Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

(Too long, please read)

After getting off on the wrong foot about a dozen times or so, I figure the easiest way to achieve some sort of peaceful equilibrium is just to try to organize some of my thoughts here.

Rights:

I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:

1. External force: I (or someone else) will physically prevent you from violating my rights, and will physically harm and/or detain you if you do violate them.

2. Internal force: By appealing to some ontological and/or moral system that resonates with you, I attempt to dissuade you from even wanting to violate my rights.

There is a clear gray area, because positing something like "God" or "karma" is a combination of both.

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations (a favorite phrase of mine, use it frequently to wow crowds at sporting events and in crowded bars).

This is one of the places where I disagree fundamentally with much of AC thought. If you believe what I've said above, a declaration of rights inherently comes with a declaration of implied force (to all those who disagree... those who agree already need not be convinced in the first place!). To speak of a society with rights which has no coercion is, in my opinion, a philosophical sleight of hand, and a cheap one at that.

This does not mean I'm against rights. It simply means I'm for necessary coercion. Yes, I get to define necessary. No, this isn't fair. No, I do not expect my definition to fit everyone else's. Yes, I am willing to compromise to some degree.

So what then do we do with rights? There are all sorts of rights. Generally when we refer plainly to "rights" we mean "human rights" which are essentially "rights to (access) basic provisions". Inclusion of the parenthesis varies from person to person. There are also property rights and consumer rights and all sorts of other rights. Like all rights, they are simply a category of legal constructs which detail what actions society will use force to prevent/allow.

One thing I generally agree with ACists on is that there is a very serious downfall to democracy, be it true or representative. This downfall is that we are subject to the (in our opinion) mistaken choices of others. We attempt to bind one another into contracts that protect at least some basic rights, but we are always subject to the idiocy of the masses.

The problem with this is two-fold:

1. People are idiots.

2. Not only are people idiots, but most people don't live under the circumstances or in the location I live in and so the things I need and want may not match up at all with what they need and want.

This is the problem with democracy. I don't think you will all disagree. My solution is to go to great lengths to localize the focal points of government and democracy to the point where we better know our leaders, can better control the money we give in the form of taxes and our needs and wants are more in line with those of others who make decisions that affect us (and our voice is a larger percentage of the mob).

What I'm about to do is commit a philosophical sleight of hand myself, but beware... it may just blow your mind!

Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

How does this relate to free market economics? Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots. Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

Obviously this is a somewhat crude sketch, but these are my main objections to AC/Free Market dogma.

Have at it.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
How does this relate to free market economics?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't.

Markets are not winner take all. We don't get X number of votes and the "market" determines whether we'll all drink coke or whether we'll all drink pepsi.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That counter doesn't make any sense, mostly because all of the things that you mentioned are ALREADY PROVIDED by markets - DESPITE government intervention in those markets.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a market, other people buying X doesn't force you to buy X also. In a state, other people wanting X to be provided very well might force you to pay for X.

[ QUOTE ]
Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

[/ QUOTE ]

But nobody is forcing you to trade.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously this is a somewhat crude sketch, but these are my main objections to AC/Free Market dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand what your objection is. That you don't get free ponies, or ponies at whatever price you think you should pay for them?

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

My objection is quite simple: prices determined on the "free market" are no more inherently good or fair or right than rights being determined in the "free market" of democracy.

It's not about free ponies, it's closer to not having ponies at the price I want, and closer yet to my possibly not having enough money to buy ponies even though I need them for my farm because people somewhere else in the world have a lot of money and like ponies and are willing to pay a lot for them.

And the end summary is that some measure of economic isolationism on a local scale can be beneficiary.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

It sounds like you're just saying "I'd rather be subject to a bunch of idiots collectively voting on how to oppress me with their monopoly on force rather than be subject to the external results of a bunch of idiots spending their money stupidly." And it's certainly your right to have that preference. I'm not sure I was convinced that either one is a clear winner/loser.

BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're just saying "I'd rather be subject to a bunch of idiots collectively voting on how to oppress me with their monopoly on force rather than be subject to the external results of a bunch of idiots spending their money stupidly." And it's certainly your right to have that preference. I'm not sure I was convinced that either one is a clear winner/loser.

BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the last part, and believe that the rest, while a somewhat crude representation of my views, is somewhat accurate. Except that I'd probably leave an area if I felt my freedoms were being collectively [censored] on.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
My objection is quite simple: prices determined on the "free market" are no more inherently good or fair or right than rights being determined in the "free market" of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are.

Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

Prices are the result of voluntary transactions.

When "rights" are "determined" in a democracy, that's it. They're laid out and if you don't like it, tough. you have no negotiation power.

"rights" in this sense are the result of imposed, coercive transactions (for a significant number of people).

[ QUOTE ]
It's not about free ponies, it's closer to not having ponies at the price I want, and closer yet to my possibly not having enough money to buy ponies even though I need them for my farm because people somewhere else in the world have a lot of money and like ponies and are willing to pay a lot for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you entitled to ponies? At arbitrary price X?

If you are, then other people must be, too - unless you think you're in some morally superior pony-deserving class of people.

If everyone is then entitled to all the ponies they want at price X, what happens when the number of ponies demanded at that fixed price is more than the number of ponies available?

Ponies at the price you arbitrarily set as the price you "should" pay are great, until there aren't any.

Which is "more fair"?

A) Gas at $1/gallon (the price I want), with constant lines at gas stations, rationing, total unavailability for indefinite periods

B) Gas at $3/gallon, no lines, no shortages, no problems, in and out of the gas station in five minutes every time.

[ QUOTE ]
And the end summary is that some measure of economic isolationism on a local scale can be beneficiary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Feel free to "locally isolate" yourself as much as you like.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're just saying "I'd rather be subject to a bunch of idiots collectively voting on how to oppress me with their monopoly on force rather than be subject to the external results of a bunch of idiots spending their money stupidly." And it's certainly your right to have that preference. I'm not sure I was convinced that either one is a clear winner/loser.

BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the last part, and believe that the rest, while a somewhat crude representation of my views, is somewhat accurate. Except that I'd probably leave an area if I felt my freedoms were being collectively [censored] on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt it be cool if you didnt have to leave the "area" though?

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged. Let me know what happens.

Prices are often determined by the market, and others have no say in it. That's why the terms "price taker" and "price maker" exist in economics.

The reality of life is that when significant numbers of people start living and trading together, a great deal of voluntary choice ceases to exist in practical terms. Very little of that has to do with the government IMO.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

So you are complaining about people losing voluntary choices, but don't think market intervention (which is always conducted by governments) has much to do with it?

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

As pvn hinted at in his last post, the free market is absolutely necessary to allocate scarce resources. Of course everyone would love $1 ponies, but there simply aren't enough ponies in the world. Humans thus chose the free exchange of goods and services as a way to make up for the limited supply of resources.

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged. Let me know what happens.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense if there was only one master supermarket that everyone had to shop at it. It's really quite ironic that a statist would use this argument. As we know and fortunately for pvn, he has several supermarkets to choose from and he goes to the one he thinks has the best combination of quality products and cheap prices.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged. Let me know what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is what happens:

http://www.agoravox.com/IMG/jpg/800p...t_exterior.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
The reality of life is that when significant numbers of people start living and trading together, a great deal of voluntary choice ceases to exist in practical terms. Very little of that has to do with the government IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The old "work or die" strawman in sheep's clothing.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you think of "the market" as something that can be represented by one single store.

Change it to a collection of stores, and as long as a competitor is offering an item at a lower price, you probably WILL be able to negotiate down to that price! But people don't sell you things just because you tell them to. They have to decide it's fair for them too. Otherwise there would be no market, we'd live a lot like apes, and the conversation would be moot.

It's posts like these that make me wonder about you, Phil.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're just saying "I'd rather be subject to a bunch of idiots collectively voting on how to oppress me with their monopoly on force rather than be subject to the external results of a bunch of idiots spending their money stupidly." And it's certainly your right to have that preference. I'm not sure I was convinced that either one is a clear winner/loser.

BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the last part, and believe that the rest, while a somewhat crude representation of my views, is somewhat accurate. Except that I'd probably leave an area if I felt my freedoms were being collectively [censored] on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt it be cool if you didnt have to leave the "area" though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some area to leave to? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:


[/ QUOTE ]

The term natural rights does not come from god or a supernatural being, but from basic observations about the world we live in. Quick and dirty is that humans are individuals, actions are causes which have effects : individuals are responsible for their actions, both in positive and negative outcomes.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this three times before I realized you hadn't written "vague lubrications".

[ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with democracy. I don't think you will all disagree. My solution is to go to great lengths to localize the focal points of government and democracy to the point where we better know our leaders, can better control the money we give in the form of taxes and our needs and wants are more in line with those of others who make decisions that affect us (and our voice is a larger percentage of the mob).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm about to do is commit a philosophical sleight of hand myself, but beware... it may just blow your mind!

Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

How does this relate to free market economics? Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots. Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".

[ QUOTE ]

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true because you can say no to prices you don't want. If you decide product X isn't worth the price you can go and look at their competitors, look for substitutes, wait for prices to come down, or never buy at all. This is not possible once Z% of people have voted against you in democracy. The degree to which you are subjected to "idiots'" whims is far decreased under a market relative to a political system.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's clear that freedom both in the market and in politics is a spectrum, and I'm not trying to say that there is no benefit to freeing up a market. I'm just saying that at a fundamental level, the market has the same problem that any sort of democracy will. That the problem isn't as pronounced in the market as it is in politics simply means we must be more vigilant in the political arena (which is, sadly enough, where we are LEAST vigilant in the USA).

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's clear that freedom both in the market and in politics is a spectrum, and I'm not trying to say that there is no benefit to freeing up a market. I'm just saying that at a fundamental level, the market has the same problem that any sort of democracy will. That the problem isn't as pronounced in the market as it is in politics simply means we must be more vigilant in the political arena (which is, sadly enough, where we are LEAST vigilant in the USA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, this sounds to me like you are admitting the market is better than the government, and yet you want us to choose government why?

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no one right answer to that question.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

You start out on the right path, but don't express it quite plainly enough. There is no such thing as "natural rights", including no natural rights of "self ownership".

ALL rights are social constructs and nothing more. The most uccessful societies are those that grant rights in a manner that spurs cooperation and innovation, and allow for enforcement of rights.

Your problems with democracy are well founded, but not solved by your approach. Imo, a representative republic is as close as you can get to a perfect system. The hope is that the non-idiots that vote outnumber the idiots that vote in sufficent quantities to elect representative that are less idiotic than the public as a whole. While you are still surrendering to the will of the majority, hopefully it is a better informed majority than "one man one vote" on every individual issue.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you think of "the market" as something that can be represented by one single store.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's funny that most ACers on this board choose to be condescending instead of actually addressing the points.

The point I'm making is that pvn's assertion that the market is pure voluntary interaction between two people who want to trade is often not the case in practice. He's using it to highlight the difference between that an government in a dishonest way.

[ QUOTE ]
Change it to a collection of stores, and as long as a competitor is offering an item at a lower price, you probably WILL be able to negotiate down to that price! But people don't sell you things just because you tell them to. They have to decide it's fair for them too. Otherwise there would be no market, we'd live a lot like apes, and the conversation would be moot.

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn's initial point was that the market is free and morally superior because it is simply voluntary interactions between two people.

In reality, the preferences, whims and opportunism of others determine the price of goods that we can obtain and even the system of property rights we live under. Much of what we must accept is the system, which is determined by others. Which in many ways is no different to what happens with government, in terms of the freedom of an individual.

Here is what pvn initially said:


[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

Prices are the result of voluntary transactions.

