Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that ACists are more enlightented or less enlightened about the negatives of violence that the averge person?

[/ QUOTE ] More.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that ACists accept violence more or less than the average person?

[/ QUOTE ] Less.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then what in the hell are you arguing with US about shooing people and using violence for minor infactions against property rights for? We want a non violent world. Appartently you want one too. Why pick a fight with us?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure ACland would be better than the current situation. Once you allow violence to enforce property rights,

[/ QUOTE ]

We already allow this.

[/ QUOTE ] I know. And we allow other violence (like taxes for welfare) to balance the unequality that comes from the property rights. I think we probably have to either get rid of both forms of violence or none, if we want a stable society.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Rights:

I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:

1. External force: I (or someone else) will physically prevent you from violating my rights, and will physically harm and/or detain you if you do violate them.

2. Internal force: By appealing to some ontological and/or moral system that resonates with you, I attempt to dissuade you from even wanting to violate my rights.

There is a clear gray area, because positing something like "God" or "karma" is a combination of both.

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations (a favorite phrase of mine, use it frequently to wow crowds at sporting events and in crowded bars).

This is one of the places where I disagree fundamentally with much of AC thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not had a chance to catch up on the thread, as I've been in the Imperial Capital all weekend visiting the wife. So, I'm not going to write up a long rebuttal, because everything I'd want to say has probably already been said.

However, I will say that, while I read the entire OP, one needs go no further than here to demonstrate that xorbie has once again demonstrated that he has absolutely no clue what exactly it is that he is "fundamentally disagreeing with." He, like so many others, has some bizarre strawman or carricature of what libertarian or "AC" thought is his head, if he thinks that there is anything in the above statements that is in conflict with it. In fact, I would say that anyone who agrees with the above should be well on their way to being a free market anarchist, if only they could be bothered to actually learn anything about it.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
we allow other violence (like taxes for welfare) to balance the unequality that comes from the property rights. I think we probably have to either get rid of both forms of violence or none, if we want a stable society.

[/ QUOTE ]

inequality =/= instability

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I would say that anyone who agrees with the above should be well on their way to being a free market anarchist, if only they could be bothered to actually learn anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya. And I think it's more than just learning. I used to look for reasons to disagree because hey, I like people and enjoy making others happy, and I wanted to assume that generic social wisdom had some merit to it. I didn't want to feel like certain things I was conditioned to like were actually net negatives. So imo a lot of it is just finding the strength to actually open your mind to the libertarian perspective and not just look for ways to justify what you want to conclude.

It might be fun to feel like your thoughts are special or you've found some argument that the cocky ACists can't handle, but it's a lot more fun to just see the world in a way that's truly comfortable to you.

I mean, the idea of ridding government shouldn't be crazy or brash anyways. Conversations on here tend to be polarizing and combative. That's just the way internet debates will be, I guess. But what libertarianism really "is" is not brash and combative. It's a social movement just like anything else. It's society coming to the collective realization that we will be better off if we change our approach. It's only brash from a shortsighted perspective.

Which can be annoying, because right now we're so conditioned to be shortsighted. So the libertarian position comes off as brash and selfish and anti-social or whatever. I tend to think social behavior will approach but naturally lag behind rational behavior. It just seems like that's the way it would have to be. So ultimately there's no reason to expect a social custom to hold any underlying significance, and there's no reason to want it to. You should embrace improvement, and be courageous enough to not be worried about shortsighted objections. If there were no objections, we'd be stagnant. You should think of yourself as a leader and not as an outcast. (I mean, you shouldn't feel like you have to be in peoples' faces about it if you value their feelings. But in your own mind you should be willing to seek what's true, and act on it at your own speed.)

We're social animals, so of course this will be a struggle. I try to just think of the long-term social good I'm encouraging. It's not that I really care about "social good," I mostly just care about me and people I personally know (and like), and I'm proud to admit that. But I also mildly like the idea of making people I haven't met happier, and it so happens that I tangibly benefit from a happy and prosperous society too. (Thanks, evolution.)

So, I try not to look at libertarianism as going against the grain. To do that, you're just demonstrating the low time preference mindset that convinces so many people that libertarian positions are flagrantly flawed. I try to think of it as leading the way. I think some people truly see it as against the grain, and so they allow themselves to assume there must be something wrong with it (since they assume social norms must mean something), and maybe they're the guy that will come along and crack the libertarian code. If you just weigh it for what it is, it should start to feel right.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we allow other violence (like taxes for welfare) to balance the unequality that comes from the property rights. I think we probably have to either get rid of both forms of violence or none, if we want a stable society.

[/ QUOTE ]

inequality =/= instability

[/ QUOTE ] inequality leads to instability, if it's significant enough. At least more and more violence is needed from the ruling class (the people w ith property) as inequality increases.

Of course, you don't agree that inequality would increase in ACland. But that kind of thing is impossible to have a reasonable argument about, and that is why I try to stick to the moral argument. In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But both arguments are closely related. You cannot argue about why people should refrain from violence, if you don't consider where this is going to lead us, i.e. its logical implications. This is what economy (as a subfield of praxeology) is all about.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But both arguments are closely related. You cannot argue about why people should refrain from violence, if you don't consider where this is going to lead us, i.e. its logical implications. This is what economy (as a subfield of praxeology) is all about.

[/ QUOTE ] I consider where it's going to lead us, but it has been beaten to death on this forum. Predicting the future is not something I'm good at anyway. I let others argue about that.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But both arguments are closely related. You cannot argue about why people should refrain from violence, if you don't consider where this is going to lead us, i.e. its logical implications. This is what economy (as a subfield of praxeology) is all about.

[/ QUOTE ] I consider where it's going to lead us, but it has been beaten to death on this forum. Predicting the future is not something I'm good at anyway. I let others argue about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying is, "We need a state, but I don't know why"? If you don't know the logical implications of having a state vs. not having one, how can you argue about what is better, according to your moral standards?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But both arguments are closely related. You cannot argue about why people should refrain from violence, if you don't consider where this is going to lead us, i.e. its logical implications. This is what economy (as a subfield of praxeology) is all about.

[/ QUOTE ] I consider where it's going to lead us, but it has been beaten to death on this forum. Predicting the future is not something I'm good at anyway. I let others argue about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying is, "We need a state, but I don't know why"? If you don't know the logical implications of having a state vs. not having one, how can you argue about what is better, according to your moral standards?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not a statist [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words: if you are an ACist for utilitarian reasons, I might disagree with you, but I'm not interested in arguing with you, because I know we will get nowhere. If you are an ACist because you think it's morally superior, I want to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But both arguments are closely related. You cannot argue about why people should refrain from violence, if you don't consider where this is going to lead us, i.e. its logical implications. This is what economy (as a subfield of praxeology) is all about.

[/ QUOTE ] I consider where it's going to lead us, but it has been beaten to death on this forum. Predicting the future is not something I'm good at anyway. I let others argue about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying is, "We need a state, but I don't know why"? If you don't know the logical implications of having a state vs. not having one, how can you argue about what is better, according to your moral standards?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not a statist [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I know. And we allow other violence (like taxes for welfare) to balance the unequality that comes from the property rights. I think we probably have to either get rid of both forms of violence or none, if we want a stable society.

[/ QUOTE ]
In your first sentence you were making a case for a state (while falsely classifying property rights as violence). In the second one you show that you haven't studied the logical implications of human action, or otherwise you would not come to this conclusion.