AC-ism in history?

[Felz]

There has never been any large society that even came close to ACism.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are quite wrong. For starters, what is a "corporation" where there is no government to define corporations under the tax and legal system?

Further, your entire set of posts in this thread seems to be based on the following unsupported belief: "Currently, big business attempts to control every aspect of my life and oppress me at every turn and the only thing stopping them is the government. I can't see how removing the government could result in anything other than more oppression by big business." Since anyone who believes in ACism will wholely reject this basis for your arguments, you can't have a serious discussion with them about the costs and benefits of more/less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asymmetric information, bargaining power and the likes are unheard of in AC land.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are quite wrong. For starters, what is a "corporation" where there is no government to define corporations under the tax and legal system?

Further, your entire set of posts in this thread seems to be based on the following unsupported belief: "Currently, big business attempts to control every aspect of my life and oppress me at every turn and the only thing stopping them is the government. I can't see how removing the government could result in anything other than more oppression by big business." Since anyone who believes in ACism will wholely reject this basis for your arguments, you can't have a serious discussion with them about the costs and benefits of more/less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asymmetric information, bargaining power and the likes are unheard of in AC land.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you derive that from my post?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
PVN,

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone agrees that personal initiation of violence is -MV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly isn't true. e.g. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

'The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."'

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read more carefully if you're going to waste time digging up polling stats that don't apply to someone's statement. Unless those polled are the ones flying across the world to bomb civilians, we can throw this one out.

[ QUOTE ]
Take a more personal example. You're standing in a group of people talking on your mobile phone at a bus stop. A woman collapses clutching her chest, apparently having a heart attack. The people there ask you to use your mobile to phone for an ambulance. If you refuse then most people will agree that they're justified in taking it from you, violently if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that when pvn says "everyone", he clearly does not mean the very small percentage of people who murder, steal and rape on a personal level. I would guess this is about the same percentage of people that would flat out refuse to dial 9-1-1 for someone who is dying right in front of them. So we can dispense with the highly unlikely and outright ridiculous hypotheticals too.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’m trying to find the closest societies to AC-ism beliefs. What would that be?

For me AC-ism beliefs have much more in common with times of Wild West or times of industrial revolution than to modern societies.

I find it difficult to accept that living in such unregulated societies would be better or even more fair to the most population. I doubt a society where profits are put above the people would lead to any freedom at all since people would have only as much freedom / rights as they could afford it.

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems much more similar to corporatism than to a freedom society to me.

So, what could be examples of societies similar to AC-ism in history? Does this sound close enough: Large corporations working hand in hand with repressive regimes and employing private militias and militaries to violate people’s rights in Central America?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly it. All AC supporters are big fans of oppression and restricting peoples rights that's why they're behind it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't want it, but their poorly thought out ideas usually lead to something similar, and very rarely lead to the utopia of a land w/o government that they promise.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
No they don't want it, but their poorly thought out ideas usually lead to something similar, and very rarely lead to the utopia of a land w/o government that they promise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look - any proponent of any social or political system that claims that a utopia will result is obviously wrong. Anyone who says that an absence of government would create a utopia is obviously wrong. Failing to understand (or failing to even try to understand) what someone is saying and dismissing it as a "utopian fantasy" because it challenges your preconceived notions does not qualify as conclusive evidence that what they are saying is wrong. While I am all for challenging the AC majority on this board, opponents of AC in this particular thread have absolutely failed to indicate that they understand ACism well enought to forecast it's outcome.

"But you'll be giving all the power to corporations."
"I can't believe in a system that promises utopia."
"Profits over people is evil - no way I can support AC."

Etc, etc, etc. These statements indicate an ignorance of anarchocapitalism, not arguments against it.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that when pvn says "everyone", he clearly does not mean the very small percentage of people who murder, steal and rape on a personal level. I would guess this is about the same percentage of people that would flat out refuse to dial 9-1-1 for someone who is dying right in front of them. So we can dispense with the highly unlikely and outright ridiculous hypotheticals too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not completely on point, but I wouldn't be so certain that people will call for help Kitty Genovese

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if Hitler had conquered us in WWII, that would have been a failure of our form of government? Interesting theory, but I don't agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also all those democracies that were overthrown by the US show that democracy is a failure and totalitarianism is a success.

[/ QUOTE ]

If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]
A stateless Ireland lasted a thousand years before they were conquered by the British (essentially the Death Star at the time). That's quite a lot longer than any democracy has ever lasted.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Laughably hideously wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for reply. Since i really don't know much about AC, could someone give me some help in explaining which mentioned human rights would be greater in AC-ism? Thx for reply (and please don't give me some links; just try to explain it in a few words please).

[calmB4storm]

Wikipedia:
[ QUOTE ]
A few groups, such as conceptually divide rights into negative and positive rights. By this distinction, "negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American legal tradition of natural rights, are rights that a government and/or private entities may never take action to remove. For example, right to life and security of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of speech, religion, assembly; the right to bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see how the government is better at protecting any of these. Do you?