Why Im no longer an ACist

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how that applies?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how that applies?

[/ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he never directly stated it, but I had to simplify things since you didn't understand the fallacy.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

valenzeula: ACists believe don't believe in freedom
ACists: Yes they do, they do not support coersion on someone.
valenzeula: Well, by true freedom, I mean the freedom to not be hungry and live forever.

He is twisting the definition of freedom beyond what is accepted and implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying "ACists don't believe in freedom". I think he was just disagreeing the AC concept of freedom. I thought his idea of "coercision by non-moral agents" was interesting and makes a good point. I don't doubt that ACists "believe in freedom" FWIW. I still don't see any fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he never directly stated it, but I had to simplify things since you didn't understand the fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your "simplification" amounts to a false characterization. Imo.

[natedogg]

Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.

and

[ QUOTE ]
Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”

[/ QUOTE ]

He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.

His argument, that some people have circumstances beyond their control and it's ok to use coercion to address that, is perfectly valid, although merely normative. But the libertarian argument against coercion is also merely normative.

However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done. Thus opposing the state's coercion in this matter means you are indifferent to the problem. Not so.

natedogg

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont redifine coercion, I just come up with a new type of coercion( the coercion I call" coercion caused my non-moral agents")


[ QUOTE ]
He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said Im not redefining anything, Im just coming up with a new concept.

[ QUOTE ]
However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? ACists constantly give more importance to "coercion done by moral agents" over "coercion done by the state of nature" If one type of coercion is constantly undermined you might as well say they dont care about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im implying that some force of natural state problems need a state not that ALL of those problem need a state.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with saying libertarians or ACists don't care. I just thought the rest of his point was a good one. I don't see anything wrong with expanding the definition of coercion. And the point works just as well IMO whether or not you call it "coercion". The point is that there are freedom-limiting factors that have nothing to do with coercion by moral agents. I like the argument, because I have socialist leanings, but I wouldn't expect minarchist or libertarian statists to like it much.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.

and

[ QUOTE ]
Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”

[/ QUOTE ]

He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.

His argument, that some people have circumstances beyond their control and it's ok to use coercion to address that, is perfectly valid, although merely normative. But the libertarian argument against coercion is also merely normative.

However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done. Thus opposing the state's coercion in this matter means you are indifferent to the problem. Not so.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post! Thanks.

[Poofler]

Weird to read this since I basically consider myself an extreme minarchist now, but not quite AC.

Too bad Borodog's distraught right now, that could be fun.