Why Im no longer an ACist
 

I will try to write the best I can but its still going to be rusty, I will give an example at the end of each point to make the point clearer. The reason Im not longer an ACist its because imo Acists make the following mistakes:

1) They ignore/dont care about Nature determinism
2) They ignore the problem of incomplete information and thereby fail to understand when human beings cooperate.
3) Failure to find a shade of grey to their absolute property-rights


1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.
Example: Suppose a poor girl gets pregnant at 17, her baby is esentially screwed however we can decrease the negative impact of the non moral-agent coercion done to the baby at the expense of increasing the moral agent coercion of those who are better off*.

2) This is quite simple, Acists assume companies will keep their contracts because of reputation,etc,etc. However this isnt medieval Iceland where 2000 people live, we live in an extremely complex society with millions of other people and thereby incomplete information, do you really think that in no goverment land if the owner of a factory fails to pay their workers suddenly all possible workers are going to find out that that specific factory didnt pay their workers? Get real. As in the prisioners dilema, the correct strategy is to cooperate if you are going to be playing the game a lot of times( ie: medieval Iceland) however in this really complex society with millions of people in it the incentives to cooperate are kinda slim if there isnt a third party making sure nobody screws each other big time.( And even if the conditions are made so that people cooperate it doesnt mean they will, people dont evaluate situations on a perfect way.**)

3) This is rather complex, but basically the thing is that there are two extremes regarding property, those are property = theft and property= holy. I think that property rights should be respected but there should be some kinda compensation for those that get harmed by their lack of property because whether u like it or not ure protecting ure land with guns, violence and coercion. The mistakes Acists here is that whoever disagrees with absolute property rights cant even eat an apple because if you eat an apple then somebody else wont be able to eat that apple, how about u have 10 apples and u have to give 1 apple back to the community?

Btw I know a lot of the stuff that I said has refutations, but I would never finish this post if I had to come up with every sensible counter-counter-counter refutations, Im just posting this so that we can get a discussion going, I obviously expect Acists to prey points number1& 3 which are the weakest( I think point 2 will get ignored because imo its the best part of my OP).
Im still open minded to change my point of views so give it ure best shot

* Moorobot said this on a thread about milk for pregnant mothers like a year ago, credit to him for saying that however I dont believe in basically giving both types of coercion the same importance
** Credit to Phil153 for saying this, however I think the reason that no goverments wouldnt result in voluntary cooperation would mainly be because the incentives wont be there not because people suck at evaluating.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

http://cache.filmz.dk/1492_415x317.jpg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

1a) In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

b) There is no reason that a voluntary solution can't work to fix this. Why does it have to be involuntary? (I am guessing the response will end up being "because people don't agree with me and we need to force them to make the world like I want it)

2. What in God's name do you think will make the state capable of figuring out these asymmetries where incomplete information exists? Giving people this power opens the door to corruption, and whoever gets to choose this will probably just use it as a tool to further their own ideological or monetary interests.

3. So what you are advocating is just pure asset redistribution?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
1a) In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1a) In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.forumspile.com/O_RLY-Quite.jpg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1a) In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Image snipped

[/ QUOTE ]

Image snipped

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you guys have any links to this effect? I'd be interested in reading up.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

I actually think that #2 is your weakest critique but I assume that'll get addressed shortly. #3 is just a normative judgment, no right or wrong there. #1 is certainly refutable but it starts with the definition of freedom and coercion. BTW, your issues aren't related to ACism, as a minimal government environment creates these same questions.

natedogg

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1a) In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Image snipped

[/ QUOTE ]

Image snipped

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you guys have any links to this effect? I'd be interested in reading up.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a book called "Losing ground" which came out in 1980 which is good, its written by one of "The Bell Curve" authors so I'm sure its considered controversial in some sense. The author basically tracks statistics from the 1950s-1980 on employment figures, poverty, single parent families (to name a few) discusses how these changes coincide with federal laws and federal funding.

Edited for spelling.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

1. Some of what you say in this is true, but saying it's because they "ignore/don't care" is just false. Some ACists believe that charity will take care of it, some believe that the ends don't justify the means and some believe that by giving stuff to the poor now (at least excessively), you hurt either the poor themselves or the poor in the future. However, none of these come close to "ignore/don't care" and it's simply irresponsible and slanderous to label them that way. You're saying that you think the ends do justify the means, and that's fine, but someone believing that they don't isn't uncaring. Also, a lot of ACists seem to like making things more black and white than they really are, so they make stronger statements about stuff like this than they probably actually feel. Give most ACists a government where taxes pay for this and only this and it's done at a local level instead of a federal one and I doubt you'll see many complaints. You see all the ACists around here supporting Ron Paul, right? Yet whenever Ron Paul is asked about cutting social welfare type programs he says he has no interest in doing that as president and lists stabilizing them financially as one of the reasons for getting out of Iraq. So even believing that the ends don't justify the means, this type of thing is near the very bottom of our list of things to get rid of.

