My "Political Philosophy"

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone may not be volunteering, but I am. When you asked what I was receiving from the state on a voluntary basis I presumed you meant that I was volunteering for. I choose to pay my taxes and receive state subsidised services and the benefits and costs of state regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this square with you not being responsible for the actions of Howards government?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn you pay attention...you'll have to remind me where that came up...

I think my argument will go something like:

I volunteer to participate in the system, so I accept the benefits of the state and agree to pay the costs. Part of our system involves representative democracy together with free speech. I have cast my vote consistently against the Howard government, I've been to protests, I've donated time and money to his political opponents. Within the system I've done what I can to oppose the current government of the day (or what I think is reasonable anyhow). Consequently, I am a participant in the society and am partly responsible for choosing the government, however I have done everything I could reasonably do to prevent their actions, so I cant be held responsible for those actions.

Inconsistent?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]
Which unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions of mine am I attributing to others when I say "I know how statists do it - how do ACists think it should be done?"

For the umpteenth time, I'm not advocating anything, I'm asking someone who knows about AC to speculate on what the market solution would be.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]
Which unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions of mine am I attributing to others when I say "I know how statists do it - how do ACists think it should be done?"

For the umpteenth time, I'm not advocating anything, I'm asking someone who knows about AC to speculate on what the market solution would be.

[/ QUOTE ]


You raise the problem of irrational cults acquiring and using nuclear weapons. And: "it seems to me is dealt with better by a state". And yes, you are giving moral support to the state:

[ QUOTE ]
Things I need a state for and which they currently handle? OK - the prevention of irrational psychos having free access to nuclear devices. The state prevents that (at least partially) and I'm very happy to continue paying taxes so that they keep doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So: "Which unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions of mine am I attributing to others" -->

You are extremely scared of the state because they wield the power of genocide. In fact, they have enacted genocide thousands of times and continue to do so. And instead of justly recognizing this evil and facing up to power (which when you do, you become an anarchist), you put other people on the defensive, claiming that the market would create these horrors. So the reason that you use this argument is because in your mind it's an incredibly powerful argument when used against *you*.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone may not be volunteering, but I am. When you asked what I was receiving from the state on a voluntary basis I presumed you meant that I was volunteering for. I choose to pay my taxes and receive state subsidised services and the benefits and costs of state regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this square with you not being responsible for the actions of Howards government?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn you pay attention...you'll have to remind me where that came up...

I think my argument will go something like:

I volunteer to participate in the system, so I accept the benefits of the state and agree to pay the costs. Part of our system involves representative democracy together with free speech. I have cast my vote consistently against the Howard government, I've been to protests, I've donated time and money to his political opponents. Within the system I've done what I can to oppose the current government of the day (or what I think is reasonable anyhow). Consequently, I am a participant in the society and am partly responsible for choosing the government, however I have done everything I could reasonably do to prevent their actions, so I cant be held responsible for those actions.

Inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]
can't remember the thread. Don't know about inconsistant but I think you're wrong (I'm in a similar boat).

Ideally we want the actions to reflect the majority view rather than our own. If the majority want to do something we believe stupid then we want that stupid thing to be done. That's the whole idea of democracy and if we voluntarily take part then we are responsible for a system in which the majority view holds and hence we are responsible for the system acting as the majority want. Arguing our case doesn't change any of that.

Real life is slightly less ideal but the general idea still holds.

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone may not be volunteering, but I am. When you asked what I was receiving from the state on a voluntary basis I presumed you meant that I was volunteering for. I choose to pay my taxes and receive state subsidised services and the benefits and costs of state regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this square with you not being responsible for the actions of Howards government?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn you pay attention...you'll have to remind me where that came up...

I think my argument will go something like:

I volunteer to participate in the system, so I accept the benefits of the state and agree to pay the costs. Part of our system involves representative democracy together with free speech. I have cast my vote consistently against the Howard government, I've been to protests, I've donated time and money to his political opponents. Within the system I've done what I can to oppose the current government of the day (or what I think is reasonable anyhow). Consequently, I am a participant in the society and am partly responsible for choosing the government, however I have done everything I could reasonably do to prevent their actions, so I cant be held responsible for those actions.

Inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all inconsistent. It goes back to whether a "collective" can be considered to act, and therefore whether the participants in the collective are individually responsible for the acts of the collective. There is a whole body of philosophy/sociology debating the issue with no clear "winner".

I think the weight falls on the side of collective action with no individual responsiblity (barring the collective just being a sham proxy for a very limited number of individuals).

[Jetboy2]

Wow!

Your point #2 nailed down much of the premise of a recent book called "Happier" by Tal Ben-Shahar.

- Hedonistic = "...immediate downsides..."
- Rat Race = "...eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future..."

You left out the nihilistic and better options though...

ehhh

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You are extremely scared of the state because they wield the power of genocide. In fact, they have enacted genocide thousands of times and continue to do so. And instead of justly recognizing this evil and facing up to power (which when you do, you become an anarchist), you put other people on the defensive, claiming that the market would create these horrors. So the reason that you use this argument is because in your mind it's an incredibly powerful argument when used against *you*.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've missed my point again. I dont think the market creates these horrors, I think these horrors exist and a market has to deal with them as does a state. Which one deals with it better is part of my decision as to which system to support. I think it's naive to think there's a perfect system. I recognise that I may be supporting the worse system, but I also recognise I am not going to jump ship if ACists cant provide at least a hint of how these problems might be solved.

I didnt put you on the defensive, your psychology does that.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are extremely scared of the state because they wield the power of genocide. In fact, they have enacted genocide thousands of times and continue to do so. And instead of justly recognizing this evil and facing up to power (which when you do, you become an anarchist), you put other people on the defensive, claiming that the market would create these horrors. So the reason that you use this argument is because in your mind it's an incredibly powerful argument when used against *you*.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've missed my point again. I dont think the market creates these horrors, I think these horrors exist and a market has to deal with them as does a state. Which one deals with it better is part of my decision as to which system to support. I think it's naive to think there's a perfect system. I recognise that I may be supporting the worse system, but I also recognise I am not going to jump ship if ACists cant provide at least a hint of how these problems might be solved.

I didnt put you on the defensive, your psychology does that.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you haven't recognized that the problem you raise is embodied precisely in the system you support?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are extremely scared of the state because they wield the power of genocide. In fact, they have enacted genocide thousands of times and continue to do so. And instead of justly recognizing this evil and facing up to power (which when you do, you become an anarchist), you put other people on the defensive, claiming that the market would create these horrors. So the reason that you use this argument is because in your mind it's an incredibly powerful argument when used against *you*.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've missed my point again. I dont think the market creates these horrors, I think these horrors exist and a market has to deal with them as does a state. Which one deals with it better is part of my decision as to which system to support. I think it's naive to think there's a perfect system. I recognise that I may be supporting the worse system, but I also recognise I am not going to jump ship if ACists cant provide at least a hint of how these problems might be solved.

I didnt put you on the defensive, your psychology does that.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you haven't recognized that the problem you raise is embodied precisely in the system you support?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not supporting a system. I think there is a problem of cults wanting to acquire nuclear weapons with us not being able to distinguish when it's for weapons and when it's for some other purpose. Statism addresses this problem the way it addresses all of them - by using force to say "these cults can have them (ie us) and the rest cant". I am curious as to how ACists think the problem may be addressed in an AC society.

It's similar to the way there is a problem with how to deliver healthcare which can be fiendishly expensive to people when it's often the case that they need it when they can least afford it. I know how states say they do it and I've heard ACists speculate on how they think it would happen in AC. Asking "How would it work in AC?" doesnt imply I think the state is better - in fact, I would quite like to be persuaded the market is a better provider, but consider it too high risk to just jump in without at least an inkling of a solution.

I really struggle to see why you think the world is as simple as you say. Asking an ACist a question is moral support for statism? I dont know if you're trying to persuade people to embrace AC (I presume so) if that's the case, why not sketch out how you think it would work? You did that a few days ago with the "What if your neighbour was molesting his daughter?" question. What I'm trying to do is the same - accepting all the premises of AC (that states are coercive and monopolistic whilst the market is efficient and free) I know the coercive, monopolistic solution and you claim the free, market-driven solution is better (or at least no worse). That's fine, I'm interested. What is the solution?