Reactions to AC

[tomdemaine]

I'm trying to understand peoples reactions when the first hear about the concept of a fully a free society and I just can't. Pretty much everyone it seems (including me) scoffs and pronounces from a position of ignorance. I myself made some very dumb high and mighty posts when I first came across it on these forums and I'm wondering why. I don't have that reaction to other theories that I hear.

If a theory is truly crazy you simply don't engage. If some toothless weird looking dude comes up to me in the street and says he lives on the moon the a straw hut with live chocoloate bunnies, I don't start listing the reasons why that's impossible,

"you see that wouldn't work because there's no oxygen on the moon and chocolate cannot be alive, please provide some proof."

Also when I hear about a theory I know nothing about but the explainer seems credible, say the first time I heard about quantum physics, I was interested and wanted to find more out rather than being dismissive. So why the reaction to AC? It happens too often to be coincidence.

Is it simply down to propaganda? Or could it be that if you find out more about AC and come to realize that the government is violence then you have to rethink a lot that you've done in your life (borodog's hypocrite issue)

This should perhaps be in psychology but I don't think they could help and I doubt the admins want the virus of AC spreading to another forum. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pvn]

People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there? Most people judge world politics relative to what actually exists; not relative to some abstract ideal. We haven't ban "bamboozled" so much as we just don't analyze our world the same way you do.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there? Most people judge world politics relative to what actually exists; not relative to some abstract ideal. We haven't ban "bamboozled" so much as we just don't analyze our world the same way you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you do analyze the world that way it will be pretty difficult to see it as anything else but bamboozlement. lol

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there? Most people judge world politics relative to what actually exists; not relative to some abstract ideal. We haven't ban "bamboozled" so much as we just don't analyze our world the same way you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you do analyze the world that way it will be pretty difficult to see it as anything else but bamboozlement. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? If living in these imaginary institutions of inefficiency is my world's reality, it's not ok to think of some states as "more" free than others?

I realize to you "free" is the literal, idealistic form of the word. I don't think most people who throw the word around mean it the same way. So they haven't been bamboozled of anything.

I dunno, you guys get carried away over the tiniest technical breach of personal freedom, as if the varying degrees don't mean anything. I think there is a pretty real difference between the "freedoms" of most Western states compared to some of the more oppressive governments around the world.

And that sort of touches upon why I could never consider myself an anarcho-capitalist. I'd prefer, and thus support, a state even if it only represented my interests to a modest degree of efficiency, if for no other reason than that I'd rather be 100% sure I'm stuck with this and nothing worse than have to risk possibly finding myself in a worse situation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but AC seems entirely fanciful if you don't include the possibility individuals forming states within it. And if that's a possibility, I would obviously prefer not to be subject to a new code of law if it were worse than what I have to deal with now.

AC world (compared to a state you can mildly tolerate) is kind of like the call with a low pair. Small edge/big dog syndrome. My life would probably be a little better with no government, sure. But I basically prefer how things are now, just to hedge against a worse (possibly much worse) state or situation re-forming.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there? Most people judge world politics relative to what actually exists; not relative to some abstract ideal. We haven't ban "bamboozled" so much as we just don't analyze our world the same way you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you do analyze the world that way it will be pretty difficult to see it as anything else but bamboozlement. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? If living in these imaginary institutions of inefficiency is my world's reality, it's not ok to think of some states as "more" free than others?



[/ QUOTE ]

You mean in the 'free' western state where by having one marijuana joint you loose your drivers license regardless of whether or not you have ever, or would ever drive under the influence?

Or the 'free western state' where you can kiss any hope for one of those low interest government loans for college goodbye if you are ever found to be in possession of a joint of marijuana (and convicted)? (but if you are convicted of bank robbery or some other very serious crime you can get the loan without issue).

Or the 'free western state' that enacted asset forfiture/seizure laws back in the 1970's to be used "to go after international drug cartel's who have tremendous assets" because the government needed this special method of fighting their terror .... and has turned around and used it on common everyday citizens...where police are encouraged and trained to bully people into forgoing their right to refuse consent to searches so that they can try to find a marijuana joint (or any small amount of any other drug) in their car so they can seize the car without due process or conviction of any crime? Who in the hell would have agreed with this idea back in the 70's when the law was proposed? No one, that's who. No one would want to see their neighbors, or their neighbors kids car seized because of having some small baggie of a drug in their pocket. But it didn't stop them from evolving it into that did it?

You can choose to compare anything with anything else you want. Opression is opression. People born into this society today are not even going to be able to fathom what it was like in the 1970's when cops strolled around in neighborhoods and were friendly with all of the people in the town square and everyone liked them, kids, teenagers, and adults. They are not going to even know that cops used to deal with typical teenage drinking/pot/whatever use in a fatherly manner by giving a lecture and calling the parents. Where cops dealt with the crimes of violence and theft and people didn't hate them. If you think your in a free world where anytime you interact with a cop he is talking to you in a browbeating manner, talking down to you like your a dog, (exceptions being if you call them in an emergency situation to assist you or if you ask them for directions) when he is in his car behind you you do not feel protected and served but scared to be harrassed... where they act like they are your superior and you are beneath them, etc then I'm glad I'm not you.

I see opression as opression. If you choose to not recongize the entire spectrum of being 100% free from opression all the way down to be 100% opressed that is your business. If you want to somehow look at your situation as being in the 100% free from opression catagory have fun with it.

If there are side by side zoo's and in one all the animals are in small cages and in the other they are in large cages where they can do some roaming around... even if those animals were born in that place.. that does not mean that true freedom does not exist out there beyond the walls of their captivity. The one's in the large roaming area's are not 'free'. Just because that is all they have ever known does not mean it is freedom.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think America is any more free than most any developed country with a Western-based culture (such as most of Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.). The constant talk of America being the most free nation on earth is outdated. The freedom to play cards for money is but one simple example.

[clowntable]

It's a simple question of epistemological philosophy for me to try to find wholes in the theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
wholes

[/ QUOTE ]

OT, I catch myself typing "wholes" when I mean "holes" ALL THE TIME. What's up with that?

[Nielsio]

Statism, theism, conforming to the family, and all that are classes of cults/rackets/scams/nightmares of obedience, that have evolved as a strategy of parasitism.

You can derive the behaviour on the individual level from this.