2. I think you're failing to understand just how powerful the protections our government gives to corporations are. The government isn't there helping to make sure that corporations aren't screwing us over, they're helping them do it and working to pull the wool over our eyes when we start to complain. The things you're talking about will certainly happen in AC to some extent or another, but not nearly as badly as what goes on constantly today. Also, youo seem to think that there won't be private third party efforts to do what you want the government to do here. What's the difference in trusting the government to do this and trusting say Consumer Reports? Or some other consumer advocacy organization? Consumer Reports is the biggest of these types of groups currently but not very big because people mostly rely on government to provide standards, but without that government such groups would thrive and would get the job done just as effectively if not more.

3. It's very nearly impossible for us to predict what property will look like in an anarchist society and I wouldn't worry about this a ton. Either this is a deal-breaker that prevents anarchy from being possible or there's some arrangement to be worked out that we don't understand at this time. Regardless, you can support the moral ideals behind anarchism without having an actual solution for this problem.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the only country I am really familiar with (the US), state government and its corruption are the foremost cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, are you being serious?. I would guess the main reason of poverty in America are single parent families, high levels of drug abuse, bad education or something like that. Please explain how the lack of goverment will magicly get rid of poverty.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that a voluntary solution can't work to fix this. Why does it have to be involuntary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw youre using a debate tactic of labeling my position as something negative and youre position as something positve, the fact is that ure voluntary solutions are not that voluntary for poor kids, kids didnt choose to born on a [censored] up family that lives on a [censored] up neighbourhood.
Semantics aside, the reason its necessary to use "involuntary" solutions its because I feel that its worth to sacrifice a small percentage of the freedom of people like Nielsio in order for some basic welfare for children. ( btw im still advocating a mainly free-market economy, just not THAT free) The coercion I support will only happen if a lot of people kinda agree ( or are tricked into agreeing) with my idea.
And btw ure willing to use coercion as well on those who disagree with absolute property rigths.

[ QUOTE ]
What in God's name do you think will make the state capable of figuring out these asymmetries where incomplete information exists? Giving people this power opens the door to corruption, and whoever gets to choose this will probably just use it as a tool to further their own ideological or monetary interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state already makes sure ppl dont badly screw each other, for instance if u work for a factory chances are u will get ure paycheck at the end of the month.
I know that my idea has downsides, but I prefer those downsides over the downsides of a totally unregulated market.


[ QUOTE ]
So what you are advocating is just pure asset redistribution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes because I disagree with absolute property rights.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain how the lack of goverment will magicly get rid of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I don't see this thread going well. Who said it would magically get rid of anything?

Valenzuela, fwiw, based on your arguments here I don't think you ever really "were" an ACist. I thought your objections here were going to be very semantical, but really (as natedogg said) it's just an argument against the general principles of laissez faire policy. That's fine if you want to have that discussion though. I just don't see how you ever were an ACist if these are your disagreements.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

First question, do you think the majority of Americans care about poor people?

Second question, if the American government is needed to help poor people why doesnt it eliminate poverty? It has more than enough money.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

OK, "dramatically decrease" is different than "magically get rid of."

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it "in favor of" is way too strong. Maybe "don't care so much about". We would definitely rather get the government out and we definitely think that things would be handled better without the government and things would improve. My point was that you calling ACists "uncaring" about this is just plain false.

[ QUOTE ]
not everyone has the time to go through a lenghty consumer report

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. I was merely pointing out an organization that does this, not that it would be exactly like that. Most likely things would get to a point where products would advertise as "Consumer Reports approved"! And put that kind of thing on their label, etc. You don't need details if you don't want them, just an organization you trust to say "yes, this is a good product". Currently people trust the government for that even though the government has a horrible track record and also fails to work for everyone beause everyone has different standards. The thing is that you wouldn't have to research every item, you'd just have to research the organizations approving items. Even that's an exaggeration as it's really a matter of just having enough people researching these groups and paying enough attention that the companies want to make sure they're getting these people's money.

