ACism: paralleling the evils of state control?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus,

precisely which of von Mises' axioms do you take issue with, and why? I'm not an ACer, just interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the ACists will claim that everything can be derived from "self-ownership". That in and of itself is debatable, since at the very least that can be considered an oxy-moron. However, most of my issues relate to dogma such as "monopolies can only arise in a state", "the free market is the perfect solution to everything". You can compile a pretty exhaustive list of them by searching on borodog. The majority of his AC posts contain one or more leaps that don't have any empirical or logical support. (You can skip the lindy hop posts)

[/ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident, and the fact that literally every psychology professor I ever had at my state-funded college agreed with it makes me not inclined to argue it.

The other things, like self-ownership (and to a much greater extent, state monopolies) are deduced a priori from the axiom of human action. They're certainly open to debate, but it's not fair to view them as isolated, dogmatic axioms when they're deduced by more fundamental logical elements. "Property" isn't so much a dogmatic, moral mandate in Austrian theory; it's a strategy to maximize subjective human well-being.

You've been debating Austrian theory on this forum for over a year now, Copernicus. The axiom of human action is the core element to anarcho-capitalist thought. It's what borodog would teach on day one of his AC 101 class. If you don't know this yet, perhaps it's time to either read something about Austrian thought without automatically trying to attack it, or just stop.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. The trouble most of us have with the leap to AC is how you get from "people act in their own self-interest" to "the poor will be helped by massively increased charity", "companies will not make faulty products to make a dollar faster" and the other hundred and fifty thousand assumptions that AC makes while simultaneously acknowledging that point.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. The trouble most of us have with the leap to AC is how you get from "people act in their own self-interest" to "the poor will be helped by massively increased charity", "companies will not make faulty products to make a dollar faster" and the other hundred and fifty thousand assumptions that AC makes while simultaneously acknowledging that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

If we want quality products, then it is in their best interests to make them for us. You'd have to hypothesize some mechanisms whereby it is impossible for us to make it in their best interests to please us. I cannot imagine what this impediment would be. I can imagine some practical issues, where people put quantity and affordability over quality, but nothing that strictly, and absolutely, PREVENTS people from making it in the self-interest of companies to produce quality products.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I misunderstand the tragedy of the commons, but I don't see how that applies. When people say they want to help the poor, but then the poor never get helped, this isn't a tragedy of the commons. This is an example of "I want to help the poor but not as much as I want to do other things." How does tragedy of the commons apply here? Anyone who doesn't "pull his weight" is expressing his preference with his wallet, not his voice. A much more reliable method, IMO.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't think you were making a utilitarian point, I thought you were making a point about preferences. You think laws should be enacted in all situations in which the long-term best interests of all (by some standard and determined by someone, we'll assume they are smart) are not being efficiently taken care of?

The points I made, that you responded to, this apparent paradox, was about PREFERENCES, not about what was "best long-term." And for good reason.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an ACist and I don't really care about money.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ]
The more open the market is the more wealth will be produced. The more wealth produced doesn't automatically go to the rich, it also helps out the poor! Just check out the living standards of the poor in highly socialized economies. Or check out democratic socialist Chile with tons of intervention in the economy which has produced the eighth most unequal wealth distribution in the world. Wealth distribution was much more even under the market heavy policies of Pinochet.

Just look at what the government spends money on today. Do you think a bunch of rich opportunists (something like every third memeber of congress is a millionaire) are more likely to spend government taxes on simply giving them away to the poor, or give it away in the form of fat overpriced contracts to their friends in the private sector?

Get rid of the war on drugs, inflation tax, sales tax, and the property tax and you'll see poor people's real wealth improve a lot. This is just another case of the government masquerading as it's own cure.
[ QUOTE ]
The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell is sociopathic about it? Should we also pay off every person not to murder us? $X a week to every non-murderer?
[ QUOTE ]
that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I think it's pretty clear to you that it is when you say this:
[ QUOTE ]
in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyways, last year Americans made the apparently irrational decision to donate $295 billion to charity last year. Your analysis doesn't jive with the facts. There are a lot of people that enjoy helping out others. Those people probably aren't going to be the rich power hungry people elected office disproportionately selects for. In that way the government systematically takes money away from those that are generally concerned with the poor and puts in the hands of those that just pretend to.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive voice FTW!

WHO is "allowing" these people to starve?

What would prevent them from acting to stop it?


[ QUOTE ]
The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you figuring out who needs to donate and how much they need to give if you don't have a scoresheet?