[ALawPoker]

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't mean to appear "overly critical" of AC, as if I have some sort of agenda against it or whatnot. I don't. I like AC, and some of the AC posters here are very, very, smart, and I can honestly say I have a world view I'm more comfortable with because of reading what you say.

This post might start off slow, but hear me out.

I had never been all that into politics until maybe a year or two ago (and still am basically only interested for entertainment's/discussion's sake). I wouldn't say I've "changed" much, but a lot of the assumptions I had about what was good and what was bad are ones that make more intellectual sense to me now. From reading this forum.

I make occasional posts that tend to disagree with AC, and I think people assume (reasonably so) that I have some agenda against it. Really it's just that most other stuff that could be talked about on here doesn't interest me. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is rising in the polls doesn't interest me (at least not as fodder for discussion). Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).

So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.

Granted, this is a politics forum, so I guess the entire point is to convince people that your way is best. I guess maybe it's understood that you have some "agenda" when you open your mouth. So maybe that's what throws me off. If we're just talking about "Theoretically what's the best system" with the assumption that there is an answer, then I agree AC is the best answer. But, I don't see breaking the biases that would practically allow us to act on that as necessarily good.

Presently, most human beings are not comfortable with AC. It makes erroneous sense that they need to form a state. Is it good to try to persuade them until they agree, sure, if that's what you consider a good use of your time. But if I had a switch that could somehow make states disappear, while keeping our condition exactly the same, I wouldn't flip it (in the same vein that I wouldn't have my dog sleep on a clear glass floor, even if it was where I preferred him).

So to me, what I "stand for" is not anarchism. What I stand for is people (and by extension myself) being better off. And having a comfortable environment that makes sense contributes to that. So what I stand for is "Anarchy when it follows suit of a sentiment that believes anarchy is good." Or in other words, simply "people acting based on what they believe is best."

If you believe in AC in the sense that you believe it's best philosophically, then I don't disagree. But the practical effects of the application are a different issue. People talk about it as if ridding the biases that would allow for it does not happen without a cost.

So philosophically would it be best for the world in the long-run to flip the switch, sure. But it wouldn't be best *for me*. To me, myself, my friends, and my family are a higher value than the wellbeing of future generations whom I don't care about.

So for me to be comfortable "supporting" AC (which is essentially "flipping the switch" divided by a huge number) I would have to believe that ridding bias is without cost, or at least that it's always worth it. And I don't believe that.

I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile. Even though I philosophically agree that the freedom to carry guns as you wish is good for all the reasons you guys say it's good, having grown up in Joeshmoeville, Massachusetts, real world, 1983-present AD, I admit that a culture without gun laws (while objectively better) is not an idea I like.

So it seems silly to "support" something that I myself am not comfortable with and maybe never could be comfortable with. I admit the discomfort is a result of culturally indoctrinated bias. But that bias is not without significance to me. It's a part of me. And I'm comfortable with nature, rather than change of sentiment, correcting whatever burden the bias brings. Correcting it myself feels like a waste of life to me.

You can say I "should" learn about guns and become comfortable with them, since I realize that philosophically that's a "better" way to live. But basically, I don't think I should have to. If I feel like the good of breaking the bias doesn't outweigh the cost, then to me, a world that forces me to break the bias is not one I "support."

Why should I martyr myself to be an objectively good person when I can't be sure everyone else will do the same? Is that actually good? It seems destructive. Maybe I'll spend a lot of time, money, and effort breaking my biased aversion to guns, but what makes me think the progressive [censored] from Berkley California isn't working to break his bias that tells him taxation is effective?

So basically, if I can't guarantee you're not gonna be a dick to me, then I reserve the right to be a dick to you. Hence, the state.

I can look at the state and agree "Ya, that sucks, we're all dicks." But having these biases that are instilled in me at no fault of my own, it doesn't make sense to me to say "Now I don't want the state." That seems like destruction.

And like I said, the wellbeing of infinite future generations (while objectively more important than me and my people) is not something I value as much as being comfortable right now.


But in any event, I plan to put my disagreements with AC to rest, both because it is exhausting and because my "disagreement" is so semantical that it's very hard to discuss without exaggerating why exactly I disagree (and thus I end up implying support for something that I don't actually support, which is a bad thing to me).

Since this thread stands a reasonable shot of being moved to SMP, I'll conclude by stating that I posted this in politics, if you're not sure which "other thread" I was referring to. EDIT: Or if you weren't sure why I boldly declared "this is a politics forum."