AC and power
 

I was going to make this a very long and well thought out post but basically I'm lazy.

Given: We have guns and money in our society.

Given: We want to move to AC society, but we theoretically still have guns and money (or wealth, if we decide to abandon the dollar... we still have things worth something to people).

How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now? The problem, as I see it, is that the government does NOT have a monopoly on coercion. It has a legal monopoly, but that means little without the power to enforce those laws, which by definition is the power necessary to coerce in the first place. Laws by themselves are meaningless. In some parts of the country/world, violent mobs have more power and more ability to coerce and "tax" citizens than the governments which theoretically rule over them. What is to stop this from happening in AC?

Just in the interest of intellectual honesty, I should say up front that I believe that strong culturally reinforced rules are necessary to some extent. I don't think AC people disagree, but I take issue with some of their cultural norms (i.e. libertarian morality).

Re: AC and power
 

Step 1: we take the government d&*k out of our mouths.


by libertarian morality what do you mean? link?

Re: AC and power
 

At least there will be one less mob to forcibly coerce and tax us.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

by libertarian morality what do you mean? link?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least there will be one less mob to forcibly coerce and tax us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until another one comes, sure.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least there will be one less mob to forcibly coerce and tax us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until another one comes, sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no Acist but i definitely support the A part. So in this scenario use your guns and keep the new group from messing with you. Then live however you want.

Of course, as they say, AC is no utopia. However I doubt that any single group could ever rise to the level of omnipotent power that the state wields today. The state has had the benefit of thousands of years of evolution and complacency with which to establish a perceived legitimate power base. Even in the police state that is America there is no way the government could control the population except by the population's consent.

How would a private mob ever gain more power than the state? Seems impossible to me

Re: AC and power
 

The mob doesn't need to be omnipotent, just powerful enough to affect you and your's. ACists will of course claim that everyone will ban together to ousts the mob. I'm skeptical of that to say the least.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
So in this scenario use your guns and keep the new group from messing with you. Then live however you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to the tanks? Planes? Does everyone need to have a few rocket launchers in their house to enjoy freedom?

[ QUOTE ]

Even in the police state that is America there is no way the government could control the population except by the population's consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Consent" as the driving force of libertarian morality. If I "consent" to having a government, then I have a government.

[ QUOTE ]

How would a private mob ever gain more power than the state? Seems impossible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, never in the history of the world has someone with a lot of guns gained a lot of power. Never.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
The mob doesn't need to be omnipotent, just powerful enough to affect you and your's. ACists will of course claim that everyone will ban together to ousts the mob. I'm skeptical of that to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless of course the people in a given area pay for the service of protection from the mob. Say a private security company who would be equipped with whatever the citizens felt was necessary. They could keep the mob from ever coming in the first place.

Even better, you could start a firm that trains groups like this and contract out to end the mob's rule. Making a fortune in the process. If the mob isn't omnipotent then there is little they could do to stop this once you are outside their turf. Unlike the omnipotent government under which there is no neutral ground, just one mob flowing into another.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

unless of course the people in a given area pay for the service of protection from the mob. Say a private security company who would be equipped with whatever the citizens felt was necessary. They could keep the mob from ever coming in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly differentiates that private security company from a mob? That is the distinction you fail to adress.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in this scenario use your guns and keep the new group from messing with you. Then live however you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to the tanks? Planes? Does everyone need to have a few rocket launchers in their house to enjoy freedom?

[ QUOTE ]

Even in the police state that is America there is no way the government could control the population except by the population's consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Consent" as the driving force of libertarian morality. If I "consent" to having a government, then I have a government.

[ QUOTE ]

How would a private mob ever gain more power than the state? Seems impossible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, never in the history of the world has someone with a lot of guns gained a lot of power. Never.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you take away hte meta ideals of the people who have come to power with violence there is little to fight for. Certainly the entire German army was not fighting for Nazi ideals. Rather they were fighting for Germany. Under AC there is no Germany, and hence no German government to fight for.

Also your argument is flawed because there are very few people who have ever come to power outside of the power structure already in place. In a lot of places it is shoot the president, become the president. But this still rests upon the perceived legitimacy of the presidents position. If there is no president then how do you assume this power? It no longer is cut and dry, rather you would have to exert direct control over entire regions to keep the people under control.

