Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)If you say ACists are in favor of slightly coercing some ppl to reduce the coercion of poor kids then nvm my critique.
2)Here is my biggest disagreement with you all, you say that goverment helps corporations etc,etc. Even if that is [censored] up and could be fixed on a goverment, I still prefer the current situation over what I would think would happen on AC, you are just HOPING things will work out they way you say it will, not everyone has the time to go through a lenghty consumer report( a consumer report thay may not even be that accurate and if the consumer report is any good u bet its going to be quite expensive)
3)The point is that I think that issue will almost certainly be a deal-breaker if it doesnt get down to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is the solution to #2. No one will ever have to read a Consumer Report on anything. No one has to be competent or spend enough time to make any sort of difficult decision: save one. They only need to spend time choosing a Chooser. Someone that they will then trust to make decisions for them.

If you are saying they are incompetent or dont have the time to even do this then I hope you realize how horrible democracy is.

[/ QUOTE ]Why does that lead to ACism? Or say anything about democracy being bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point that I was trying to make is that nothing LEADS to ACism, it seems self-evident to me that people should be able to make their own choices in life. This is my starting point. I am willing to listen to arguments about exceptions to this or problems with this or places where this might not apply. What eventually (inevitably) ends up happening is someone makes a point that we dont have enough time and we are all too stupid (although its usually "they" are all too stupid, obviously everyone here is brilliant) to make all of these choices all day long. No way could I be reasonably expected to choose a restaurant that doesnt serve arsenic. No way could I be reasonably expected to research which drugs I wanted to take to take care of my hypertension. Without regulatory bodies and without elected representatives to make our choices for us, we'd all be overwhelmed intellectually and we'd run out of time.

But the problem is, that isnt any kind of argument. Of COURSE we couldnt make expert decisions on everything. But why would we need to do that? All you need to do is pick a chooser. So the way I usually argue this is to start out subtly. I suggest Consumer Reports or something like that. I get predictable responses. "Well, they cant make all your choices for you" or "Well they cant be trusted to make accurate, unbiased choices" which leads me into selecting a Chooser to choose my Choosers. At some point we have a string of arguments where the statist has just claimed over and over again that people have no chance of ever intelligently selecting ANYONE to represent them about ANYTHING in a way that wont lead to bias and corruption and them consistently being taken advantage of.

So they've just demonstrated how immoral and evil and corrupt democracy is, and most of the statists I talk to are Americans and so love democracy, and they usually get angry and the conversation is over at this point.

It isnt an argument FOR AC. Its a deflection or a refutation of an argument AGAINST AC.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
VHawk,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah sorta I guess. I am to all my "normal" friends, but I dont know how I measure up to the real ACers around here.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are avoiding the issue by playing on this "simple decree" semantics issue. You believe that legitimate ownership can be inferred on one individual for exclusive use of land -- whether that be by staking it out, discovering it, using it, whatever (and irrelevant). Then you use this concept of "legitimate property rights" as if it was an actual thing, some actual objective standard. Well it is not. It is merely an abstract concept that only has subjective meaning if people accept such a notion. Most ACers here refuse to accept that this concept is just a human abstraction and flies in the face of nature. And they have already demonstrated in this thread that they believe in some "morality" regarding property rights once they are established as "legitimate" -- failing to realize that "legitimate" and "morality" are wholly subjective terms which have no meaning whatsoever unless others want to recognize your "morality" or "legitimacy", which they are free to not do. This does not mean that I am against property. I am just against the tired and absurd arguments on this board that go something like: I own my body, thus I can own territory even if in vast quantities beyond necessary for my subsistence, and if others reject this assertion then their values are "immoral" or infringing on your "rights". There are no [censored] rights. None. Period. Get the [censored] over it. You aren't entitled to [censored] on this earth. I don't give a crap how much labor you mix with your land, it will never confer any objective "legitimacy" unless others choose to recognize it as legitimate (or you have enough force then to at least force them to accept your use). Just like the big lion doesn't give a crap if some other lion has mixed his labor with the land by years of hunting, digging, and the like. Stop believing that humans are unique. We aren't. We do indeed have the ability to reason, however. And using this reason we can persuade each other that it is in our best interests to respect property, if we so choose. But we are not using reason if we conclude that our ability to reason somehow confers an objective morality on the issue of property rights. You do a disservice to reason by using the same worn out (and flawed) approaches.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this post mean?

