Reactions to AC

[bkholdem]

If I have you in a headlock and PVN comes along and suggests that you wrangle yourself out of the headlock why would you want to debate what 'promises' he's making about your lack of being in a headlock?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People get personally offended when you challenge ideals that they've believed their entire life. America = freedom, duh. When someone points out that this is not the case, it's much easier to strike out at the messenger than to actually internalize the truth, admit that you've been bamboozled, and that what you believed in actually stands for very nearly the complete opposite of everything it's sold as.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there? Most people judge world politics relative to what actually exists; not relative to some abstract ideal. We haven't ban "bamboozled" so much as we just don't analyze our world the same way you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you do analyze the world that way it will be pretty difficult to see it as anything else but bamboozlement. lol

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
And what would give a private agency the right to arrest and imprison people?

[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of prison doesn't seem likely to continue in an AC society. A convicted person might just be excluded from the vast majority of property. Imprisoning someone has many types of costs (here's an example of free-riding if ever there was one) and prison doesn't necessarily rehabilitate people. I've pictured something akin to a penal colony like Australia was once.

[ QUOTE ]
What would prevent corporations from completely ruining the environment

[/ QUOTE ]
Either the "environment" is the company's property, in which case they are free to do with it what they want, or it is someone else's property, in which case they are liable for damages. Currently the government enables pollution by allowing companies to pollute at certain levels without liablitity.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will share my initial reactions to AC. I came here as a libertarian, albeit not interested in politics and not active in any way (not discussions, reading, etc) for several years.

I was both intrigued and SCARED. I was intrigued by the fact that the concept was something I had never heard of or considered, and also intrigued because the prominent posters seemed to be really smart and putting forth sound, logical arguments. I was impressed by that.

I was not initially 'scared', just curious. But as I started to contemplate what an AC world might be like, in reality with me living in it, those initial thoughts SCARED ME. I was scared of the unknown and uncertainty of it all. How would fire departments/services, police departments/services, roads, bridges, etc be provided for? Several 'what if' scenarios came to mind. What if we are invaded? That was the big one for me. What if Russia or N. Korea, or whoever invades or starts shooting missles and bombs at us? What the hell are we going to do then? Will we not all be screwed?

But I have come to value reason and rational judgement over emotion. I recognized my fear for what it was, an emotion. I do not use emotions to win at poker or to plan my day or plan my future, at least I do not do those things when functioning optimally. I use reason and judgement. I use my brain. My thoughts. So I tried my best to keep an open mind because I had already clearly seen that the people preaching AC were smart. They did not suddenly turn into morons because I am experiencing fear. So I continued to read and learn. When I had a few questions I asked them.

And ultimately what I realized was that if somehow we were invaded the invaders would not be coming for a conquest of my measly possessions, they would be after the rich people's stuff. So the rich people would logically be taking steps to defend their stuff while I would be pretty much ignored. Hell, if it came to it and someone came to my door with a gun intending to kick me out of my place and have me live on the streets because they were taking over I would shoot it out with them, but this would be a very unlikely scenario. Any invaders would be after the rich people's stuff. And we could be invaded anyway and I could still possibly be faced with some guys coming to my door intent on taking over my place and kicking me to the street whereby I would still need to shoot it out with them. But because I realized that invaders would basically be after rich people's stuff I was not afraid of not having national defense any longer.

So without my fear, and with my reason and judgement, I decided that AC was a pretty good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you put it that way I guess I should start suking the govt dik again.

After all, another country would probably come over here to invade this land and want to randomly murder millions of people but leave the rich people's stuff alone. Like they would just murder all the poor people and middle class people and then occupy their property while leaving alone all the rich people's booty. And then they would just blend in and live here and live in harmony with the rich people without bothering them. hehe

[/ QUOTE ]
Suck whatever you want.
I read your reply about 10 times and still don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you deny that marauding armies often exterminate the existing citizenry, or significant subgroups thereof, rather than trying to govern them peacefully?

