Reactions to AC

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
only that it is more likely for one who has not thought things through to be a statist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't object to this, i.e. as somebody mentioned religion works this way as well.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite simply, people don't like to have their Faith questioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this forum I find the AC'ists in average to be more defensive than "statists" FWIW.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My initial reaction to AC was scepticism tinged with hope - the possibilities get the blood flowing, but the intuitive objections are daunting.

Having kicked the idea around for a while, I find my scepticism increased, largely because of the sound syllogisms I'm not reading in specific cases that seem especially important to me.

In some ways I'm reminded of the "Underpants Gnomes" episode of South Park:

1. Remove intellectual property protection.
2. ?
3. Profit!

I haven't been able to figure out #2 yet, and nobody else has given a sound answer either. Of course this doesn't mean it can't be done, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense at all. Why do you assume there would be no IP protection a free market?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't assume it. I simply recognized that, since almost every AC who has spoken of IP has scoffed at it, they believed there would be no such protections. (Your response right here may be the only exception in fact.)

[ QUOTE ]
If the cultural norm is that ideas can be owned, then there will be IP and IP protection. Just because many of the people who advocate free market anarchy personally believe that ideas shouldn't be considered property does not in any way imply that this would be the result of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
...but you can't be sure because you can't predict market-driven outcomes so it might or might not be protected and yadda yadda...

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's right; makeing false assumptions allows you to support your preconceived notions that it must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't "makeing" any assumptions. I asked about AC's implications for IP, and AC's proponents answered universally in the negative. (One put property in quotes: 'intellectual "property"'. Others tried to explain that good ideas are not scarce - I can have one and give it to you, and now we both have it - and therefore did not need protection. At least one other talked about how AC is more "moral" than statism, et al.)

Certainly nobody, yourself included, has offered any vision of market-driven solutions to the IP issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you appear to hold a different view, I'll ask you: do you believe IP leads to, or stifles, progress? If the former, what proposals do you believe AC might offer in order to ensure IP's protection (and thereby promote scientific and technological progress)? If the latter, please explain your thinking.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't assume it. I simply recognized that, since almost every AC who has spoken of IP has scoffed at it, they believed there would be no such protections. (Your response right here may be the only exception in fact.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an ACist and I believe there will be some sort of protections for IP in AC. This may not come in the form of laws but you sure as hell better believe that those people that produce intellectual property will find ways to protect it. AC does not mean there will be no legal system. So mabey if you want to purchase from an IP producer they arent going to sell to you if you arent signed up to one of the major legal companies that provide protections for IP.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't assume it. I simply recognized that, since almost every AC who has spoken of IP has scoffed at it, they believed there would be no such protections. (Your response right here may be the only exception in fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed a key point. There would be no *coercive, pre-emptive* protections.

[ QUOTE ]
...but you can't be sure because you can't predict market-driven outcomes so it might or might not be protected and yadda yadda...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! You can't be sure. Just like we can't be sure that ponies will evolve from primordial goop.

[ QUOTE ]
(One put property in quotes: 'intellectual "property"'. Others tried to explain that good ideas are not scarce - I can have one and give it to you, and now we both have it

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two are the same thing! It is not "property" because it is *not scarce*. This isn't a debatable opinion, it's fact.

[ QUOTE ]
- and therefore did not need protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! Read it again. If you want to protect something, go right ahead. What we're talking about here is coercive protection, protection that it subsidized through force. That is not going to happen without a state.

[ QUOTE ]
At least one other talked about how AC is more "moral" than statism, et al.)

Certainly nobody, yourself included, has offered any vision of market-driven solutions to the IP issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't offered up any visions of what car I'd like to buy, either.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quite simply, people don't like to have their Faith questioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this forum I find the AC'ists in average to be more defensive than "statists" FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I dont see how you can call AC faith. I dont think any ACer was born into an AC family or social structure. At the very least you have to admit that every ACist has come to their conclusions through actually thinking about the problem for themselves. Its like saying that athiests dont like having their faith questioned.

Secondly, I dont think either side is more or less defensive. Both sides at times produce productive arguements and at times produce sarcastic trollish remarks. The problem is, is that statist can get away with it because they are just miming the staus quo. ACist on the other hand are only doing themselves a disservice by replying to statists in negative ways. AC will get no where if its presented in a negative way.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Those two are the same thing! It is not "property" because it is *not scarce*. This isn't a debatable opinion, it's fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn,

Can you post some good links on the AC definition of property. *Not scarce* is a fact, not property is not.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My initial reaction to AC was scepticism tinged with hope - the possibilities get the blood flowing, but the intuitive objections are daunting.

Having kicked the idea around for a while, I find my scepticism increased, largely because of the sound syllogisms I'm not reading in specific cases that seem especially important to me.

In some ways I'm reminded of the "Underpants Gnomes" episode of South Park:

1. Remove intellectual property protection.
2. ?
3. Profit!

I haven't been able to figure out #2 yet, and nobody else has given a sound answer either. Of course this doesn't mean it can't be done, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense at all. Why do you assume there would be no IP protection a free market?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't assume it. I simply recognized that, since almost every AC who has spoken of IP has scoffed at it, they believed there would be no such protections. (Your response right here may be the only exception in fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they scoff at the idea does not mean that the market will not produce it. I scoff at lots of things the market produces as stupid ideas, yet still they get produced.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the cultural norm is that ideas can be owned, then there will be IP and IP protection. Just because many of the people who advocate free market anarchy personally believe that ideas shouldn't be considered property does not in any way imply that this would be the result of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
...but you can't be sure because you can't predict market-driven outcomes so it might or might not be protected and yadda yadda...

