Trans-Fascism

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Can ACers be agnostic on something or must you guys have a position on everything ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm probably the most agnostic person you'll ever meet. That's half the reason I'm an ACist. Of course, it's also why I'm more interested in some sort of compromise than forcing ACism on those who don't want it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] It's the statist who has the opinion on everything. A person who, for example, "just doesn't know" how they feel about trans-fats, has to oppose trans-fat legislation by default. A person who is agnostic on all issues defaults to ACism, cause if you don't know, there's no rational way to support legislating people on something you're not sure about. Few are going to be willing to use force on someone unless they believe themselves to be in the right (or just don't understand), so an agnostic won't. Personally, I'm not so gung-ho and sure about ACism as many of the AC posters on this board. Your example of Ebola (WMD's in general) is one of the big places where I'm skeptical of it working out, but so long as I'm not sure about something, I have to default to ACism or at least a version of government that allows for ACism.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Statist solutions have gotten us to where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, a vastly disproportionate amount of the innovation in the past two centuries has come out of the United States, which started as one of the least statist countries ever.


[ QUOTE ]
AC has been disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... no.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet every single complex organism has evolved some sort of rules of organization to survive. Every single long term association of 3 or more human beings has evolved into a "statist" solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a bunch of bologna. I have never had friends who used violent force to make me do anything. Statism doesn't mean "having rules", it means "using force". In case you hadn't noticed, ACism has rules too. In fact, by the defintion you seem to be using here, ACism is still statism!

[BCPVP]

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
But not when you do it. Then it's exciting and fun! Who doesn't like telling other people what to do?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought it was funny how the Christians in our country get bashed because they constantly are telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but yet that is exactly what the liberals in our country try to do and do day in and day out yet they can't see the hypocrasy when you hit them in the face with it.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Does consumption of transfats by person A have any effect on the health of person B? Are transfats consumers more likely to beat their wives, transmit unhealthiness to kids? Anything?

[/ QUOTE ]None of the above, as far as I know. But this is very crude sophistry. Admittedly good sophistry but sophistry nonetheless.

What happens to a person who prepares and drinks cyanide in a chem lab? He dies, harming no one else. (We'll discount the emotional distress of family and friends.) But just because preparing cyanide for one's own consumption will be harmless to everybody else aside from oneself, we should not, as a society of sensible humans, allow the free & unfettered production, manufacturing and trading of cyanide.

I already accepted that one should be free to do to oneself whatever one pleases.

[ QUOTE ]
So the default position, if it's a "close call" is to err on the side of regulation?

[/ QUOTE ] No, not necessarily. Why do you have such a hard time understanding simple concepts, such as "it depends"?

[ QUOTE ]
(ignoring, of course, the question of whether you have any legitimate business deciding this question in the first place!)

[/ QUOTE ]What you keep saying is that nobody except Me has any business deciding -- about everything I do. Me, Myself and I. Me as Supreme Ruler of Myself, and the rest of the people be damned.

I'm marking down the price of my li'l Ebola just to spite those beastly tyrants of democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can ACers be agnostic on something or must you guys have a position on everything ?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is good stuff.

You: You guys are nuts, Do you have to have a position on everything?
Me: You have positions on more things than I do
You: I think it's great that you have a position on everything!

This is impressive. I mean, wow. I really, honestly have no response to this.

[/ QUOTE ] It's only natural that you react that way when facing the mirror I'm holding up. But breaking into comedic improv won't do, sorry. The point is most clear: You guys filter everything through the AC (distorting) lens! It's not that you have a position on everything as such that is amusing or disturbing. Like I said, that's perfectly alright. It's that your "positions" are predictable and, I'm afraid, boring. You have the answer to everything is what's troubling, all on account of the talismanic elixir of "economic freedom", "freedom to trade", and other such ephemera.

But, citizens of Rome, "freedom" is NOT a passe partout that opens all doors.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's grating is that your positions are filtered through that obsessive focus on "freedom" and the supposed cure-all abilities of "free trade" and "freedom of capital".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's mostly filtered through the lens of "mind your own business."

And, of course, nobody who seriously argues that has claimed that it will cure all ills.

You, on the other hand, filter everything through that "obsessive" focus on "I want to tell you what to do" and the supposed cure-all abilities of intervention and nannyism.

[/ QUOTE ] Ah yes, I forgot about the complimentary reflex action of ACers. Anyone and everyone who tries or merely suggests a concerted action, a vote on an issue, a collective decision, anything of the sort, is a bona fide tyrant. Someone who supports the "nanny state" and "wants to tell you what to do".

