What do you like about the State?

[NeBlis]

A popular version of freedom is the very reason the American government was put in place to begin with. I suggest you read some history or watch the news, to discover how they failed .


FYP

NeBlis

[00gene]

[ QUOTE ]
You should consider asking yourself why an ACist is many, many times more likely to hold an advanced degree than the rest of the population. (If you don't like this sort of argument, don't blame me, it was Sklansky's idea.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Sklansky have a link to show this?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al, just curious, where/why do you personally draw the line at libertarian and not ACist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't oppose a non-oppressive state. I believe that ACists oppose any state because even if it's not oppressive, it will become oppressive over time. I have to admit that historically, they're right.

Basically, I do not consider it a legitimate function of government to initiate the use of force or fraud against its citizens. I believe ACists would agree with this.

I do consider it a legitimate function of government to protect the liberty of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, is the presumption that a pure market wouldn't protect liberties? Private arbitration, private enforcement, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a government to protect liberty.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think most ACists would be fairly content with a non-oppressive state that protected their liberty. They might even consider it a pipe dream like I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

A non-oppressive state that "protects" one's liberties makes AC look very realistic by comparison.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al, just curious, where/why do you personally draw the line at libertarian and not ACist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't oppose a non-oppressive state. I believe that ACists oppose any state because even if it's not oppressive, it will become oppressive over time. I have to admit that historically, they're right.

Basically, I do not consider it a legitimate function of government to initiate the use of force or fraud against its citizens. I believe ACists would agree with this.

I do consider it a legitimate function of government to protect the liberty of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, is the presumption that a pure market wouldn't protect liberties? Private arbitration, private enforcement, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a government to protect liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then why would you rather have a limited government than no government?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al, just curious, where/why do you personally draw the line at libertarian and not ACist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't oppose a non-oppressive state. I believe that ACists oppose any state because even if it's not oppressive, it will become oppressive over time. I have to admit that historically, they're right.

Basically, I do not consider it a legitimate function of government to initiate the use of force or fraud against its citizens. I believe ACists would agree with this.

I do consider it a legitimate function of government to protect the liberty of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, is the presumption that a pure market wouldn't protect liberties? Private arbitration, private enforcement, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a government to protect liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then why would you rather have a limited government than no government?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it would be more efficient and consistent in protecting those liberties.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I think most ACists would be fairly content with a non-oppressive state that protected their liberty. They might even consider it a pipe dream like I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

A non-oppressive state that "protects" one's liberties makes AC look very realistic by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
You got me there. But I can still dream.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should consider asking yourself why an ACist is many, many times more likely to hold an advanced degree than the rest of the population. (If you don't like this sort of argument, don't blame me, it was Sklansky's idea.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Did Sklansky have a link to show this? The data I've seen says that the more education a person has the more likely he or she is to be a liberal.


[/ QUOTE ]

My only claim was that an ACist is many, many times more likely to hold an advanced degree or be pursuing one than the rest of the population, and you should be asking yourself why that is. Sklansky's thread was on a different topic, but I was referring to his line of argumentation about the relative education levels of people who hold certain positions. I might make an OP in the future on this topic.

Plenty of uneducated people identify as conservative or liberal. I doubt you could find one anarchocapitalist who doesn't have and isn't pursuing an advanced degree.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that ACists never admit is that non-states can just as easily evolve into oppressive states with time as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

That appears to be one of the major unfounded assumptions of anarchism, namely that the state is necessarily a more efficient means of oppression than what enters the picture to fill the power vacuum without it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh....I've already covered it in this thread here.

[00gene]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you could find one anarchocapitalist who doesn't have and isn't pursuing an advanced degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you know this, but correlation does not show causation.