![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I know ACism is debated at length here on 2+2 and it often devolves into two sides talking past each other. Since often it is a non-ACer bringing up objections and an ACer rebutting, it sometimes looks like ACers believe AC-land would be a utopia. I was hoping that maybe we'd be able to flip things around a little bit.
Would any AC posters (Borodog perhaps?) mind discussing some of the drawbacks they see in an AC system? I realize that you believe that an AC society is better than any government society or else you wouldn't be AC, but surely there would be some sorts of problems. In order to get a more accurate depiction of AC, it would be useful to know the potential weaknesses of such a system that even ACers would acknowledge. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Great post, Taraz.
[ QUOTE ] Would any AC posters (Borodog perhaps?) mind discussing some of the drawbacks they see in an AC system? [/ QUOTE ] I can't wait! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. Animal Rights
2. WMD That's just IMO. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The main drawback is that I can not be king and dictator of the world. We would need a government for that to be possible.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
1. Animal Rights 2. WMD That's just IMO. [/ QUOTE ] 3. Environmental protection 4. National Defense |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
The main drawback is that I can not be king and dictator of the world. We would need a government for that to be possible. [/ QUOTE ] I was gonna say, There's a whole bunch of [censored] that I want doing that I could only achieve through force. I guess those dreams have to die because of the whole integrity thing. Pity. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. Animal Rights 2. WMD That's just IMO. [/ QUOTE ] 3. Environmental protection 4. National Defense [/ QUOTE ] If by environmental protection you mean keeping nature in some sort of a "pristine untouched garden of eden state", then perhaps you are correct. Mind you, this isn't a problem with A/C this is a problem with humans who want to live at higher than a mere subsistance level, and with more than a few million of us on the planet. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. Animal Rights 2. WMD That's just IMO. [/ QUOTE ] 3. Environmental protection 4. National Defense [/ QUOTE ] 2 and 4 pretty much sort each other out IMO. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 1. Animal Rights 2. WMD That's just IMO. [/ QUOTE ] 3. Environmental protection 4. National Defense [/ QUOTE ] 2 and 4 pretty much sort each other out IMO. [/ QUOTE ] Sort of, but even if we got rid of all WMD there would still be the issue of National Defense. But I see your point. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
One of the biggest drawbacks is lack of certainty/predictibility. This is particularly true in any transition period from a government-based society (for lack of a better term) and an anarchy-based society. One is asked to take on faith that things that are important to them now will be resolved in a way they consider acceptable when the market is left on its own.
Another issue I see is that one of the benefits of arbitration/mediations (as opposed to adjudication) is that the decisions/agreements generally do not become "public." I doubt that this would change as the individual parties generally have great incentives to agree to private resolutions. The problem that results is that we fail to create common law --- we fail to create reliable/predictible rules to govern our relations. Common law (or what would be the AC equivalent) wouldn't evolve because we wouldn't have foundational precedents. This would make transaction costs much greater, in my opinion. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|