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Nazi Germany wasn't seeking lebensraum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to shatter your worldview.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Nazi Germany wasn't seeking lebensraum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to shatter your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what exactly they were after? Your "fallacy" is confusing.

[jogger08152]

Your analogy is poor, in that it implies that western states impact their citizens in only negative ways, which is of course untrue.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will share my initial reactions to AC. I came here as a libertarian, albeit not interested in politics and not active in any way (not discussions, reading, etc) for several years.

I was both intrigued and SCARED. I was intrigued by the fact that the concept was something I had never heard of or considered, and also intrigued because the prominent posters seemed to be really smart and putting forth sound, logical arguments. I was impressed by that.

I was not initially 'scared', just curious. But as I started to contemplate what an AC world might be like, in reality with me living in it, those initial thoughts SCARED ME. I was scared of the unknown and uncertainty of it all. How would fire departments/services, police departments/services, roads, bridges, etc be provided for? Several 'what if' scenarios came to mind. What if we are invaded? That was the big one for me. What if Russia or N. Korea, or whoever invades or starts shooting missles and bombs at us? What the hell are we going to do then? Will we not all be screwed?

But I have come to value reason and rational judgement over emotion. I recognized my fear for what it was, an emotion. I do not use emotions to win at poker or to plan my day or plan my future, at least I do not do those things when functioning optimally. I use reason and judgement. I use my brain. My thoughts. So I tried my best to keep an open mind because I had already clearly seen that the people preaching AC were smart. They did not suddenly turn into morons because I am experiencing fear. So I continued to read and learn. When I had a few questions I asked them.

And ultimately what I realized was that if somehow we were invaded the invaders would not be coming for a conquest of my measly possessions, they would be after the rich people's stuff. So the rich people would logically be taking steps to defend their stuff while I would be pretty much ignored. Hell, if it came to it and someone came to my door with a gun intending to kick me out of my place and have me live on the streets because they were taking over I would shoot it out with them, but this would be a very unlikely scenario. Any invaders would be after the rich people's stuff. And we could be invaded anyway and I could still possibly be faced with some guys coming to my door intent on taking over my place and kicking me to the street whereby I would still need to shoot it out with them. But because I realized that invaders would basically be after rich people's stuff I was not afraid of not having national defense any longer.

So without my fear, and with my reason and judgement, I decided that AC was a pretty good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fallacy in your post is that you assume invaders are always just after stuff. See Nazi Germany, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you put it that way I guess I should start suking the govt dik again.

After all, another country would probably come over here to invade this land and want to randomly murder millions of people but leave the rich people's stuff alone. Like they would just murder all the poor people and middle class people and then occupy their property while leaving alone all the rich people's booty. And then they would just blend in and live here and live in harmony with the rich people without bothering them. hehe

[/ QUOTE ]
Suck whatever you want.
I read your reply about 10 times and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comfortable with you not understanding what I am trying to say.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Your analogy is poor, in that it implies that western states impact their citizens in only negative ways, which is of course untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it is also good in that it points out the silliness of wanting to debate PVN in the manner in which you are doing so.

[LooseCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume there would be no IP protection a free market? If the cultural norm is that ideas can be owned, then there will be IP and IP protection. Just because many of the people who advocate free market anarchy personally believe that ideas shouldn't be considered property does not in any way imply that this would be the result of the market.

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

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]
could someone explain to me the sequence of free market events that would lead an AC society to enforce intellectual property protections? im not denying that it could happen, i just cant think how any system could arise that wasnt easy to circumvent.
im more of a literature guy, so excuse the example. goethe's "the sorrows of young werther" was one of the most popular books of the 18th century and he barely got any money because all translation, outside printings, reworkings of the text and merchandising were done without offering him any royalties. if, in past systems where the govt had less of a hand in the market, intellectual property was that easily stolen and exploited, why would an AC society not have the same problem?
is it that i am wrong in my basic assumption that a lack of enforcement of intellectual property rights would discourage innovation?