AC scenario!!!

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex, youre basically saying that you support a democratic goverment and using guns to force people who dont agree to your ideas to pay for the transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the part where I didn't say anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didnt say it directly but I infered it from the part on where you complain about liberatarians not voting and on the part in which you talk about minarchist liberterianism, btw minarchy means a state that uses coercion ,taxes people and has big guns!! (well maybe its only small guns since its minarchy).
Im intrested on how you plan on making the transition from statism to AC without never using a democraticly elected goverment.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Until you get a government that ignores the strict interpretation of its constitution in favor of a more "flexible" one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is why you have checks and balances.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we all know how well those work...

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I already said. The ACist hypothetical situation is indeed better than the proposed real life one. I don't find it to be a particularily earthshattering conclusion though. That is true for many political ideologies.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex, youre basically saying that you support a democratic goverment and using guns to force people who dont agree to your ideas to pay for the transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the part where I didn't say anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didnt say it directly but I infered it from the part on where you complain about liberatarians not voting and on the part in which you talk about minarchist liberterianism, btw minarchy means a state that uses coercion ,taxes people and has big guns!! (well maybe its only small guns since its minarchy).
Im intrested on how you plan on making the transition from statism to AC without never using a democraticly elected goverment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that AC would be better than having a government? If you don't agree with that then it doesn't matter.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Until you get a government that ignores the strict interpretation of its constitution in favor of a more "flexible" one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is why you have checks and balances.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we all know how well those work...

[/ QUOTE ]

The checks and balances as well as Constitutional protections are still better than you would get in ACland. Sure, they aren't perfect and a supermajority can push through a lot of things (this is more difficult to do than people make it sound like), but it is still a protection that doesn't exist in many other systems.


I suppose it is easier to argue on the side that has no real world examples that exist --- when every response to a failure is either "so what" or "my theoretical system will correct that. How? I do not know, but it will." Our current system evolves (as would an AC "system.") However, one of the benefits of the current systems evolutionary track over an AC one is that there are built-in (albeit imperfect) protections in place that increase stability and decrease the chances for potential abuse. While the predictability of the current system certainly leads to some stagnation, that predictability is also an asset. Knowing how the system will work in a hypothetical situation, with a fair degree of certainty, is a great asset.

[pvn]

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

Until you get a government that ignores the strict interpretation of its constitution in favor of a more "flexible" one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is why you have checks and balances.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we all know how well those work...

[/ QUOTE ]

The checks and balances as well as Constitutional protections are still better than you would get in ACland. Sure, they aren't perfect and a supermajority can push through a lot of things (this is more difficult to do than people make it sound like), but it is still a protection that doesn't exist in many other systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market is a much greater check and balance. If you take every person in the US Congress, and manage to get them in perfect agreement, they still couldn't create something like the current war in Iraq under a free market. They quite simply wouldn't be able to pay for it.

Democracy is flawed because it measures preferences in a vacuum, without context. A voter sees something like "gay marriage?" on a ballot. He's not interested in marrying a guy, so he marks no. It costs him nothing.

In a market, where you have to actually pay for stuff, support for violent suppression of gay marriage dries up pretty quick.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it is easier to argue on the side that has no real world examples that exist --- when every response to a failure is either "so what" or "my theoretical system will correct that. How? I do not know, but it will."

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite, please.

[ QUOTE ]
Our current system evolves (as would an AC "system.") However, one of the benefits of the current systems evolutionary track over an AC one is that there are built-in (albeit imperfect) protections in place that increase stability and decrease the chances for potential abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're ignoring the fact that the abuse those protections protect against are only possible in the first place because of the system. It's like saying "we're going to release this tiger into a crowded movie theater. But it's OK, because we have a shock collar on it, which will (probably) stop it from eating anyone. You advocate no tiger, but you have NO PROTECTIONS!!!!"

[ QUOTE ]
While the predictability of the current system certainly leads to some stagnation, that predictability is also an asset. Knowing how the system will work in a hypothetical situation, with a fair degree of certainty, is a great asset.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to live in a stagnant, predictable environment, I'm sure we can find someone in a free market who will provide a hovel for you and shield you from the outside world.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex, youre basically saying that you support a democratic goverment and using guns to force people who dont agree to your ideas to pay for the transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the part where I didn't say anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didnt say it directly but I infered it from the part on where you complain about liberatarians not voting and on the part in which you talk about minarchist liberterianism, btw minarchy means a state that uses coercion ,taxes people and has big guns!! (well maybe its only small guns since its minarchy).
Im intrested on how you plan on making the transition from statism to AC without never using a democraticly elected goverment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that AC would be better than having a government? If you don't agree with that then it doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that AC > Goverment, however its not going to happen, its that simple.
Politics is about having plausible solutions not fantasizing about a magical world with hookers & blow.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Politics is about having plausible solutions not fantasizing about a magical world with hookers & blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's magical?

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are hookers and blow in the world we live in right now. The only difference is in Magic Land you can procure these goods and services from more reputable dealers in a more cost effective manner and that you would not face the risk of spending some of your life locked behind bars if certain other people find out about it.

That sounds more like common sense than magic.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Politics is about having plausible solutions not fantasizing about a magical world with hookers & blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's magical?

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are hookers and blow in the world we live in right now. The only difference is in Magic Land you can procure these goods and services from more reputable dealers in a more cost effective manner and that you would not face the risk of spending some of your life locked behind bars if certain other people find out about it.

That sounds more like common sense than magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was using an hyperbole, plus legalizing drugs and prositutes is no where as hard as doing the AC jump.
The thing is that I have yet seen a good strategy to make the transition.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it is easier to argue on the side that has no real world examples that exist

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, the AC crowd has a much tougher road to plow than the statists because all you are doing is arguing for the status quo, they have to try and convince people to switch to a system that is radically different.

[ALawPoker]

The best strategy I can think of is to stop being opposed to it on those grounds. All you have to worry about is yourself and your actions. The rest of the pieces will fall where they will fall, as other people worry about themselves and their actions. And when enough people understand/embrace the non-aggression principle, the "might" will catch up to the "right."

The whole point of what makes freedom work is that we mere mortals CAN'T predict and mold exactly what the outcome will or should be. I mean, people could toss out general ideas for what might occur, but ultimately, if you accept the goodness and merits of voluntarism, I don't what sense it makes to be looking for a planned solution to the current problem (since the whole point is that the best result will occur when people just act freely on what is in their best interest).