I am a staunch opponent of the status quo and very sympathetic to AC theory but am saying that the mangling of anarchist thought by ACists through their absolutist value system which they believe to be an objective standard hurts the cause of liberty (as well as reason).

So why should we give those who have a blind spot to their own theory which causes us to go round and round the same worn out circle some "leeway"? This board would be 10 times better and we could really have some interesting debate if those ACists in question just recognized that their absolutist "morality" is just... not.

Edit: This forum sucks because ACists give each other too much leeway. And other groups give too much leeway to those with their own beliefs. You are all divided up into little camps. People like pvn and Boro and the like all come running out to jump on statists but rarely if ever challenge each others views because that would be "attacking" each other and we must stand united for the cause, right. Well bull [censored]. If the cause is reason and meaningful debate, we need to stop giving those with like-minded views so much "leeway" and start challenging our own biases. That is why I respect AlexM and hmkpoker above all other posters here.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that addresses my post. My point was about ACers making ridiculously bold claims juxtaposed with complaints about being held to a higher standard when those claims are questioned.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought you have done a terrible disservice to ACists, Libertarians, and Minarchists by your complete lack of understanding of these concepts. I'm pretty glad you are having the wool pulled over your eyes again. I'm sure in another year you will find some other leader to follow around to a new idea too.

I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me are stupid or misguided, but a lot of them are. Perhaps I am wrong, and I have been in the past (see a few previous debates with Borodog I've had in the past) and have changed my opinions accordingly. You think it comes down to an e-penis, but it really is just an intolerance of stupid people (especially stupid people who want to steal my sh*t). You misunderstood every thing I said (once again).

You honestly think that I don't look at the "bad" effects of a free market? Not everyone on here is as naive as you so quit making that assumption. As Borodog once said, a free market is the triple coincidence- the most logical, the best results, and most fair system out there.

So pray tell- what alternative to a free market do you propose that would be better? Your entire post seems to be an entire "wah wah, life is unfair" tirade.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

this thread reminds me of those papa johns commercials where the pizza hut guy defects and says "sorry guys, I found a better pizza." bitterness abounds.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
this thread reminds me of those papa johns commercials where the pizza hut guy defects and says "sorry guys, I found a better pizza." bitterness abounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anyone bitter. Personally, I'm glad. With him and Nielsio removed, the two worst ACist posters on here are taken care of.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not governments that create anything, its the people. Throughout history we have had some good governments some bad governments and some purely evil governments. There is no correlation between government and positive social contract. Its an educated and non-violent populace that produces great societies not the governmental structure running society.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

So people are either lazy or totally crazy. In which case I dont see why I should be forced to help poor people.

I've got a better explanation. People feel like they are evil if they arent helping the poor so they offload the responsibility to a third party to deal with their anxiety, they dont actually care if the poor get helped. Much like the fatties who buy extra light food products but eat a million calories a day.

If people are forced to live everyday with the fact that they are immoral people for not helping the poor they will take the time to send money to some causes. Nowadays all it takes is a couple of clicks.

The tragedy is when people reach for the charity light without dealing with the fundamental issues of poverty. People think they are helping the poor, but the government is not actually helping the poor to the extent that it could be. In this situation the poor are simply exploited on all sides and never get helped. A truly sick situation.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is not being solved. We've had social programs for over 50 years. We still have much poverty in both America and Canada. I think its time to re-evaluate our solutions.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

Its not governments that create anything, its the people. Throughout history we have had some good governments some bad governments and some purely evil governments. There is no correlation between government and positive social contract. Its an educated and non-violent populace that produces great societies not the governmental structure running society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying guns are bad because they kill people. Government has it's uses, that's what I'm saying. You seem to imply that "educated and non-violent populace" is some sort of exogenous variable that we can just plug into the equation. The entire point of my argument is that some sort of governing institution is necessary to create this "educated and non-violent populace".

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
So people are either lazy or totally crazy. In which case I dont see why I should be forced to help poor people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because otherwise society sucks.

[ QUOTE ]

I've got a better explanation. People feel like they are evil if they arent helping the poor so they offload the responsibility to a third party to deal with their anxiety, they dont actually care if the poor get helped. Much like the fatties who buy extra light food products but eat a million calories a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sound like government is doing it's job perfectly then!