In my town in upstate NY there is about 8 cops for a few thousand people. There is no way these cops could do anything if the people decided not to listen. Thats what I meant by the government ruling only by consent in America. The government does not have the resources to exert direct control over the people. The people listen because thats what they have always done.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

unless of course the people in a given area pay for the service of protection from the mob. Say a private security company who would be equipped with whatever the citizens felt was necessary. They could keep the mob from ever coming in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly differentiates that private security company from a mob? That is the distinction you fail to adress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, obviously voluntary payments would do this. yet if you stopped paying there is always the chance of them turning their guns on you.

In many ways there is no difference. However I was envisioning a more communal group, like the volunteer firefighters, rather than a private firm. communal defense has more safegaurds against run away power plays

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

When you take away hte meta ideals of the people who have come to power with violence there is little to fight for. Certainly the entire German army was not fighting for Nazi ideals. Rather they were fighting for Germany. Under AC there is no Germany, and hence no German government to fight for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered getting this radical thesis published in some scholarly journals? You can't merely assert this sort of thing and hope I (or others) accept it.

[ QUOTE ]

Also your argument is flawed because there are very few people who have ever come to power outside of the power structure already in place. In a lot of places it is shoot the president, become the president. But this still rests upon the perceived legitimacy of the presidents position. If there is no president then how do you assume this power? It no longer is cut and dry, rather you would have to exert direct control over entire regions to keep the people under control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya rly? People overthrow entire governments repeatedly throughout history. I think it's a lot less about "perceived" power of the president and a lot more about the "actual" power of a lot of guns.

[ QUOTE ]

In my town in upstate NY there is about 8 cops for a few thousand people. There is no way these cops could do anything if the people decided not to listen. Thats what I meant by the government ruling only by consent in America. The government does not have the resources to exert direct control over the people. The people listen because thats what they have always done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this just means entire populaces need to be under a constant state of revolution. Sure, I accept that this constant state will make it hard for overarching power structures to develop. Still not a very attractive way of life.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ya rly? People overthrow entire governments repeatedly throughout history. I think it's a lot less about "perceived" power of the president and a lot more about the "actual" power of a lot of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point in that if there is no government than there is nothing to take over. To take over an area you would literally have to have the support, either voluntary or coerced, of all the people in it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this just means entire populaces need to be under a constant state of revolution. Sure, I accept that this constant state will make it hard for overarching power structures to develop. Still not a very attractive way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe so. Going back to the major point that you haphazardly glossed over, it would seem that the power needed to exert the type of control seen in current nations would be impossible without abstract ideas of nationhood or other catch all phrases. For an example, how many marines do you believe are fighting for america vs GWB? Id wager that without the idea of America there would be very few marines that would be willing to die for the grandeur of one man. (not a political debate, just an example)

You might say that these people would fight for money. But I poist that in the modern era of warfare it doesn't take much for a town to defend itself. This of course assumes that the mob is not attempting to exapnd it's revenue base by killing most of the people and razing all the buildings

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point in that if there is no government than there is nothing to take over. To take over an area you would literally have to have the support, either voluntary or coerced, of all the people in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm saying that this is a lot easier than you make it out be...

In general, you are touching on something I want to bring to the forefront of the debate: cultural/idealogical "coercion". I don't disagree at all that it is important, but I think that without any sort of identification, lives are pretty meaningless and that with some sort of identification people will always be willing to submit themselves to larger powers.

Re: AC and power
 

The fact that people are so quick to argue about others having guns and using force is why we do not have AC.

science has discoverd the missing link between anthropoid apes and civilized human beings..........

...........

...................

It's us.


Without a civil civilization there can be no AC IMO and since we are still routinely slaughtering each other for money, not to mention for free (to satisfy emotions) we have a ways to go yet.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Without a civil civilization there can be no AC IMO and since we are still routinely slaughtering each other for money, not to mention for free (to satisfy emotions) we have a ways to go yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad we agree.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

by libertarian morality what do you mean? link?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to know what YOU mean by libertarian morality, you know, to possibly engage in a discussion about it.

Re: AC and power
 

I just see libertarian morality, generally, as the maxim of: "freedom to do what I want until it conflicts with your freedom". Fairly standard.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just see libertarian morality, generally, as the maxim of: "freedom to do what I want until it conflicts with your freedom". Fairly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you consicely describe the moral code you adhere to (and I'm assuming that you think others should adhere to and maybe even be forced to adhere to...otherwise where is the conflict?)

