![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This should perhaps go in the politics forum, but they scare me. You guys just call me an irrational mystic - there I'm a jackbooted, coercive thug. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
A question arose after pondering the oft-heard AC comment that a collective cant act - individuals act. I expect it's important to moral justifications for AC, though I havent really looked into it... Anyhow it prompted me to consider a silly thought experiment: Suppose there is an innocent victim, trapped on a rocky outcropping, tenuously holding onto the cliff and about to fall to their death. Two people see this situation, though are unaware of each other. They both rush to help the victim, unfortunately the combined weight causes the cliff to give way and they all plunge to their deaths - something which wouldnt have happened if only one person had gone to the victim's aid. Isnt it right to say that a collection of individuals has acted in this case? Neither of them could do it on their own and neither knew of the other's existence (assume there was no reason to think going out there alone would cause any disaster). Basically, I dont see any problem with claiming a corporation acted, or a government, or a group of people in general. I am curious whether the "only individuals act" position is held due to desirable moral consequences or whether an alternative explanation to the above scenario is available other than a group of individuals acting. (I of course offer the usual thought experiment caveats about unreal situations, acknowledged oversimplifications, etc etc) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
A question arose after pondering the oft-heard AC comment that a collective cant act - individuals act. [/ QUOTE ] Well, there's nothing to concern us until they come up with some evidence that their premise is true. Until then, pooh-pooh should suffice. luckyme |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious whether the "only individuals act" position is held due to desirable moral consequences [/ QUOTE ] I don't want to get into all the metaphysical and definitional aspects, but briefly, from the moral and legal aspect, the concept of agency should address that issue. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are other and better things to muse about. Or even more useful, read a interesting book. Treatise on the Gods by H. L. Mencken for example.
-Zeno, The Antipope |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's an insane argument - the solipsism of politics. It's similar to:
- There are true ant colonies - There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes - There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence [ QUOTE ] I expect it's important to moral justifications for AC [/ QUOTE ] I think AC is based on the idea that it's not valid to contain the freedom of the individual in any way. It's a nice idea but hopelessly impractical. More importantly, it falls flat philosophically when you have finite resources (such as land). To believe that AC is the only moral system, you have to believe that: "Existing property divisions (regardless of how they came about) are more valid than all other human rights or goals." I think this is ridiculous. I agree that human freedoms are everything, but I think the current system maximizes those. In AC world, it's not acceptable for someone to be required to give a percentage of their socially-earned income back to society, but it is acceptable to require a newborn to accept all existing property divisions and pay to access any part of the planet. Seems rather odd to me. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
- There are true ant colonies - There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes - There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence [/ QUOTE ] This was dead on to my first thought. Can an AC person respond? Im curious as to whether or not the belief attributed to them in the OP is correct, and, if so, how exactly the argument goes. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] - There are true ant colonies - There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes - There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence [/ QUOTE ] This was dead on to my first thought. Can an AC person respond? Im curious as to whether or not the belief attributed to them in the OP is correct, and, if so, how exactly the argument goes. [/ QUOTE ] What is it you think is the case that ACers deny? they are not denying there's any such thing as society. chez |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] - There are true ant colonies - There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes - There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence [/ QUOTE ] This was dead on to my first thought. Can an AC person respond? Im curious as to whether or not the belief attributed to them in the OP is correct, and, if so, how exactly the argument goes. [/ QUOTE ] What is it you think is the case that ACers deny? they are not denying there's any such thing as society. [/ QUOTE ] Pretty much exactly what was laid out in the OP. Can a collective group of individuals 'act'? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] - There are true ant colonies - There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes - There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence [/ QUOTE ] This was dead on to my first thought. Can an AC person respond? Im curious as to whether or not the belief attributed to them in the OP is correct, and, if so, how exactly the argument goes. [/ QUOTE ] What is it you think is the case that ACers deny? they are not denying there's any such thing as society. [/ QUOTE ] Pretty much exactly what was laid out in the OP. Can a collective group of individuals 'act'? [/ QUOTE ] Its just two ways of describing the same thing. A group of people acting individually in a scenario where their actions interefer can be described as a collective act. chez |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would like to see an anarcho-capitalist respond to this thread.
|
![]() |
|
|