This is deep into the realm of another discipline altogether, actually, and I mean it. Only if I was to elaborate, I'd be again accused of calling you lot "mental cases". (Which I'm not.)

[ QUOTE ]
You are compelled to nose into other's business. Like, an obsessive compulsion. But I bring you good news! You can do something! There are treatment programs for OCD, and they can be quite effective.

[/ QUOTE ] Why would you think I need medical treatment when I examine each case on its own merits and refuse to apply dogma? Why would you consider "abnormal" and "obsessive-compulsive" one's preference/tendency to have doubts, to strive for informed opinions, to interact with others, to have a consensus?

In Brave New World and the Orwellian world of new speak, various words would take on a different meaning, although they appear to be used accurately and for the best of purposes. "Freedom" toped the list.

Mickey Brausch

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does consumption of transfats by person A have any effect on the health of person B? Are transfats consumers more likely to beat their wives, transmit unhealthiness to kids? Anything?

[/ QUOTE ]None of the above, as far as I know. But this is very crude sophistry. Admittedly good sophistry but sophistry nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is quite simple. Either transfats do have negative effects on others or your comparison of them to ebola and tobacco is fatally flawed. One or the other. If you think the comparison is not flawed, please answer the question.

[ QUOTE ]
What happens to a person who prepares and drinks cyanide in a chem lab? He dies, harming no one else. (We'll discount the emotional distress of family and friends.) But just because preparing cyanide for one's own consumption will be harmless to everybody else aside from oneself, we should not, as a society of sensible humans, allow the free & unfettered production, manufacturing and trading of cyanide.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so just banning cyanide in, for example, restaurants, then, would be a good solution, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I already accepted that one should be free to do to oneself whatever one pleases.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You said that, but you support restraint on people doing to themselves whatever they please. By, in this example, refusing to "allow free and unfettered production, manufacture, and trade" of cyanide and/or transfat.

As you point out, drinking cyanide doesn't harm anyone else. But you see plenty of reason to erect barriers to people seeking to do so.

Quit talking out both sides of your mouth. And quit hiding behind "society". Take some responsibility. Admit that YOU are the one pushing this, as an idividual. Sure, some other people are, also. But that doesn't change the fact that YOU are one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the default position, if it's a "close call" is to err on the side of regulation?

[/ QUOTE ] No, not necessarily. Why do you have such a hard time understanding simple concepts, such as "it depends"?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're saying "it depends" in the general case. I'm asking about a specific case. One it which you've already moved past "it depends" and decided. And from what little reasoning you've offered, the process is basically "examine data, if decision is uncertain, default to denial." In other words, you start with the presumption of guilt; the parties seeking to do anything must prove to your satisfaction that what they seek to do is acceptable; all other actions are denied. Only those actions you approve may be undertaken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(ignoring, of course, the question of whether you have any legitimate business deciding this question in the first place!)

[/ QUOTE ]What you keep saying is that nobody except Me has any business deciding -- about everything I do. Me, Myself and I. Me as Supreme Ruler of Myself, and the rest of the people be damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You've already allowed that this decision affects no one else, remember?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm marking down the price of my li'l Ebola just to spite those beastly tyrants of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any straw left in that strawman? You admit over and over that the transfat decision only impacts the individual, but you keep wanting to compare it to a decision that affects others.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can ACers be agnostic on something or must you guys have a position on everything ?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is good stuff.

You: You guys are nuts, Do you have to have a position on everything?
Me: You have positions on more things than I do
You: I think it's great that you have a position on everything!

This is impressive. I mean, wow. I really, honestly have no response to this.

[/ QUOTE ] It's only natural that you react that way when facing the mirror I'm holding up. But breaking into comedic improv won't do, sorry. The point is most clear: You guys filter everything through the AC (distorting) lens! It's not that you have a position on everything as such that is amusing or disturbing. Like I said, that's perfectly alright. It's that your "positions" are predictable and, I'm afraid, boring. You have the answer to everything is what's troubling, all on account of the talismanic elixir of "economic freedom", "freedom to trade", and other such ephemera.

[/ QUOTE ]

I filter through nothing. The fact that my positions are predictable (and boring) is precisely a result of the fact that they are *logically consistent*. How else could you so well predict them?

I have already stated that free trade is no concern of mine; I have stated that I see no cure-all in what I advocate. But you've already committed your forces to attack in that direction, you're locked in, so you keep thrusting even though there's no enemy there to hit. Maybe you should just stop instead of flailing around.

