AC question

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously. What's with the rape? What's the need to use that kind of discussion tactics? I am very open to anarchistic ideas, but it's really hard to agree with 90% of your posts Nielso.

[/ QUOTE ]


Rape is standard in state prisons. Anyone throwing them in that dungeon is 100% responsible for those acts as well.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Rape is standard in state prisons. Anyone throwing them in that dungeon is 100% responsible for those acts as well.

[/ QUOTE ] The only reason that statement makes sense to you is that you think "throwing them in that dungeon" is something we have no right to in the first place.

If I rape someone in ACland I will be excluded from society. Maybe I then rape again, and I probably wouldn't have gotten a chance to do that if I was in prison. People can now say that you support rape because you support anarchy. But it's stupid, they are wrong and it's a horrible way to discuss.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I said I think capitalism is a sound principle, and trade and the market are certainly one of the singular most greatest achievements of mankind which has furthered our advances alot. I also salute the non-aggression ideals of AC, even if I poke fun at them at times (that's the pragmatic in me talking). But I don't think it is enough no, sometimes I think we need a counterweight to the market to point us in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]


You may want to realize that 'counterweight to the market' means 'murder, rape and extortion', because the market = voluntary and peaceful interaction.

You have not provided any reasoning for violent aggression; and it's easy to see why; because you simply haven't made the realization of what it is you are arguing for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is always nice when you can argue by putting words in people's mouths which they have never uttered, it makes an argument easy I reckon. I can't take you seriously when you debate your proposed system in this manner. Atleast other AC debaters show a more pragmatic and much less fanatic stance in their arguments - they disagree with me, which I respect. Debates such as these are necessary, because if nothing else then AC can point to flaws in the existing system. You debate like a train out of control and point your finger at people who debate with you and throw accusations wildly around you.

No, the truth is I that I simply don't believe your proposed system will lead to lesser accounts of murder, rape and extortion, because I think the proposed reasoning why such acts are performed is fundamentally flawed.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, what if you own a piece of land, and consistent with AC principles you pay a toll to pass through the land of others on your way to work as there is no gov't to provide roads. But what if all your neighbors voluntarily collude to deny you that right of way for any price? That is, they deny you access to market in a way where you have no competitive options? What then? Do you just hunker down and raise crops and try to eke out a living? Or is denial of access to market a violation that gives you the right to use violence to redress? Assume for this case you either have no way to group with others to use similar means to try to reach a negotiated solution.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have just described a state.

And no: extortion is not a voluntary association.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nielso,

So are you saying that individuals in AC cannot *voluntarily* associate for their own monetary benefit to deny market access to other parties?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, what if you own a piece of land, and consistent with AC principles you pay a toll to pass through the land of others on your way to work as there is no gov't to provide roads. But what if all your neighbors voluntarily collude to deny you that right of way for any price? That is, they deny you access to market in a way where you have no competitive options? What then? Do you just hunker down and raise crops and try to eke out a living? Or is denial of access to market a violation that gives you the right to use violence to redress? Assume for this case you either have no way to group with others to use similar means to try to reach a negotiated solution.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have just described a state.

And no: extortion is not a voluntary association.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nielso,

So are you saying that individuals in AC cannot *voluntarily* associate for their own monetary benefit to deny market access to other parties?

[/ QUOTE ]


First of all, you are contradicting yourself:

[ QUOTE ]
all your neighbors voluntarily collude to deny you that right of way for any price

[/ QUOTE ]


Second of all, colluding with others in order to starve another human being and disallowing him right of way is called murder.

You've designed this example to blame the market and thus justifiy the state; it's quite obvious.

If I and my buddy decide to murder someone else then this obviously has nothing to do with voluntarism, and you know that quite well.


If you had been in a voluntaryist mindset of trying to look for voluntary solutions, then the conclusions of the above would be to include non-extortion and right-of-way in contracts, and the penalty for doing it anyway would be a million dollars per day. *That's* voluntarism.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rape is standard in state prisons. Anyone throwing them in that dungeon is 100% responsible for those acts as well.

[/ QUOTE ] The only reason that statement makes sense to you is that you think "throwing them in that dungeon" is something we have no right to in the first place.

If I rape someone in ACland I will be excluded from society. Maybe I then rape again, and I probably wouldn't have gotten a chance to do that if I was in prison. People can now say that you support rape because you support anarchy. But it's stupid, they are wrong and it's a horrible way to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but my list {murder, rape, extortion} are examples of non-voluntarism or 'aggression'.


When someone invokes 'a counterweight to the market', then they are outright supporting these actions.

And if we look at reality then this shortlist of aggression is exactly what statists support. They support the agents of the United States to throw them into cages where they are raped. If they wouldn't support rape then they wouldn't throw and keep them in there.

I've spoken to a number of white Americans who are very affraid of jail exactly because of that. I can also find you some letters of people who went through this, but I'll spare you the details for now.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I said I think capitalism is a sound principle, and trade and the market are certainly one of the singular most greatest achievements of mankind which has furthered our advances alot. I also salute the non-aggression ideals of AC, even if I poke fun at them at times (that's the pragmatic in me talking). But I don't think it is enough no, sometimes I think we need a counterweight to the market to point us in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]


You may want to realize that 'counterweight to the market' means 'murder, rape and extortion', because the market = voluntary and peaceful interaction.

You have not provided any reasoning for violent aggression; and it's easy to see why; because you simply haven't made the realization of what it is you are arguing for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is always nice when you can argue by putting words in people's mouths which they have never uttered, it makes an argument easy I reckon. I can't take you seriously when you debate your proposed system in this manner. Atleast other AC debaters show a more pragmatic and much less fanatic stance in their arguments - they disagree with me, which I respect. Debates such as these are necessary, because if nothing else then AC can point to flaws in the existing system. You debate like a train out of control and point your finger at people who debate with you and throw accusations wildly around you.

No, the truth is I that I simply don't believe your proposed system will lead to lesser accounts of murder, rape and extortion, because I think the proposed reasoning why such acts are performed is fundamentally flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have asked you numerous times to show how the aggression that you support can be defended morally.

I have not received an answer.


User John Kildoff raised the same quasi-argument btw, and this was my response:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post12009596

[tame_deuces]

Erm, quote me where I support aggression and where you ask me to defend it please.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Second of all, colluding with others in order to starve another human being and disallowing him right of way is called murder.

[/ QUOTE ]


And what if there is not collusion and the price for right of way is freely set by the market, *but that other person can't afford it and will starve if he can't get to work*?

[wtfsvi]

I'm not arguing against that throwing you in prison will increase the chance of you getting raped. And you should not argue against that not jailing rapists will increase the number of people getting raped. That doesn't mean you support rape, just like none of what tame_deuces said suggest that he supports rape.