Reactions to AC

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Why change something that is only slightly broken?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because our standard of living could be so much better. The government takes as much as possible without putting the majority of people into poverty. So long as people dont work a rediculous amount, have a good amount of entertainment, are relatively secure and in good health the government can take whatever else is left over. Freeing up the massive amounts of capital that is being wasted by the government could produce a society where people only have to work 2-3 days a week. Think of what kind of effect this would have on culture and human development. The government is not a small problem, you are just satisfied with what you have right now because you havent been exposed to the possibilities of a free society.

[ QUOTE ]
"The Market Will Decide" has become a statement of faith that it is infalliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The Market Will Decide" is in no way an infallible statement of faith. The problem is that to fully understand the effects of the free market it takes a lot of study. So you have people that have a laymans view of economics and a bunch of ACists who read and study a lot. "The Market Will Decide" is a foot note to the entire science of economics.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

100% agree here. The problem is that when you hear the same arguements over and over again its easy to get into a holier-than-thou mindset and I really wish people wouldnt do it, it doesnt help anyone. I would also hope that the statists realise that this is the internet, people are douchebags when they dont have to talk to people face to face. I hope the people that are here for honest debate can look past the occasional snotty post and try to see the actual ideas of AC not the people espousing them.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This really depends a lot on how AC comes into existance. I dont think its going to be in one fell swoop. I believe that as people experience more freedoms and wealth produced by the free market they will be less likely to give them up. Barring any huge catastrophe, I think the market will eventually outpace the government and people will have less need for it. The problem with communism wasnt neccessarily that the theory was bad, it was that it was universally imposed through violence by a small group of people. If communism could have been tried on a small scale people could have had time to realise how bad it was. This is what the free market is good at, trial and error and immediate feedback. Things will be constantly tweaked.

[TomCollins]

I forgot to also state that any time you bring up anything with an ACist, you are instantly wrong and need to be scorned. My post was regarding why people have the reactions they do when confronting ACists, and did not mean any personal beliefs.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to also state that any time you bring up anything with an ACist, you are instantly wrong and need to be scorned. My post was regarding why people have the reactions they do when confronting ACists, and did not mean any personal beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was just responding to why I disagree with those people. If someone is going to say something that an ACist disagrees with, whats wrong with the ACist trying to convince the person why they are wrong?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

You know, you guys keep saying this, but I can't find a definition of "property" that includes the word "scarce," particularly in the abnormal economic definition you seem to be using for "scarce."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

You know, you guys keep saying this, but I can't find a definition of "property" that includes the word "scarce," particularly in the abnormal economic definition you seem to be using for "scarce."

[/ QUOTE ]

This was poor sentence construction on my part. The "fact" was that this is "not scarce". The "because" part is (obviously) up for debate.

[jogger08152]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I thought the worse issue was that your implication (you know: that I was deliberately making false assumptions to bolster my intellectual dishonesty - remember?) bordered on libel, but I guess you should decide for yourself which of your errors you think is worst. Speaking only for myself, if I decided to slander someone in print, I'd try to get the spelling right.

Incidentally, does your incivility stem from your AC philosophy? Or is it just a personal failing?

[jogger08152]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no zealot like a convert.

Edit: Not that I'm necessarily aiming this at you - just pointing out that one needn't be born into their faith, and the ones born into it aren't necessarily the most ardent believers.

[jogger08152]

It just occurred to me: I think the reaction to AC is pretty similar to a typical reaction of (open-minded) atheists to Christianity when they "first" hear of it in detail.

Specifically, they start out hopeful, because AC promises a lot, but end up dubious because it has failings that appear intuitively obvious, and when it can't directly address 'em, it tends to resort to faith.

Not that this necessarily implies AC is "false" - it just makes it difficult for habitually sceptical folks to accept it as true.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It just occurred to me: I think the reaction to AC is pretty similar to a typical reaction of (open-minded) atheists to Christianity when they "first" hear of it in detail.

Specifically, they start out hopeful, because AC promises a lot, but end up dubious because it has failings that appear intuitively obvious, and when it can't directly address 'em, it tends to resort to faith.

Not that this necessarily implies AC is "false" - it just makes it difficult for habitually sceptical folks to accept it as true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, you have it completly backwards. AC, like atheism, is a default position. AC promises nothing. AC does nothing. Statism in its various forms are the empty promises, the faith-based belief. Trust us, give us the power, we won't use it against you.

[jogger08152]

I don't know man, I hear AC's talk about how AC will improve upon the totalitarianism of the state. Thus, it *does* make promises: that it will replace the state with something better, and not itself subsequently fail and be replaced by something worse.

I've also heard claims from AC's on here (and in one case, from a link someone posted) that AC would result in "highly paid workers", "freedom", "reduced crime", "reduced violence", "improved efficiency", and (my favorite) that AC is "more moral" than a state.

So AC, or at least its proponents, do seem to make promises.