question for ACists

[valenzuela]

Is there any moral background for AC? Or is it purely an system which is more productive? If there is a moral background, how important is that moral background for you?

[WordWhiz]

Depends who you listen to. Murray Rothbard thinks that AC follows naturally from fundamental rights, a deontological position, whereas David Friedman is a consequentialist, who claims only that AC would work best (albeit with certain ideologically libertarian underpinnings).

[natedogg]

Although not a true ACist, I'm a minarchist and the position is completely based on my morals. My over-riding concern with any government endeavor is to avoid coercion if at all possible. This pretty much boils down to supporting almost nothing because it is immoral to me to employ coercion by the state in all but life-or-death situations.

natedogg

[Borodog]

On of the most powerful arguments in favor of anarchocapitalism in my opinion is the so-called "triple coincidence" of that which is moral, that which is natural, and that which produces the best consequences.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any moral background for AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux9.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux10.html


(in audio, here: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Listen_In_1.htm )

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Although not a true ACist, I'm a minarchist and the position is completely based on my morals. My over-riding concern with any government endeavor is to avoid coercion if at all possible. This pretty much boils down to supporting almost nothing because it is immoral to me to employ coercion by the state in all but life-or-death situations.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Drink it, damn you! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This pretty much boils down to supporting almost nothing because it is immoral to me to employ coercion by the state in all but life-or-death situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example? And surely you are talking about actions, so not only people in the state can do as such but others as well.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
On of the most powerful arguments in favor of anarchocapitalism in my opinion is the so-called "triple coincidence" of that which is moral, that which is natural, and that which produces the best consequences.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed; the best possible system on all metrics.

It should be called the double coincidence, however; most importantly of all, this "fact" allows us to avoid all of that difficult cognitive dissonance and weighing of the different principles we believe in against each other.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This pretty much boils down to supporting almost nothing because it is immoral to me to employ coercion by the state in all but life-or-death situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example? And surely you are talking about actions, so not only people in the state can do as such but others as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure i understand your questoin and clarifying sentence here Nielso. Are you asking for an example of what I consider a lifeordeath situation that would justify state intrusion?

If so, my answer is : physical harm between adults. Any attempt to physically harm another adult justifies police intrusion to stop and/or punish it. Anything else is outside the moral scope of what govt should be allowed to do. Period.

My overriding concern with govt is coercion. It is wrong to coerce, even paternalistically.

I'm convinced that property rights can arise with sufficient strength without government involved, but I don't think the state-enforced version of property rights is so much worse than AC version, so I can accede property rights to the role of govt as well, mostly for the sake of not having to argue it with the statists.

I'm not convinced that the AC security company model has merit, espeically on a national defense level.

This is a BIG problem for my position as a minarchist because as we all know, *everything* govt does is a slippery slope and the minute you give the govt power to tax and fund an army and some cops, you are starting down the inexorable path to throwing people in jail for selling shower heads that spray too much water, and forcing abortions on women who have more than one kid, etc.

Not sure how to get around that but still not convinced that the AC security would not result in AC warlords cowing the citizenry.

natedogg

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On of the most powerful arguments in favor of anarchocapitalism in my opinion is the so-called "triple coincidence" of that which is moral, that which is natural, and that which produces the best consequences.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed; the best possible system on all metrics.

It should be called the double coincidence, however; most importantly of all, this "fact" allows us to avoid all of that difficult cognitive dissonance and weighing of the different principles we believe in against each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no, I've spent years "weighing different principles against each other" and have found those that form the basis of anarchocapitalist theory to be perfectly harmonious; they are natural, they are moral, and they produce the best consequences.