? for ACists: Drawbacks of an AC society?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really equating the two. I thought your point was that a single legislator doesn't have enough clout to force a minority opinion on the majority. My point is that the state apparatus makes it easier for minority opinions to be forced upon the majority and vice versa. But if animal rights activists had to personally take on the responsibility of physically forcing everyone to stop eating meat, it's pretty clear that that would be nearly impossible. The same probably wouldn't be true in an free society since child molestation is clearly a crime against a person and would be so considered, that a child molester couldn't resist the opposition.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really equating the two. I thought your point was that a single legislator doesn't have enough clout to force a minority opinion on the majority. <font color="red">My point was specifically regard to the ban on meat, a clearly minority position. The ban on internet gambling was not clearly minority, and may in fact be majority opinion. I dont think we are disagreeing on anything here. </font> My point is that the state apparatus makes it easier for minority opinions to be forced upon the majority and vice versa. But if animal rights activists had to personally take on the responsibility of physically forcing everyone to stop eating meat, it's pretty clear that that would be nearly impossible. The same probably wouldn't be true in an free society since child molestation is clearly a crime against a person and would be so considered, that a child molester couldn't resist the opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was specifically regard to the ban on meat, a clearly minority position. The ban on internet gambling was not clearly minority, and may in fact be majority opinion. I dont think we are disagreeing on anything here.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you this though - since we're not starting a planet from scratch (the wild or not so wild, however you see it, West is long gone), how do you see anarchocapitalism as a practical solution to anything in the near future?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raping is not a practical solution to rape?


[ QUOTE ]
I mean, it's not gonna happen. Wouldn't it be a lot more productive to try to fix what we've got as best we can, instead of all the dreaming of an AC "utopia"?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you fix rape?


[ QUOTE ]
In other words, wouldn't ACers be better off getting behind a Dennis Kucinich instead of a Ron Paul?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dennis Kucinich is pretty meh. Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist and is spreading the ideas of no rape. That's great. If Kucinich will spread no rape as well, then I will support that message.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was specifically regard to the ban on meat, a clearly minority position. The ban on internet gambling was not clearly minority, and may in fact be majority opinion. I dont think we are disagreeing on anything here.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this get an "ORLY"? Your first link says "When asked if online gambling should remain illegal since there is no effective way to regulate or control it, opinions are slightly mixed, as slightly more than half (53%) of U.S. online adults somewhat or strongly agree it should remain illegal, while 47 percent somewhat or strongly disagree." which is consistent with what I said, and your second link pretty thoroughly trashes poll that resulted in 80% supporting legal online gambling.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say maybe a handful would ban all abortions. A large number might ban second and third trimester abortions though, which is probably what this group is talking about.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Really? And if one decentralized region's neighbors took up child molestation and murder for recreation, do you really believe that the first group wouldn't try to interfere? People would definitely decide "hey, they're initiating violence on those children and we need to go defend them!"

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! They do! I also get sick and tired of people claiming that this anti-animal rights stance is somehow libertarian. Libertarianism is completely neutral towards animal rights. There's absolutely zero reason that people can't include animals under the Zero Aggression Principle, and many do. And when someone sees someone else (meaning an animal in this case) that cannot defend themselves being aggressed upon, it is perfectly moral and acceptable for them to come to that being's defense, with violence if necessary.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree, though, that the situation will be more problematic or more violent than it is under government

[/ QUOTE ]

Well on that point, I'm not either. I simply list this as a potential problem where government may do a better job. It seems to me likely that government is helping to prevent groups like PETA from becoming outright terrorists, but I certainly can't know without giving anarchy a shot, which I would love to do. I full accept that just because I don't see a viable free market solution and that no one else seems to either, that it well be there and just not have been thought of.

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

That's exactly my point though. If the vegetarians had that kind of clout it wouldn't be a problem. The level of clout they do have might well result in some kind of war though. It's like how does anarchy deal with two religions that are determined to fight each other? It can't. They're just going to fight. The fact that most vegetarians also happen to be statists allows them to try to find peaceful solutions under government rather than violent ones.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? And if one decentralized region's neighbors took up child molestation and murder for recreation, do you really believe that the first group wouldn't try to interfere? People would definitely decide "hey, they're initiating violence on those children and we need to go defend them!"


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair point, and I tried to touch on it in my second response. I'm just not convinced, though, that animal rights would be an issue in the same way that something involving human beings might be (let me put it this way: I agree with what you say about animal rights being the type of contentious issue that might not be easily settled via decentralization--what I am far less certain of is that enough people care deeply enough to make it a truly violent issue like ending slavery was.)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes! They do! I also get sick and tired of people claiming that this anti-animal rights stance is somehow libertarian. Libertarianism is completely neutral towards animal rights. There's absolutely zero reason that people can't include animals under the Zero Aggression Principle, and many do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--you make it sound as if it were merely someone's (or some large group of peoples') decision which beings have rights and which don't. While people can decide things like legal rights and de facto rights, self-ownership is a natual right, so it's not someone's 'decision' whether or not animals have it. I'm not claiming that an anti-animal rights stance is 'libertarian' (in the sense that libertarians need be active opponents of animal rights), nor am I claiming that we don't have any moral obligations towards animals. But the zero-aggression principle is a logical corollary of the right of self-ownership, and the the right of self-ownership requires rationality/moral agency, which *most* animals (maybe monkeys and dolphins?) don't have.

[ QUOTE ]
And when someone sees someone else (meaning an animal in this case) that cannot defend themselves being aggressed upon, it is perfectly moral and acceptable for them to come to that being's defense, with violence if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of agree with this; if I was walking along and saw some guy torturing or physically abusing an animal, I would try and stop him (calmly at first, and then using force if necessary). But say I use force and stop him, and let the animal free--if it's his dog, then I think the guy (horrible as he might be) would have a claim to compensation (that said, I don't think anyone would be too up in arms if the courts ruled against him [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).