[ QUOTE ]
But, citizens of Rome, "freedom" is NOT a passe partout that opens all doors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who claims that it is?

You've managed to kill everyone else but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. ...

<-- YOU

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, I forgot about the complimentary reflex action of ACers. Anyone and everyone who tries or merely suggests a concerted action, a vote on an issue, a collective decision, anything of the sort, is a bona fide tyrant. Someone who supports the "nanny state" and "wants to tell you what to do".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Wrong again, as usual. Concerted action is wonderful. Votes are great. Collective decsions are peachy.

Imposing those upon people who don't voluntarily enter the process is distinguishing feature of tyrants and nannies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are compelled to nose into other's business. Like, an obsessive compulsion. But I bring you good news! You can do something! There are treatment programs for OCD, and they can be quite effective.

[/ QUOTE ] Why would you think I need medical treatment when I examine each case on its own merits and refuse to apply dogma?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do apply dogma. The dogma of society's supremacy over individuals. You are blinded by it. So much so that you can't even see *what* it is you're arguing against. You have your preconceived idea in your head, and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, you press on with Plan A, like Bush and Rumsfeld. Keep on drivin' to victory!

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you consider "abnormal" and "obsessive-compulsive" one's preference/tendency to have doubts, to strive for informed opinions, to interact with others, to have a consensus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. That's what you seek to destroy. One's preference. Individuals must submit to the preference of the collective! Interactions must be controlled, approved, monitored. Consensus is the end-all-be-all. Variation is the enemy!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I do not intend to hang around too much in this "dialogue". It has been my experience with "debating" ACers that, sooner or later, it becomes a circular argument. I would not be surprised if there are some papers by evolutionary psychologists that demonstrate Darwinian principles that dictate against anarcho-anything.

There is no god, and there is no anarchy in the real world. There is religion, and there are ACers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mainly because the people that argue with ACers never refute their points. The ACers have to go over the same points because the people arent willing to realise that they arent making logical arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theory (ie logical arguments) that disregard the outcome/current state of every single civilization in recorded history arent any better than disproven theories based on bad logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! This is exactly the problem with arguing with statists. The entire history of civilization shows just how bad statist solutions are, yet they refuse to open their mind to other possibilities and persist in their disproven theories. The beauty of AC is that while it may or may not not work in practice, it hasn't actually been disproven yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statist solutions have gotten us to where we are today. If you think the state of civilization is bad, I feel sorry for you. with the exception of religious fundamentalism I think things have been pretty damn good.

AC has been disproven. The natural state of just about everything in the universe starts at and ends with randomness and chaos...anarchy. Yet every single complex organism has evolved some sort of rules of organization to survive. Every single long term association of 3 or more human beings has evolved into a "statist" solution. While in the realm of pure logic absence may not constitute disproof, in the world of science it is an indication that the probabilities are so small as to constitute disproof.

This thread, in fact, has me quite convinced that there is an evolutionary bias against AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

You conflate anarchy and chaos. Try again.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is quite simple. Either transfats do have negative effects on others or your comparison of them to Ebola and tobacco is fatally flawed. One or the other. If you think the comparison is not flawed, please answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]They do. And I said as much a dozen posts ago. Where's the problem?

I also said that it's a matter of degree. In other words, I advised you to put something like "it depends" in your life. Transfats are bad for your health, but, most probably, not nearly as much as cyanide. Wild guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Banning cyanide in, for example, restaurants, then, would be a good solution, right?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, I would imagine it would be a good thing, sorry. I mean, I would vote for it to become law, if it's not already. I mean, I would hate to do the "research" myself eating out in restaurants! I'd rather have some tyranny [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] imposed on restaurant owners, and forbid them from serving me cyanide (or Polonius -- more modern!), instead of "making my choice as a consumer". F*ck that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already accepted that one should be free to do to oneself whatever one pleases.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you didn't. You said that, but you support restraint on people doing to themselves whatever they please. By, in this example, refusing to "allow free and unfettered production, manufacture, and trade" of cyanide and/or transfat.

[/ QUOTE ] That's right. See if you can spot the difference between harming oneself, and society making stuff that can harm oneself available as easily as stuff that doesn't.

You wanna throw away all the practical benefits that scientific knowledge can offer to society, but you don't realize it.


[ QUOTE ]
You start with the presumption of guilt; the parties seeking to do anything must prove to your satisfaction that what they seek to do is acceptable; all other actions are denied. Only those actions you approve may be undertaken.

[/ QUOTE ] Where do you get all these weird (and unfounded) ideas? I never advocated presumption of guilt !