When "rights" are "determined" in a democracy, that's it. They're laid out and if you don't like it, tough. you have no negotiation power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do have negotiation power. It's called a vote, getting involved in politics, influencing others, giving money to a candidate you agree with. In a large population this has about as much power and influence as whether you shop at Walmart or Big W IMO.

pvn: Prices are the result of voluntary transactions
Me: Laws are the result of voluntary transactions

pvn is inherently against the idea of the people delegating others to manage the common affairs of society. Which seems bizarre given that pretty much every single effective organization in the free market and almost every effective structure is biology uses command and control + delegation to get things done.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Me: Laws are the result of voluntary transactions

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems obviously not true. I hope I missed something in your post, and you could quickly clarify it for me if I misread. An obvious example is drugs. If I want to buy some drugs the government will use force to stop me. I didn't sign a contract that I wouldn't the drug laws were forced upon me. I understand that I could have made an effort to change the laws by donating money and campaigning for a candidate that would change their laws, but if I don't why does that allow others to use force or the threat of force to stop me?

It seems that you believe that the majority is always right, and is able to use force on the minority whenever they see fit. This is not comparable with the "force" that you believe a free market imposes on people. If I buy a car for $30,000 it doesn't mean someone else couldn't sell you the same car for $100 if the seller so desired. In the free market my actions don't effect you whereas in an election they do.

I feel silly writing all this as it is super obvious, and I must have just misread your post.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's funny that most ACers on this board choose to be condescending instead of actually addressing the points.

The point I'm making is that pvn's assertion that the market is pure voluntary interaction between two people who want to trade is often not the case in practice. He's using it to highlight the difference between that an government in a dishonest way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.

[ QUOTE ]

pvn: Prices are the result of voluntary transactions
Me: Laws are the result of voluntary transactions

pvn is inherently against the idea of the people delegating others to manage the common affairs of society. Which seems bizarre given that pretty much every single effective organization in the free market and almost every effective structure is biology uses command and control + delegation to get things done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody is against delegating. However, a system where the majority decides who to delegate to and then forces the rest of the people to enlist the same services is not only immoral, it's also really inefficient.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's clear that freedom both in the market and in politics is a spectrum, and I'm not trying to say that there is no benefit to freeing up a market. I'm just saying that at a fundamental level, the market has the same problem that any sort of democracy will. That the problem isn't as pronounced in the market as it is in politics simply means we must be more vigilant in the political arena (which is, sadly enough, where we are LEAST vigilant in the USA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, this sounds to me like you are admitting the market is better than the government, and yet you want us to choose government why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said that at all, and I think my post (and every post I've made) has been pretty clear about not opposing "government" (where rights are determined) and "market" (where prices for goods are determined).

I'm saying that the problems which plague an entirely "free market" political system also plague a "free market" economic system, but that it's not as bad in the latter.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no one right answer to that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that this isn't necessarily the case for humanity in general, you're wrong (unless you want to nit over what "best" means). If you are trying to say that it doesn't hold for every human, then sure. Doesn't make a huge difference though, does it?

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature is in a different moral category to a human becuase there are empirical observable differenves.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature is in a different moral category to a human becuase there are empirical observable differenves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't an argument, stop pretending it is. It's lazy and not particularly helpful.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

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

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature is in a different moral category to a human becuase there are empirical observable differenves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't an argument, stop pretending it is. It's lazy and not particularly helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument it's a fact. You cannot hold nature responsible for its actions in the way you can hold a human being responsible for theirs. Nature has no compunction to be consistent in its moral rules. The fact that nature is violent and arbitrary doesn't mean that humans get to be violent and arbitrary because they are in different moral categories.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument it's a fact. You cannot hold nature responsible for its actions in the way you can hold a human being responsible for theirs. Nature has no compunction to be consistent in its moral rules. The fact that nature is violent and arbitrary doesn't mean that humans get to be violent and arbitrary because they are in different moral categories.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say fact, but I can hold people accountable or unaccountable for whatever I damn well please, so it's really just an opinion.