[ QUOTE ]

If people are forced to live everyday with the fact that they are immoral people for not helping the poor they will take the time to send money to some causes. Nowadays all it takes is a couple of clicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this last sentence is even a reference to. Spending money takes no time, and can easily be accomplished with just a couple of clicks. Spending money in the right way can go a long way to solving poverty.

Unsurprisingly, the first sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous sentence that you posted. If all people care about is ridding themselves of their anxiety, they wouldn't take any time to do anything. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]

The tragedy is when people reach for the charity light without dealing with the fundamental issues of poverty. People think they are helping the poor, but the government is not actually helping the poor to the extent that it could be. In this situation the poor are simply exploited on all sides and never get helped. A truly sick situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, which is why in addition to yapping about theoretical positions on government on the interwebs, I try to spread information about productive charities and about how much OUR government is no good.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

owsley,

Was a good post indeed.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, very good post. Very similar to my story really.

I was Democrat then Republican then Libertarian now ACist. Parents were and still are heavily involved in Democrat politics. I also do not anticipate looking back at any point in my life and saying, "What was I thinking with all that AC crap?"

All ACism is is a consistent, ACTUAL opposition to violence (as opposed to a stated opposition). If being against violence makes me a loony, sign me up. I can't ever imagine looking back and regretting opposing all violence/coercion or supporting the Golden Rule.

ACism is also the only thing I have seen that approaches a logically consistent belief system. Pure socialism may come close, but it relies on what I consider to be a very undesirable set of first principles. Any belief system that allows a gov't mandates a belief in different moral classes of people, as pvn has shown many times.

Dem/Repub cheerleading is absolutely no different than Yanks/Sox cheerleading and has absolutely zero basis in any sort of logically coherent arguments stemming from any set of first principles. At the end of the day you are cheering for letters, colors, and caricatures of animals. Period. (Note: This is different than specific issue cheerleading - I am talking about straight party-line cheerleading, which we see plenty of on this forum.)

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Non-sequitur much? (Strawman much?)

I would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.

and

[ QUOTE ]
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”

[/ QUOTE ]

He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.

His argument, that some people have circumstances beyond their control and it's ok to use coercion to address that, is perfectly valid, although merely normative. But the libertarian argument against coercion is also merely normative.

However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done. Thus opposing the state's coercion in this matter means you are indifferent to the problem. Not so.

natedogg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always thought you have done a terrible disservice to ACists, Libertarians, and Minarchists by your complete lack of understanding of these concepts. I'm pretty glad you are having the wool pulled over your eyes again. I'm sure in another year you will find some other leader to follow around to a new idea too.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I dont have any leader to follow around, youre confusing quoting a poster on a fraction of my OP with "following" them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me are stupid or misguided, but a lot of them are. Perhaps I am wrong, and I have been in the past (see a few previous debates with Borodog I've had in the past) and have changed my opinions accordingly. You think it comes down to an e-penis, but it really is just an intolerance of stupid people (especially stupid people who want to steal my sh*t). You misunderstood every thing I said (once again).


[/ QUOTE ]

When you said that moorobot and phil were smart but misguided I must admit that I thought that aplied to everybody else who was smart and disagreed with u, btw I love how you assume my misunderstanings of what u are trying to tell me are all my fault, perhaps you are not communicating your message well enough?


[ QUOTE ]
You honestly think that I don't look at the "bad" effects of a free market? Not everyone on here is as naive as you so quit making that assumption. As Borodog once said, a free market is the triple coincidence- the most logical, the best results, and most fair system out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol at extreme capitalism being the most fair system out there.

[ QUOTE ]
So pray tell- what alternative to a free market do you propose that would be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

a free-market but just not that free, I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

Oh and btw you ignored my counter-critique to youre critique of my definition of freedom( a definition of freedom which you made up to mock me btw)

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely a better way of saying what I wanted to, I left out that this whole idea is murky and the norms that govern it are going to change and be determined over long periods of time (centuries of human societies).

