Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, what? Not even close. Let's just ignore all the questionable means in general, the characterization of the government as a private corporation (never) etc and talk about the fact the land was already inhabited before the colonists even arrived. The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then neither does just about any other owner, smart guy. You can be the first to do the right thing and vacate America so that the Indians can have it back...

I don't think you understand the private corporation comment either.

To better understand what I'm getting at, imagine a scenario where the first settlers had taken over an empty country, and decided to form a collective that owned all the common land and administered it (by some AC definition of ownership). Then, anyone coming onto their land, and wanting to settle there, had to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules of the private collective. All dandy in AC world. 300 years later, you have a US government which is identical to the one today - and yet according to AC rules, the first is legitimate but the second one isn't. Can you spot the gaping hole in AC theory now?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if they did have a legitimate claim "according to the rules," AC is about flexibility, not rigidity. I know some of the posters here get lost on that, but it's true. There is absolutely nothing in AC society that prevents breaking the rules in some cases when they're being applied in silly ways. See all the responses to the "Bill Gates buys one square inch in the middle of the river and then charges everyone who tries to use it ten hojillion dollars!" scenarios in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why AC doesn't work. It's nothing but popular will, but instead of having a government to embody it, there's nothing. So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out. It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

You either have people who respect private property and agreed laws (and the legitimacy of the scenario I describe above), or you have a mess. You want to have your cake and eat it too - which only happens in a theory world.