AC scenario!!!

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people on this board have convinced you that AC > govnement but you're asking them what they intend to do about bring it about. It seems to me that they've done about 1000 times more to bring it about than you have. We're here building a tidal wall the only way we know how brick by tiny microscopic brick and you have the gall to ask us what we're doing about freedom when you haven't lifted a finger? Muck in get your metaphorical hands dirty and start building with us. Or don't bother but then you don't get to to ask what is your solution. This is my solution and it's working a damn sight better than anything that's been tried in the past.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are not arguing for the status quo. No matter how hard these ACists try to sell that, someone supporting a state solution does _not_ have to be opposed to change - not even radical change.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are not arguing for the status quo. No matter how hard these ACists try to sell that, someone supporting a state solution does _not_ have to be opposed to change.

So this is blatantly wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're all arguing for a solution that involved the initiation of violence being virtuous. Every statist says taxation is a net positive they just disagree on the amount and where it should be spent.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are not arguing for the status quo. No matter how hard these ACists try to sell that, someone supporting a state solution does _not_ have to be opposed to change.

So this is blatantly wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're all arguing for a solution that involved the initiation of violence being virtuous. Every statist says taxation is a net positive they just disagree on the amount and where it should be spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

And all ACists say taxation is a negative. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because having base principle doesn't mean you oppose change.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are not arguing for the status quo. No matter how hard these ACists try to sell that, someone supporting a state solution does _not_ have to be opposed to change.

So this is blatantly wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're all arguing for a solution that involved the initiation of violence being virtuous. Every statist says taxation is a net positive they just disagree on the amount and where it should be spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

And all ACists say taxation is a negative. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because having base principle doesn't mean you oppose change.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we say that all forms of the initiation of violence are wrong no matter their intent or outcome. Well I do anyway I don't deign to speak for all ACists. I sure that there could be certain fringe situations where a system of taxation could be a net positive certainly monetary wise or equality wise or perhaps even ex post facto utility wise but it is the principle that I oppose and that does underly and is core to every discussion I have.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

No we say that all forms of the initiation of violence are wrong no matter their intent or outcome. Well I do anyway I don't deign to speak for all ACists. I sure that there could be certain fringe situations where a system of taxation could be a net positive certainly monetary wise or equality wise or perhaps even ex post facto utility wise but it is the principle that I oppose and that does underly and is core to every discussion I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I respect that viewpoint, even if it is not my viewpoint or my principle.

But I don't have to be an ACist to see that there are bad practices going on and I do want change. Corruption and elitism exists and are in many democratic countries beginning to threaten the principles I support.

Politicians are more and more chosen by parties from a singular pool of people, voter participation is dropping, crime is rising, and there are in many places too much relations between the agencies of the checks&balances. If this corruption can't be stopped in the current incarnation of the state (and it does look like it is spreading) then it is flawed and must change radically or the state has no legitimacy by my standards either.

So opposition to change is not the 'core' of our disagreement.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a security firm (in a competitive market) risk their reputation by imprisoning someone they know is innocent? That's suicide.

The instance of this happening is way more plausible in the world today. And it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

See it's posts like this that show your idealistic and non-compromising fervor.

You assert that it is suicide for security firms to be unfair. Why? As long as there's a market for these firms, they could exist in this hypothetical. People don't have to unanimously approve of a security firm for it to find plenty of customers who don't mind it locking up innocent people -- in fact, that might be exactly why they'd hire it, depending on what sort of innocent people it is locking up.

Then you assert that this in fact is more plausible today and not even close. That may or may not be the case. I think our justice system is a shambles. But I couldn't make definitive statements about how a purely hypothetical justice system might compare. And frankly, I don't have to in order to still want anarchy over government. But you can't leave it at that. You and others like you feel compelled to repeatedly make unfounded assertions that you feel are "proof" of the righteousness of your belief system. And frankly, I think it does anarchist thought a disservice. "I don't know but here's what I speculate might happen..." is a wonderful answer. Try it sometime.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a security firm (in a competitive market) risk their reputation by imprisoning someone they know is innocent? That's suicide.

The instance of this happening is way more plausible in the world today. And it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

See it's posts like this that show your idealistic and non-compromising fervor.

You assert that it is suicide for security firms to be unfair. Why? As long as there's a market for these firms, they could exist in this hypothetical. People don't have to unanimously approve of a security firm for it to find plenty of customers who don't mind it locking up innocent people -- in fact, that might be exactly why they'd hire it, depending on what sort of innocent people it is locking up.

Then you assert that this in fact is more plausible today and not even close. That may or may not be the case. I think our justice system is a shambles. But I couldn't make definitive statements about how a purely hypothetical justice system might compare. And frankly, I don't have to in order to still want anarchy over government. But you can't leave it at that. You and others like you feel compelled to repeatedly make unfounded assertions that you feel are "proof" of the righteousness of your belief system. And frankly, I think it does anarchist thought a disservice. "I don't know but here's what I speculate might happen..." is a wonderful answer. Try it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[foal]

I think ALaw is approaching troll status.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I think ALaw is approaching troll status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be sure to keep us up to date.