On top of that, it's lazy because you haven't explained how this has to do with the topic at hand.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument it's a fact. You cannot hold nature responsible for its actions in the way you can hold a human being responsible for theirs. Nature has no compunction to be consistent in its moral rules. The fact that nature is violent and arbitrary doesn't mean that humans get to be violent and arbitrary because they are in different moral categories.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say fact, but I can hold people accountable or unaccountable for whatever I damn well please,

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly can but I'd like to see you try it with nature. That's exactly my point. They have a different moral nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute


[ QUOTE ]

On top of that, it's lazy because you haven't explained how this has to do with the topic at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one that brought up nature.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

xorbie,
your point about natural rights and coercion was very good IMO. the rest of your post was a little fuzzier so of course it's what's getting picked on. that's the trouble with saying too much... your post will be combed for its weakest and most irrelevant points, which will then be attacked passionately. I would like to see more discussion about rights, force and coercion.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]


BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, I think everyone is aware of this.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you make a new thread with your thoughts on this because I'd be interested in hearing them but this thread has already had hijack accusations in it.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature isn't a "somebody".

I already mentioned earlier in this thread that the "work or die" strawman was getting wheeled out.

The fact that nature imposes some requirements on you isn't really relevant, because there's no moral choice made to impose those - it's just the result of the laws of physics. Further, these requirements are imposed upon everyone. We all have to eat.

The reason the "work or die" requirement is brought up is usually to take that preexisting "imposition" and use it to justify further imposition (moorobot is a big fan of this tactic). "You are already forced to work or die, so we can force you to do other things."

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you make a new thread with your thoughts on this because I'd be interested in hearing them but this thread has already had hijack accusations in it.

[/ QUOTE ] I too would be interested in a discussion about this.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you think of "the market" as something that can be represented by one single store.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's funny that most ACers on this board choose to be condescending instead of actually addressing the points.

The point I'm making is that pvn's assertion that the market is pure voluntary interaction between two people who want to trade is often not the case in practice. He's using it to highlight the difference between that an government in a dishonest way.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it not the case in practice? I go to the store. There is a TV for $1000. I say "no thanks." Or I say, "will you take $900?" and the guy there says "no thanks."

We have to both agree, neither of us can arbitrarily set the terms and compel the other party to trade.

[ QUOTE ]
pvn: Prices are the result of voluntary transactions
Me: Laws are the result of voluntary transactions

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I don't have to trade. I do have to accept laws. Laws are the result of SOMEONE ELSE'S voluntary agreements, that are then IMPOSED upon others.

[ QUOTE ]
pvn is inherently against the idea of the people delegating others to manage the common affairs of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. If you want to delegate, go right ahead.

You don't have any legitimate authority to delegate for ME, though.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hermitization canard. Retaining autonomy does not mean you have to live as an individual. People can voluntarily work and live together while retaining full autonomy.

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you make a new thread with your thoughts on this because I'd be interested in hearing them but this thread has already had hijack accusations in it.

[/ QUOTE ] I too would be interested in a discussion about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)
 

[ QUOTE ]
xorbie,
your point about natural rights and coercion was very good IMO. the rest of your post was a little fuzzier so of course it's what's getting picked on. that's the trouble with saying too much... your post will be combed for its weakest and most irrelevant points, which will then be attacked passionately. I would like to see more discussion about rights, force and coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to imply that people are avoiding his better arguments intentionally because we don't have a good answer for them? I mean, what, do you think people are so passionately trying to argue in favor of a position we haven't thought much about and don't have answers to?

"Hmm that's a good point, I dunno if this whole AC thing really makes much sense... but I'm gonna find some irrelevant points so that I can twist peoples' minds into believing it. That's what I'm gonna do today." I just don't get it. ACers believe what we believe because we honest believe it and want to share it.

Most of the discussion here is a hijack that started early in the thread, and people are just responding to other people's arguments.

Raise some discussion about the stuff that's of interest to you if you want to see the conversation go in that direction.

If you're worried that saying too much will get you into trouble, then maybe you ought rethink your position. Looking back to algebra class in high school, I was never worried the teacher was going to tell me things that were less true as it got later in the period.