Anyway, even if you're skeptical that this would work, it's not like it would just happen over night. Personally, if we do get AC "somewhere" it would be a test situation and not the entire world at once, so even if it fails, it's not like the whole world is going to go into chaos, so what have we really got to lose? Everyone who's anti AC makes out like "OMG, when this element of AC fails the world is going to explode!!!!" when these things would be tested in much more controlled environments before being adopted by people as a whole.


[ QUOTE ]
3)The point is that I think that issue will almost certainly be a deal-breaker if it doesnt get down to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are certainly valid arguments for why anarchy might be technically impossible due to the property thing, but even if there end up being ultra minarchist countries that exist solely for the purpose of regulating property rights, it's basically the same thing.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ 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.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

VHawk,

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

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
VHawk,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Resistance is futile.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ 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?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

This is a well thought out OP. Although there are a lot of places that need to be refined. I'm in agreement. Once you understand each point it build on the next. Any one point on it's own really doesn't cut it. But together it's pretty much a slam dunk.

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 ]

Because if they can't make a good decision about one person to follow the advice of on consumer products, how in the world are they going to vote?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Because if they can't make a good decision about one person to follow the advice of on consumer products, how in the world are they going to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]And lead to Acism?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a well thought out OP. Although there are a lot of places that need to be refined. I'm in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely, and it prompts me to add a few reasons as to why I am no longer an ACist.

First of all, of course, are the OP reasons, but also, I think that the slogan approach and the very facts that very few ACists would ever accept any criticisms of their theory, made me feel and recognize as a cult.

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

Of course since then, amongst other of the AC leanings I have read a few of the following reading list. I also read some of Rothbard, Hayek (one of my great and lesser known authors, although not specifically his publications that have an AC content, Mises, etc...

Anyway, none of those authors has changed my mind but rather confirmed my earlier made opinion.

Fantasy, lack of empathy and a misunderstanding of the role of economics (people are not an economic commodity!).

That is why I am no longer an ACist.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
First question, do you think the majority of Americans care about poor people?

Second question, if the American government is needed to help poor people why doesnt it eliminate poverty? It has more than enough money.

[/ QUOTE ]It's not the elimination of poverty that is the governments aim, it's the attempt to lessen acts of desperation. And have everyone that benefits form that attempt to pay for, and have a say in how it is accomplished.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

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

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Because if they can't make a good decision about one person to follow the advice of on consumer products, how in the world are they going to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]And lead to Acism?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about "lead to"? It's part of ACism. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

That is why I am no longer an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it very hard to believe that you were ever an ACist.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be part of A.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not really sure we disagree. We can agree that if resources werent' scarce there would be no poverty? Maybe I make a correction, The enomourous amount of luck in the distribution of scarce resources is the primary cause of poverty?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Because if they can't make a good decision about one person to follow the advice of on consumer products, how in the world are they going to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]And lead to Acism?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about "lead to"? It's part of ACism. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]Being able to choose a chooser doesn't need ACism. I'm in 100% in favor of dropping forcing a leader on some one else. But I don't see why it's ACism that we want because of that.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd love to see some numbers on this.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be part of A.

[/ QUOTE ]Again it's still not the primary cause of poverty. It's the adjective primary that I'm talking about.

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If X is listed as the foremost cause of poverty, and X goes away Im assuming that the poster thinks poverty will at least dramaticly decrease without X

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is the primary cause of povery because:

A. They damage the economy, slowing technical, medical, etc. advancement, ensuring that people in the future have worse lifestyles.

B. Governments prevent people from moving out of countries where they're oppressed with immigration laws. (this is probably #1)

C. Government "aid" often makes people reliant on government, so they never develop the skills or motivation they need to become not poor.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd love to see some numbers on this.

[/ QUOTE ]Unlimited resources would mean no poverty. I'm not sure what numbers you'd want to see. It's just pure logic. Or were you talking to AlexM?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not really sure we disagree. We can agree that if resources werent' scarce there would be no poverty? Maybe I make a correction, The enomourous amount of luck in the distribution of scarce resources is the primary cause of poverty?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we really discussing if government vs no government is better in terms of poverty, or just current system vs AC system?

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

In that sense, don't we need the government? Yes, the government has a certain price in the form of administrative overhead, but isn't it better than the alternative?

Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not really sure we disagree. We can agree that if resources werent' scarce there would be no poverty? Maybe I make a correction, The enomourous amount of luck in the distribution of scarce resources is the primary cause of poverty?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we really discussing if government vs no government is better in terms of poverty, or just current system vs AC system?

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

In that sense, don't we need the government? Yes, the government has a certain price in the form of administrative overhead, but isn't it better than the alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Humans are selfish oooh except the tiny % who are looking to get as much power as they can over others.

Your angle is ludicrous