that staking out a territory = ownership. If you really are familiar with libertarian thought this is going to come across as really condescending, but what the hey.

Axiom: individuals own their bodies
logical deduction: individuals own their labor

Axiom: unclaimed land has no owner
logical deduction: every individual has equal claim to land

situation: individual mixes labor with land
result: individual now has higher claim to end result than any other individual

The implication of building a fence around an area is that person owns the fence and the land the fence i built on, it implies (from a libertarian perspective) nothing about ownership of the land within the fenced area.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
VHawk,

Are you an ACist? I don't seem to remember that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be an ACist to support deregulation.

natedogg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The enomourous amount of luck in the distribution of scarce resources is the primary cause of poverty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a shadow of a doubt, like it is the primary cause of success!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Consider how many lottery winners end up broke.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/bad-...ars-316502.php

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Sav...ons.aspx?page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Wh...ottery_winner)

http://www.pestiside.hu/archives/tragic_...broke001824.php

Lots more if you google a little bit.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No ACists here are advocating any actions to prevent people from helping other people. This is an emotional argument. People are in crappy situations, they need help. Government is (supposedly) a method to help them.

Well, some people don't agree with the method. This doesn't imply that they think the *goal* is bad. It's the same "put ponies in a cannon and fire them into a mountain to end world hunger" debate. Someone will propose it, and if you say this is a stupid idea, someone will *instantly* accuse you of "hating starving kids".

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

The op is a level right? I haven't read the whole thread but it seems like a level.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Another thing I don't get is how you can have such an absolute notion of property rights, with no government to enforce them. I mean it doesn't really matter what you think is legitimate or not if you can't make everyone else agree with you under the absence of government.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I don't get is how you can have such an absolute notion of property rights, with no government to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.archon-guild.com/files/sigh.jpg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me just add really quick, I am no longer an advocate of democracy. It's time and age is gone. There was a time when it became needed, in order to increase effeciency to elect representatives. This is no longer the case. Anyone can choose to rep himself of ask anyone to represent him. Democracy was fantastic for the era of the recent past.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes you a fan of democracy, just not a fan of representative democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as long as the majority gets its way at the expense of the minority.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly. my seduction rested on reading third rate novels, similar in their romantic approach to, and no better in their literary values than, the Louis L'Amour novels available at the airport. I mean, of course, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and wrote rather stinging criticisms about anarchist thought.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I don't get is how you can have such an absolute notion of property rights, with no government to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.archon-guild.com/files/sigh.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. I apologize, that was off topic.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how that applies?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how that applies?

[/ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Weird to read this since I basically consider myself an extreme minarchist now, but not quite AC.

Too bad Borodog's distraught right now, that could be fun.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

do u guys think that the move from minarchist to anarchist is an incremental change or a monumental leap in thinking?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
do u guys think that the move from minarchist to anarchist is an incremental change or a monumental leap in thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. I'm a Libertarian in practice (minarchist, but I don't really like that word) and an ACist in spirit. I think you can be both, and moving from one view-point to the other isn't particularly tough.

Cody

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he never directly stated it, but I had to simplify things since you didn't understand the fallacy.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
do u guys think that the move from minarchist to anarchist is an incremental change or a monumental leap in thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends if you're a moralist, utilitarian, or both. I'm mostly a utilitarian, and just need to be convinced government < free market for quality of life purposes. I think moralists have a bigger leap from coercion to no coercion.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
do u guys think that the move from minarchist to anarchist is an incremental change or a monumental leap in thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I considered myself a minarchist for a while before I decided I was an "ACist." I still don't like to label myself as anything, cause all I am is some [censored] on the internet that posts here between poker hands and hasn't thought about this stuff anywhere near as much as many libertarian thinkers. So to call myself necessarily the same thing as someone else is sort of weird. I'm just fortunate that I have a couple really smart friends, and that I found this board with some really intelligent posters on it.

I'd say it was gradual in the sense that it took longer than it should have. Minarchism provides a sort of outlet to be what makes sense to you, but also feel like you don't have to totally reject the terms by which other people think about things. But eventually it just sort of hit me over a 2-3 day period that "AC" was my conclusion, and that I was just mindfucking myself to insist otherwise.

In most cases the difference is probably semantics. However, I would say there are probably a fair number of "minarchists" who do have a drastically different line of reasoning and don't necessarily accept the principles of why freedom works, but just so happen to come to the conclusion that limited government is their preference, for whatever reasons.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

"Axiom: individuals own their bodies"

Oops. Back to square 1.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Vhawk: Ure actually proposing democracy, right now George Bush is the chooser of America, Sarkozy the chooser of France, etc.

AlexM: I don’t have enough information to discuss the effects of American government policy on poverty, but I will tell you that most good governments tend to decrease poverty if the programs are done correctly.

TomCollins: I like how you automatically assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or “misguided” perhaps you are the one who is misguided! .
You are only putting emphasis on negative freedom while ignoring positive freedom, that point of view may look fine to wave your e-penis on internet message board discussions but if you apply them in the real world it doesn’t work quite as well, you simply choose to ignore all the bad effects of a total free-market , this is noted by the fact that you laugh at the idea of “not starving” as a definition of freedom. I think that not starving is a more reasonable definition of freedom than the right to not be coerced on your dubious absolute property-rights.

Kaj: Good posts

Pvn: 1) Success in life is down to brute luck, those lottery winners may have gotten “lucky” because they won a lottery prize but they were unlucky in the sense that they never got a proper education, success in life depends a lot on self determination but it can also come down to one broken condom, meeting the right person at the right time, your father becoming an alcoholic when you are 6, etc.
2) I’m not making an appeal to emotion; I’m making an argument based on utilitarian grounds.

Owsley: I agree with what you say.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he never directly stated it, but I had to simplify things since you didn't understand the fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your "simplification" amounts to a false characterization. Imo.