? for ACists: Drawbacks of an AC society?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the exact opposite is the case now in about 35-40 of the 50 states, where the federal gov't expressly protects and subsidizes abortion against the will of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to hijack but this is an exaggeration.

The 21 states the advocacy group considers at high risk of banning abortion are: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The nine at middle risk, according to the report: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

The 20 at lower risk: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread is effing huge, and I'm sure this question has been asked before. Sorry.

What are the chances that an AC society eventually morph into a government run society? Basically a gang forms and imposes their will on others through force, establishing a sort of government. Is this ok to AC'ers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on scientifically repeatable experiments (ie all of history) the probability approaches 100%, and BPCVP's "shining moment" will have been extremely destructive to technological advancement and consumer protection, among other things.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this thread is effing huge, and I'm sure this question has been asked before. Sorry.

What are the chances that an AC society eventually morph into a government run society? Basically a gang forms and imposes their will on others through force, establishing a sort of government. Is this ok to AC'ers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to 1969, based on scientifically repeatable experiments (ie all of history) the probability of man landing on the moon approaches 0%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[iron81]

Even the Republicans in Illinois are pro-choice and its listed as middle risk. That list is likely bunk.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is how do you define "animal torturer?" Some would call any use of animals torture. Some might draw the line at the way we treat veal or meat animals in general, and some might draw the line at abusing pets. Some may consider animals to be no different than things and not even abusable. I don't see how an anarchist society can realistically find the arbitrary line that people will accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

There doesn't need to be an arbitrary line that all people will accept, since decentralization will allow different answers to such questions to 'rule' in different areas.

[ QUOTE ]
As such, would it be ok in AC for me to kill the owner of a meat company that's producing non-free range meat? How could it not be?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're asking a question about what is in accord with the libertarian theory of rights, then the answer is clearly 'no', since animals don't have rights.
But some sub-divisions of an anarchist society might have laws against non-free range meat (or all meat, or whatever). I still don't think killing the person would be an ethical way of dealing with the problem, but again, acceptable (ie, legal) responses to problems may vary from community to community.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem I see with animal rights. When I look at the kinds of things many libertarians say about animal rights, they very clearly believe that they should be able to treat animals X way because they are "just animals." The animal rights activists aren't going to tolerate what they see as abhorrent behavior though, and they will fight. The government keeps this in check because people focus their fighting energy towards legislation instead of actual violence. I am uncertain that this could be accomplished in an anarchist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me add this to what I say above: I agree that animal rights could pose a more serious problem than most. The issue seems a bit like that of slavery, in the sense that while I think decentralization will help alleviate the problem, obv. having any subsection of an anarchist society enslave fellow human beings is a problem (both because its wrong, and because it is the type of wrong others in different will feel justified in using violence to bring to an end).
I'm not sure I agree, though, that the situation will be more problematic or more violent than it is under government (disagreements may lead to violence, but the government wasn't able to get rid of slavery w/o a huge bloody war).
I think a lot rests on whether other animals really have the same natural rights (self-ownership) that humans do. (If they do, then I would think emancipation through violence might be better than watered-down legislation).
In any case, I'm not really convinced that anything rests on whether the society is anarchist or statist, in the sense that one will be violent on this issue and the other won't. I would tend to think that, at the very least, an anarchist society would allow for reasonable differences in opinion (and compromise between different communities) on the issue.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, animal rights activists may feel it's a drawback that they can't impose their ideas for how everyone should treat animals on the rest of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't, then child molestation by parents can't be stopped either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it can

[ QUOTE ]
The same methods used to stop child molestation will be used to stop people from eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't ignore the near universal rejection of child molestation (ldo, it's clearly illegal in the moral sense) whereas vegetarians have nowhere near enough clout to force everyone to follow their way of thinking without a state.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, animal rights activists may feel it's a drawback that they can't impose their ideas for how everyone should treat animals on the rest of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't, then child molestation by parents can't be stopped either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it can

[ QUOTE ]
The same methods used to stop child molestation will be used to stop people from eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't ignore the near universal rejection of child molestation (ldo, it's clearly illegal in the moral sense) whereas vegetarians have nowhere near enough clout to force everyone to follow their way of thinking without a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a legislator woudl have nowhere near enough clout to pass such a law with a state.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, animal rights activists may feel it's a drawback that they can't impose their ideas for how everyone should treat animals on the rest of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't, then child molestation by parents can't be stopped either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it can

[ QUOTE ]
The same methods used to stop child molestation will be used to stop people from eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't ignore the near universal rejection of child molestation (ldo, it's clearly illegal in the moral sense) whereas vegetarians have nowhere near enough clout to force everyone to follow their way of thinking without a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a legislator woudl have nowhere near enough clout to pass such a law with a state.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bill Frist would disagree with you.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, animal rights activists may feel it's a drawback that they can't impose their ideas for how everyone should treat animals on the rest of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't, then child molestation by parents can't be stopped either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it can

[ QUOTE ]
The same methods used to stop child molestation will be used to stop people from eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't ignore the near universal rejection of child molestation (ldo, it's clearly illegal in the moral sense) whereas vegetarians have nowhere near enough clout to force everyone to follow their way of thinking without a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a legislator woudl have nowhere near enough clout to pass such a law with a state.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bill Frist would disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I dont see the equivalence between a ban on internet gambling and a ban on eating meat. There is no bill that would pass (except maybe a raise for Senators) containing that as an addon.