And natedogg is right. Why does the solution to this problem have to be involuntary? Like I said in my other post, one of the things that pisses me off the most is that people act like ACists don't care about this probably, and that is flat out 100% untrue.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reaction going to be when I knock on your door and inform you that me and my people have decided you have too much freedom, and we need you to give us something or provide a service. And it's something you wouldn't do if you had the choice to decline it. Also, we have guns.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont redifine coercion, I just come up with a new type of coercion( the coercion I call" coercion caused my non-moral agents")


[ QUOTE ]
He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said Im not redefining anything, Im just coming up with a new concept.

[ QUOTE ]
However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? ACists constantly give more importance to "coercion done by moral agents" over "coercion done by the state of nature" If one type of coercion is constantly undermined you might as well say they dont care about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im implying that some force of natural state problems need a state not that ALL of those problem need a state.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reaction going to be when I knock on your door and inform you that me and my people have decided you have too much freedom, and we need you to give us something or provide a service. And it's something you wouldn't do if you had the choice to decline it. Also, we have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that knocking on my door with big guns and informing me I have too much freedom is not the same as a democratic election in which I have a vote.

edit: and btw I meant freedom market, I forgot that most of you think market freedom = life freedom

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't see how any poster here would ever make a claim to 100,000 acres of land and start sniping trespassers, so how does it violate the golden rule? They would "not" do unto others.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Non-sequitur much? (Strawman much?)

I would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, some here who support property rights have stated the fact that ownership is indeed a black and white issue, so your agreement that the issue is murky is a positive.

My doomsday scenario is hardly as you describe. Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Btw what amount of acres are we talking about before it counts as coercing others? I propose a gradual scale, if you own 1 acre you owe a bit of that acre to the community.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't see how any poster here would ever make a claim to 100,000 acres of land and start sniping trespassers, so how does it violate the golden rule? They would "not" do unto others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I think most every poster here would make that claim (well, you added the sniping bit, not me). Are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that ownership of 100,000 acres can be legitimate? And are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that defending one's property claims is part of self-defense?

I don't understand your reaction to my statement unless you believe that ACists believe in some imaginary cap on property and they are against the use of force to defend their property. And such a belief is obviously absurd.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but hoarding 100,000 acres of unowned (and presumably valuable) land without mixing it with any labor and shooting all trespassers is.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but hoarding 100,000 acres of unowned (and presumably valuable) land without mixing it with any labor and shooting all trespassers is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think that is a fantasy?

So in AC land, if you aren't working on your land or using it in some way, then you believe that others can move in and take it from you against your will?

Okay then. This is a whole new side of the debate.

So, if I inherit my father's 100,000 acre estate in AC land and sit around living the life of luxury, you are hereby declaring my claim to the land null and void? And what mechanism enforces this proclamation of yours? Everybody grab what they want from me? Wow, this is really news and I eagerly await your rationale of how my claim suddenly became illegitimate.

And once you make that case, you'll have also made the case why its okay for me to homestead in the backyard you rarely use, and if you try to force me off....well, you already have stated that shooting trespassers is against your beliefs.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

Kaj,

It seems to me like those kinds of arguments assume that someone who does not own any land in a society with property rights is somehow being disenfranchised, and the implication seems to be that even staying alive under this arrangement should be difficult, since you will always be trespassing on someone else's property and of course they are going to be shooting at you for these indiscretions.

How do the millions of US citizens who do not own (or claim to own) any land survive? Why aren't they constantly dodging bullets?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

My impression of your scenario was that someone came across untouched land and just said "Oh hey this is all mine, now I will defend it with a gun." That the land would be theirs just because they said it was and they had an absolute black and white right to it. Sorry but I don't think you did a very good job of explaining yourself at all and that's why I commented that it was a worthless point and was never going to convince anyone. Obviously if someone exchanges goods for different parcels of land they can ultimately accumulate 100,000 acres of land, there is no "cap".

You said the guy had a gun (obviously implying he was going to shoot people if they didn't respect his property claim), I said sniping. That's a pretty nit point if I've ever seen one. It makes zero substantive difference whatsoever. It's late and this is not one of the more productive discussions I've ever had so I think I'm done with this. Property rights are definitely one of the things that have been hardest for me to formulate my views on.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but hoarding 100,000 acres of unowned (and presumably valuable) land without mixing it with any labor and shooting all trespassers is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think that is a fantasy?

So in AC land, if you aren't working on your land or using it in some way, then you believe that others can move in and take it from you against your will?

Okay then. This is a whole new side of the debate.