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? How hard is this to understand? If the majority of people believe that IP should exist and be protected, it will exist and be protected in free market courts because those courts provide what people want. I have no idea what the actual details would look like, because it would have to be totally arbitrary, given that ideas really *aren't* scarce.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's right; makeing false assumptions allows you to support your preconceived notions that it must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't "makeing" any assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh. Got me on a typo. Youe certainely aere thee maseter debaeter.

[ QUOTE ]
I asked about AC's implications for IP, and AC's proponents answered universally in the negative. (One put property in quotes: 'intellectual "property"'. Others tried to explain that good ideas are not scarce - I can have one and give it to you, and now we both have it - and therefore did not need protection. At least one other talked about how AC is more "moral" than statism, et al.)

[/ QUOTE ]

None of which have anything to do with whether IP would be protected in the free market; only their personal opinions on whether or not they should. In my personal opinion I believe copyright would probably exist, but patents probably wouldn't. But there's no way to show this, any more than I could show that chicken would be more popular than steak in a free market society. It is entirely a matter of cultural norm, and the culture that would have to exist to put a free market society in place would have to be radically different from our own.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly nobody, yourself included, has offered any vision of market-driven solutions to the IP issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. You might as well say, "Certainly nobody, yourself included, has offered any vision of market-driven solutions to how to make pencils." People value pencils, they get made. If people value IP protection it will be produced by free market courts, because the courts that do not reflect the values of the consumers will not be patronized.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you appear to hold a different view, I'll ask you: do you believe IP leads to, or stifles, progress? If the former, what proposals do you believe AC might offer in order to ensure IP's protection (and thereby promote scientific and technological progress)? If the latter, please explain your thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained before that in my opinion it obviously stifles progress. IP protection is monopoly, and anyone who thinks that monopoly engenders innovation really needs to rethink their position:



An example I've used before, expanded a little:

Scenario 1: You and Og live in the same village. You invent the wheel and start selling them, making a high profit. Og sees this brilliant idea and "steals" it, and starts making and selling wheels himself, undercutting you. You gather up some thugs and beat him up, forcing him to "cease and desist", and continue selling your same wheel at monopoly prices.

Scenario 2: You and Og live in the same vilagge. You invent the wheel and start selling them, making a high profit. Og sees this brilliant idea and "steals" it, and starts making and selling wheels himself, undercutting you. To stay ahead of the competition, you not only cut your prices, you make your wheel more durable. Then Og comes up with the idea of greasing the axels of his wheels so that they turn more easily with less wear. Then you lower wheel weight by replacing your solid disk wheels with ring and spoke wheels. Etc.

Which scenario leads to more innovation? Which leads to lower prices for the consumer?

[Barcalounger]

People come to this forum because they see problems in the current system and want to fix it. They have tweaks and changes that they think are best and want to discuss them. AC'ist tells them to scrap the system altogether. But people are naturally more comfortable with incremental changes and the complete destruction of the system fills them with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Even if they think that it might in theory be a solid end game, they're apprehensive. They start OP with questions about how AC takes care of something even though the answer will always be "AC doesn't take care of anything, the market will figure it out". They find out what people think the market solution MIGHT be to something then try to poke holes in it. Usually out of curiosity, but it puts AC'ists on the defensive because now they have the impossible task to defend every little detail on a proposed market solution that would exist in a world without regulations that we've never seen. When in reality it isn't up to the individual AC'ist to fix every problem in AC land, the market will bear it out.

So then they move on and they post in threads and detail what tweaks to the system they think are best. AC'ist #1 responds "the real solution is to get rid of the system". Then AC'ist #2 says "your solution still has a system existing, so it must be coercive". And finally AC'ist #3 says "ZOMG! Quit being such a jack booted thug and trying to make me buy your hot dogs". Now instead of debating about tweaks to the system, the non-AC'ist has to defend the system itself which is next to impossible because there are obviously flaws in the system which was the reason they came to the forum in the first place. I know I don't want to constantly defend every little thing a system that's been around for centuries has done, especially against people who don't even recognize the legitimacy of said system.

So with 2 groups that are exhausted by constantly defending the indefensible, I think it's pretty obvious why there's a lot of scoffing, pronouncements from a position of ignorance, and high and mighty posts from both sides when discussing AC.

[TomCollins]

The main reason why people react so strongly to ACists is due to a few things-

1) Change. People do not like changes. Especially significant changes. The current system works alright. There are property rights. There is security. There is low crime. It's not perfect, but its not chaos. Why change something that is only slightly broken?

2) Uncertainty. When you remove all of the structures in place and start again, you risk having a situation where things are MUCH worse. ACists have said you cannot predict what will happen (although they have guesses). "The Market Will Decide" has become a statement of faith that it is infalliable. I'm not a big fan of blind faith and neither are a lot of people. The market could provide a lot of things that would suck for a lot of people. No one knows what will happen, and that scares a lot of people.

3) General douchebaggery of (some) ACist posters. A lot of ACists here come across as douchebags or just insane. I'm not going to name names, but they certainly don't win people over with their charm. But then again, neither does Sklansky.

4) History of extremist ideas. Most extremist ideas have resulted in some slight miscalculation that has totally made the system useless. Marx is a good example, as Borodog has pointed out in the past. He had a lot right... except time preferences. If ACists have missed one little detail, it could be the difference between a society that protects property rights and Hobbsian Anarchy.