Re: AC and power
 

Concisely? Not really. Aesthetic/virtue driven, I don't think others should adhere to it per se. Best I can do as far as concise go.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Concisely? Not really. Aesthetic/virtue driven, I don't think others should adhere to it per se. Best I can do as far as concise go.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does this conflict with libertarian morals?

You do what you want (which is adhere to your moral code) and do not interfere with others doing what they want (which may be adhering to the same code or other things- and you don't think others should adhere to yours per se).

I don't see where the problem is. Please explain.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to make this a very long and well thought out post but basically I'm lazy.

Given: We have guns and money in our society.

Given: We want to move to AC society, but we theoretically still have guns and money (or wealth, if we decide to abandon the dollar... we still have things worth something to people).

How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now? The problem, as I see it, is that the government does NOT have a monopoly on coercion. It has a legal monopoly, but that means little without the power to enforce those laws, which by definition is the power necessary to coerce in the first place. Laws by themselves are meaningless. In some parts of the country/world, violent mobs have more power and more ability to coerce and "tax" citizens than the governments which theoretically rule over them. What is to stop this from happening in AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about this.

Your hypothetical begins with a given population that wants to get rid of government. They will have the will to say "no" to the biggest collection of coercive force ever assembled. This is your starting assumption.

Now, they're just going to roll over for some neighborhood gang? Any force assembled that is powerful enough to conquer these people would be more than enough to conquer the state that was in place before.

This is the "Death Star Objection". See THIS previous post.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concisely? Not really. Aesthetic/virtue driven, I don't think others should adhere to it per se. Best I can do as far as concise go.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does this conflict with libertarian morals?

You do what you want (which is adhere to your moral code) and do not interfere with others doing what they want (which may be adhering to the same code or other things- and you don't think others should adhere to yours per se).

I don't see where the problem is. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say I didn't interfere with others?

The problem as I stated is that libertarian morality (unless you could somehow insure every single person had it) wouldn't really contribute to a world state in which AC was realistic.

Re: AC and power
 

Given: That the majority of people don't believe in the government Tooth Fairy anymore, I don't see the problem. Our government only gets away with it now because the majority of American citizens have been duped (in government-run schools) into believing government is necessary.

Note that I am NOT saying this is always the case; in any country where, for example, the population has allowed itself to be disarmed by the state, they are pretty much [censored] and at the mercy of that state. In any country where most of the capital has either fled the borders or has been confiscated by the government (and probably converted into automatic weapons), the people are pretty much [censored].

We're not at that point yet, but we're getting closer every day. There's a race on right now between markets and the state. The question is will markets make the state irrelevant before the state destroys the markets? I'm optimistic for the US, but really, it could go either way.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your hypothetical begins with a given population that wants to get rid of government. They will have the will to say "no" to the biggest collection of coercive force ever assembled. This is your starting assumption.

Now, they're just going to roll over for some neighborhood gang? Any force assembled that is powerful enough to conquer these people would be more than enough to conquer the state that was in place before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the world is continuous. It is in flux. It's not like it just hops from state to state. You haven't even described what sort of revolution/overthrow of government, and yet you seem to imply that it automatically prevents anyone else, in any region anywhere, from coercing people. Absurd, IMO.

Re: AC and power
 

If we posted our detailed plans for overthrowing the gubmint on the intarwebs we'd be on the nightly news tomorrow with pictures of our "compound" and our neighbors saying, "They always seemed like such quiet people."

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concisely? Not really. Aesthetic/virtue driven, I don't think others should adhere to it per se. Best I can do as far as concise go.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does this conflict with libertarian morals?

You do what you want (which is adhere to your moral code) and do not interfere with others doing what they want (which may be adhering to the same code or other things- and you don't think others should adhere to yours per se).

I don't see where the problem is. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say I didn't interfere with others?

The problem as I stated is that libertarian morality (unless you could somehow insure every single person had it) wouldn't really contribute to a world state in which AC was realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are virtuous and like to forcibly interfere with others who are doing you or others no harm, but you see other systems where people do not forcibly interfere with each other or harm each other as inferior?

If this is true, sounds like you would be one of the people with guns trying to take over....