So, if I inherit my father's 100,000 acre estate in AC land and sit around living the life of luxury, you are hereby declaring my claim to the land null and void? And what mechanism enforces this proclamation of yours? Everybody grab what they want from me? Wow, this is really news and I eagerly await your rationale of how my claim suddenly became illegitimate.

And once you make that case, you'll have also made the case why its okay for me to homestead in the backyard you rarely use, and if you try to force me off....well, you already have stated that shooting trespassers is against your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, non-sequitur?

Hoarding unowned land =! inheriting/trading for legitimately owned land.

I guess this debate really isn't all that interesting to me since most of the world currently has some system of property rights as a social norm, and for the most part (to my knowledge) there are not huge swaths of unowned land out there littered with valuable resources. (Well, maybe the ocean - maybe I could be interested in that aspect.) I am not making an argument ad status quo here - it just seems like the most difficult hurdle (initial land distribution) has already been done, and even if it has been done unfairly, unless there is some individual who has a more legitimate claim than the current owner, there is no reason for a change to current ownership rights. This was addressed at length in a recent thread with regard to land being taken away from Native Americans 500 years ago.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean you need to be convinced government < free market for you personally, or that you need to be convinced that government < free market for everyone in general?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

It seems to me like those kinds of arguments assume that someone who does not own any land in a society with property rights is somehow being disenfranchised, and the implication seems to be that even staying alive under this arrangement should be difficult, since you will always be trespassing on someone else's property and of course they are going to be shooting at you for these indiscretions.

How do the millions of US citizens who do not own (or claim to own) any land survive? Why aren't they constantly dodging bullets?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am making no such argument.

Again I am only pointing out that what one might perceive as a "universal" (the golden rule) does not necessarily imply a respect for all property rights ("legitimate" ones by capitalist definition).

The rest of the implication you are making is your own imagination, not mine.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, non-sequitur?

Hoarding unowned land =! inheriting/trading for legitimately owned land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why because you say so?

And I never said anything about "unowned land". You inserted that adjective and then attempted to tear down something I never asserted. (And it doesn't really matter as you yourself have admitted that claims of legitimate ownership are murky anyway.)

So is your claim that inheriting 100,000 acres from your daddy and doing nothing with it is "not hoarding". Why? Who are you to define what one views as "hoarding" for the rest of the species? What is your objective rationale to make such a statement other than your personal (subjective) value system?

And yet again we see an ACist portray his personal values as objective truths.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are avoiding the issue by playing on this "simple decree" semantics issue. You believe that legitimate ownership can be inferred on one individual for exclusive use of land -- whether that be by staking it out, discovering it, using it, whatever (and irrelevant). Then you use this concept of "legitimate property rights" as if it was an actual thing, some actual objective standard. Well it is not. It is merely an abstract concept that only has subjective meaning if people accept such a notion. Most ACers here refuse to accept that this concept is just a human abstraction and flies in the face of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. From the practical standpoint, i've acknowledged countless times that the concept is not some absolute standard. I've acknowledged that force can unseat legitimate owners. This is just a sophisticated variant of the death star objection.

Nobody suggests that people who say murder is wrong "refuse to accept" that murder occurs.

If one man believes in property and 1000000 don't, the one guy is going to lose. It's obvious. Nobody disputes it.

[ QUOTE ]
And they have already demonstrated in this thread that they believe in some "morality" regarding property rights once they are established as "legitimate" -- failing to realize that "legitimate" and "morality" are wholly subjective terms which have no meaning whatsoever unless others want to recognize your "morality" or "legitimacy", which they are free to not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been covered. It doesn't matter if morality is subjective or not.

If it is, then as you point out, transactions cannot be legitimate without recognition - consent from both parties in the transaction. They have to agree on the rules of legitimacy. if they do not, the default position must be that transactions are illegitimate. This is 100% in line with the AC position.


[ QUOTE ]
There are no [censored] rights. None. Period. Get the [censored] over it. You aren't entitled to [censored] on this earth. I don't give a crap how much labor you mix with your land, it will never confer any objective "legitimacy" unless others choose to recognize it as legitimate (or you have enough force then to at least force them to accept your use).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you done tilting at windmills yet?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
a free-market but just not that free, I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is upside down thinking. ACists don't propose any "amount of freedom". Freedom is not something that is provided.