Reactions to AC

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will share my initial reactions to AC. I came here as a libertarian, albeit not interested in politics and not active in any way (not discussions, reading, etc) for several years.

I was both intrigued and SCARED. I was intrigued by the fact that the concept was something I had never heard of or considered, and also intrigued because the prominent posters seemed to be really smart and putting forth sound, logical arguments. I was impressed by that.

I was not initially 'scared', just curious. But as I started to contemplate what an AC world might be like, in reality with me living in it, those initial thoughts SCARED ME. I was scared of the unknown and uncertainty of it all. How would fire departments/services, police departments/services, roads, bridges, etc be provided for? Several 'what if' scenarios came to mind. What if we are invaded? That was the big one for me. What if Russia or N. Korea, or whoever invades or starts shooting missles and bombs at us? What the hell are we going to do then? Will we not all be screwed?

But I have come to value reason and rational judgement over emotion. I recognized my fear for what it was, an emotion. I do not use emotions to win at poker or to plan my day or plan my future, at least I do not do those things when functioning optimally. I use reason and judgement. I use my brain. My thoughts. So I tried my best to keep an open mind because I had already clearly seen that the people preaching AC were smart. They did not suddenly turn into morons because I am experiencing fear. So I continued to read and learn. When I had a few questions I asked them.

And ultimately what I realized was that if somehow we were invaded the invaders would not be coming for a conquest of my measly possessions, they would be after the rich people's stuff. So the rich people would logically be taking steps to defend their stuff while I would be pretty much ignored. Hell, if it came to it and someone came to my door with a gun intending to kick me out of my place and have me live on the streets because they were taking over I would shoot it out with them, but this would be a very unlikely scenario. Any invaders would be after the rich people's stuff. And we could be invaded anyway and I could still possibly be faced with some guys coming to my door intent on taking over my place and kicking me to the street whereby I would still need to shoot it out with them. But because I realized that invaders would basically be after rich people's stuff I was not afraid of not having national defense any longer.

So without my fear, and with my reason and judgement, I decided that AC was a pretty good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that no standing army defeated the Nazi's, the first armies that the French, Russians, Chezs, Polish and British put on the field were all wiped out. It wasn't until the Nazis hit natural barriers (Channel, sheer size of Russia) that they slowed down.
The argument isn't that AC will be able to prevent all attackers, but that any attacker who is well enough equipped to take on a highly decentralized, wealthy and motivated opponent is going to run all over any defense that a state could put up anyway.

[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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You assert that AC makes no promises. Does it follow then, that when I ask you, "In what ways is AC better than government?", your response will be, "It isn't." Or will you instead recite a litany of areas in which AC is assuredly superior?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think not getting shot in the leg is better than getting shot in the leg?

So what does "not getting shot in the leg" replace "getting shot in the leg" with?

Nothing.

Does "not getting shot in the leg" promise that you won't trip and break your neck tomorrow?

No.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and (my favorite) that AC is "more moral" than a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can voluntary associations NOT be "more moral" than a state?

[/ QUOTE ]
AC cannot promise me exclusively voluntary associations, unless your claim above (your claim: that AC makes no promises) is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not answering the question.

The fact that someone might try to interact with you without your at some point doesn't give you license to force interactions upon others without their consent.

So, how can voluntary associations not be more moral than a state?

How can a lack of institutionalized aggression not be more moral than institutionalized aggression?

(wild conjecture snipped)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that no standing army defeated the Nazi's, the first armies that the French, Russians, Chezs, Polish and British put on the field were all wiped out. It wasn't until the Nazis hit natural barriers (Channel, sheer size of Russia) that they slowed down.
The argument isn't that AC will be able to prevent all attackers, but that any attacker who is well enough equipped to take on a highly decentralized, wealthy and motivated opponent is going to run all over any defense that a state could put up anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's the "Death Star Objection". OH NOES, AC can't stop Tarkin from blowing up earth! Oh, neither can the state.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Suck whatever you want.
I read your reply about 10 times and still don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you deny that marauding armies often exterminate the existing citizenry, or significant subgroups thereof, rather than trying to govern them peacefully?