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

So you are virtuous and like to forcibly interfere with others who are doing you or others no harm, but you see other systems where people do not forcibly interfere with each other or harm each other as inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think libertarians in general horribly misunderstand how one can "harm others or themselves". I've started threads on this before, I really don't know why I bother anymore because it seems like this is going nowhere.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then. This is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cries* cuz they has a monopoly on force....as though anyone who's stronger than another doesn't have "a monopoly on force"

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then. This is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being a jackass. You started *your* hypothetical with a given (that everyone agrees they don't need government anymore) and then act like people who don't act in a certain way *when that given is not actually in place* are somehow being inconsistent or somehow revealing some weakness in their arguments. Are you really claiming that you can't understand how it would be much easier to "defend yourself from the goverment" if everyone agreed with you that the government was illegitimate? Come on.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then. This is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they're funded by 300 million other Americans that believe that the system has legitmacy, something no institution similar to a state would have in a stateless libertarian society?

Just think about it a sec and you might realize why it's not stupid.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

Stop being a jackass. You started *your* hypothetical with a given (that everyone agrees they don't need government anymore) and then act like people who don't act in a certain way *when that given is not actually in place* are somehow being inconsistent or somehow revealing some weakness in their arguments. Are you really claiming that you can't understand how it would be much easier to "defend yourself from the goverment" if everyone agreed with you that the government was illegitimate? Come on.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I said people want to move to AC. I:

a) Did not say everyone, although I see how this is implied. I just meant "we" as in "collectively we generally move in this direction".

b) Did not say everyone wants to get rid of coercion all together. I guess if we are allowed to create a fairy tale world in which that is the case all problems are solved.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then. This is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they're funded by 300 million other Americans that believe that the system has legitmacy, something no institution similar to a state would have in a stateless libertarian society?

Just think about it a sec and you might realize why it's not stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in AC people voluntarily give money to some organization to protect them. This is somehow just completely different and ensures no coercion whatsoever because ________. Fill in the blank please.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your hypothetical begins with a given population that wants to get rid of government. They will have the will to say "no" to the biggest collection of coercive force ever assembled. This is your starting assumption.

Now, they're just going to roll over for some neighborhood gang? Any force assembled that is powerful enough to conquer these people would be more than enough to conquer the state that was in place before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the world is continuous. It is in flux. It's not like it just hops from state to state. You haven't even described what sort of revolution/overthrow of government, and yet you seem to imply that it automatically prevents anyone else, in any region anywhere, from coercing people. Absurd, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is absurd. Did you read the rest of the post? Oh, right.

[ QUOTE ]
basically I'm lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way you're going to conquer such a group of people is by assembling *at least* as much force (and almost certainly *considerably more*) as would be necessary to conquer any state that included those people before. There is no magical absolute protection from coercion. The Death Star blows up an AC Earth just as easily as a statist Earth.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Stop being a jackass. You started *your* hypothetical with a given (that everyone agrees they don't need government anymore) and then act like people who don't act in a certain way *when that given is not actually in place* are somehow being inconsistent or somehow revealing some weakness in their arguments. Are you really claiming that you can't understand how it would be much easier to "defend yourself from the goverment" if everyone agreed with you that the government was illegitimate? Come on.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I said people want to move to AC. I:

a) Did not say everyone, although I see how this is implied. I just meant "we" as in "collectively we generally move in this direction".

b) Did not say everyone wants to get rid of coercion all together. I guess if we are allowed to create a fairy tale world in which that is the case all problems are solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does (b) have to do with (a)? In fact, what does (b) have to do with anything anybody said?

Thread synopsis: You make a hypothetical, people respond based on YOUR hypothetical, you call them retarded for stating things that depend on YOUR hypothetical because they don't act that way in the real world where YOUR hypothetical doesn't hold.

Grow up.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are we to stop some group from having the same control over people that governments tend to now?

[/ QUOTE ]
By defending yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you defend yourself from the government then. This is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they're funded by 300 million other Americans that believe that the system has legitmacy, something no institution similar to a state would have in a stateless libertarian society?

Just think about it a sec and you might realize why it's not stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in AC people voluntarily give money to some organization to protect them. This is somehow just completely different and ensures no coercion whatsoever because there is no monopoly of such organizations, and bad ones are not patronized and fail, just like any other business. Fill in the blank please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's my prize?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you are virtuous and like to forcibly interfere with others who are doing you or others no harm, but you see other systems where people do not forcibly interfere with each other or harm each other as inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think libertarians in general horribly misunderstand how one can "harm others or themselves". I've started threads on this before, I really don't know why I bother anymore because it seems like this is going nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want people with guns to teach us and make sure we go along with the program, huh?

Sounds like you are going to be one of 'the gang' that ac'ers need to worry about trying to take over in your OP example.