If I must recall something, all I remember is words to the effect that when corporate profitability is the motive, we must be generally careful with the proposition. Not much more than this.

[ QUOTE ]
You admit over and over that the transfat decision only impacts the individual, but you keep wanting to compare it to a decision [about trading Ebola viruses] that affects others.

[/ QUOTE ] So trading in cyanide is alright with you, then? I already know that you are against state licences for drug stores and the like, so anyone should be allowed to sell cyanide (and other "non-contaminant" instruments of death) freely to anyone else. Do I have this right ?

[ QUOTE ]
I filter through nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]Except for the all-magical, all-curing powers of free and unfettered capital. Which is now mostly shackled and must be set free, free to the level of anarchy --capital that is.

Forgive me for mislabelling your way of thinking...

[ QUOTE ]
Concerted action is wonderful. Votes are great. Collective decisions are peachy.

Imposing those upon people who don't voluntarily enter the process is distinguishing feature of tyrants and nannies.

[/ QUOTE ] Seriously, this is where we differ, as usual. You see society as the first step towards tyranny (=majority rule); I see society as the inevitable, though of course imperfect, way of humans living together. Hell, I think it's highly practical as well!

There is no such thing as total freedom. There are few "totals" or "absolutes" in the universe that I know, come to think of it. The pursuit of "total freedom" can be a noble cause, but only as long as we understand, Sisyphus-like, that it's impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what you seek to destroy. One's preference. Individuals must submit to the preference of the collective! Interactions must be controlled, approved, monitored. Consensus is the end-all-be-all. Variation is the enemy!

[/ QUOTE ] Nope. Variation is here to stay. There exist no tangible "essences", no living "averages", no actual "typicalities" -- there's only variance. From the time the Earth was created until now. There's only us, all differing from a theoretical models.

Consensus is not the "cure-all" either. There is no "cure-all"! But living amongst other humans, obliges us to compromise and not to have "our way" all the time. I will not play my CD player at full blast after midnight through open windows, although I get a huge kick out of loud music after midnight. The neighbours will get upset. Moreover, in order not to waste our time to gather together and vote on it, "we" have established a law about it! Even though a couple of people across the yard might be fine with my loud record playing and actually enjoy it.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority of our neighbours...

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just trying to smear anyone who questions your desire to engage in busybody micromanagement, to nose into other people's business, as some sort of fringe lunatic. The fact that your opponent is a lunatic doesn't make your argument any more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
You don't ever misrepresent anything people say.

[/ QUOTE ]That's right, I try my damnedest not to. Which is why I'm very liberal [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] with my use of quotes upon quotes upon quotes of what the other poster writes, verbatim. Otherwise, it would be like cheating.

So, again, no, I did not call you lot "mental cases" (your words). It is different to be a "mental case" and quite different to obsess about something, e.g. obsessing about "freedom" as if it's a lucky charm. (You might obsess about female stockings; that doesn't mean, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
Cigarettes are less dangerous than Ebola, but more dangerous than (I'm just going to pull something out of my ass here) distilled water.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I would rather have six packs of cigarettes than distilled water out of your ass.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that the restrictions (regardless of their legitimacy) on Ebola and tobacco (e.g. restaurant smoking bans) are out of concern for their effects on *other people*?

[/ QUOTE ]What "other people"? It's us, man. We are the "other" people, in each and every case. This is not meant to protect me or you or "others", but all of us. When the state authorities erect a sign that says "NOBODY should approach that tower of electric power", it's clearly not meant for ME (I am very fond of electricity and enjoy plugging my fingers to electric sockets) but for everybody. Let me go home and kill myself.

You are seeing every law (and I use "you" in the generic sense of ACers) as directed towards yourself specifically and not for all the individuals. Try to shift PoV a little.

Mickey Brausch

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Except for the all-magical, all-curing powers of free and unfettered capital. Which is now mostly shackled and must be set free, free to the level of anarchy --capital that is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem that people have with AC is that they focus on the little things and think that they are rediculous. ACers for the most part are concerned with the big issues of government regulation that are affecting our economy. Printing of money, Unaccountable war spending, etc are the issues that are having a serious effect on the average wealth of americans. I dont think anyone is going to argue that trans fats regulation is a huge issue, but its the small regulations and small government that eventually lead to big regulations and big government. Its why ACers disagree with minarchists.

If you are going to critique AC, please dont use transfats regulation as if its the main tenet of AC. Free and unfettered capital would be a huge improvement over the waste and corruption we have now. I find it really annoying when people argue against the small issues and think they have debunked AC. Transfats is merely a small blip on the AC radar.