[/ QUOTE ]

Death Star.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Nazi Germany wasn't seeking lebensraum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to shatter your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what exactly they were after? Your "fallacy" is confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you were serious. Well, we could start with the whole "exterminating Jews" thing. I don't think Hitler cared whether they were rich or poor.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Nazi Germany wasn't seeking lebensraum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to shatter your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what exactly they were after? Your "fallacy" is confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you were serious. Well, we could start with the whole "exterminating Jews" thing. I don't think Hitler cared whether they were rich or poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing those Jews had a state to protect them.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will share my initial reactions to AC. I came here as a libertarian, albeit not interested in politics and not active in any way (not discussions, reading, etc) for several years.

I was both intrigued and SCARED. I was intrigued by the fact that the concept was something I had never heard of or considered, and also intrigued because the prominent posters seemed to be really smart and putting forth sound, logical arguments. I was impressed by that.

I was not initially 'scared', just curious. But as I started to contemplate what an AC world might be like, in reality with me living in it, those initial thoughts SCARED ME. I was scared of the unknown and uncertainty of it all. How would fire departments/services, police departments/services, roads, bridges, etc be provided for? Several 'what if' scenarios came to mind. What if we are invaded? That was the big one for me. What if Russia or N. Korea, or whoever invades or starts shooting missles and bombs at us? What the hell are we going to do then? Will we not all be screwed?

But I have come to value reason and rational judgement over emotion. I recognized my fear for what it was, an emotion. I do not use emotions to win at poker or to plan my day or plan my future, at least I do not do those things when functioning optimally. I use reason and judgement. I use my brain. My thoughts. So I tried my best to keep an open mind because I had already clearly seen that the people preaching AC were smart. They did not suddenly turn into morons because I am experiencing fear. So I continued to read and learn. When I had a few questions I asked them.

And ultimately what I realized was that if somehow we were invaded the invaders would not be coming for a conquest of my measly possessions, they would be after the rich people's stuff. So the rich people would logically be taking steps to defend their stuff while I would be pretty much ignored. Hell, if it came to it and someone came to my door with a gun intending to kick me out of my place and have me live on the streets because they were taking over I would shoot it out with them, but this would be a very unlikely scenario. Any invaders would be after the rich people's stuff. And we could be invaded anyway and I could still possibly be faced with some guys coming to my door intent on taking over my place and kicking me to the street whereby I would still need to shoot it out with them. But because I realized that invaders would basically be after rich people's stuff I was not afraid of not having national defense any longer.

So without my fear, and with my reason and judgement, I decided that AC was a pretty good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that no standing army defeated the Nazi's, the first armies that the French, Russians, Chezs, Polish and British put on the field were all wiped out. It wasn't until the Nazis hit natural barriers (Channel, sheer size of Russia) that they slowed down.
The argument isn't that AC will be able to prevent all attackers, but that any attacker who is well enough equipped to take on a highly decentralized, wealthy and motivated opponent is going to run all over any defense that a state could put up anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your non-condescending, reasonable reply.

I don't know whether you actually advocate AC or are just clearing up a point for me, but it seems like we just have no way of knowing what kind of defensive capabilities a "highly decentralized, wealthy and motivated" defender is capable of. Since many nations are wealthy, and most of them would probably get motivated well enough if they got invaded, I guess the argument is that decentralization is what makes AC as good as (better than?) any standing army.

Fine, we have no way of knowing. The closest thing today to a decentralized political body with any kind of military power is Al Qaeda, and I doubt anybody here is advocating the guerrilla-style fundamentalist thuggery they like so much.

"Divide and conquer" is one of the oldest and best-known military maxims because it's very effective. An enemy that is not united is easier to defeat than one that is fractionalized and uncoordinated. So, in my opinion, privatized defense makes it easier for a conquering nation to succeed by lowering coordination and communication, not to mention more nebulous (but important) factors like nationalism and duty.

Sure, a well-coordinated standing army might not be able to stop the death star, but I'd sure like to keep the Huns out.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Nazi Germany wasn't seeking lebensraum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to shatter your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what exactly they were after? Your "fallacy" is confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you were serious. Well, we could start with the whole "exterminating Jews" thing. I don't think Hitler cared whether they were rich or poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing those Jews had a state to protect them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ones here and in Britain certainly did.