AC question

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Well tounge in cheek or not, the market did deal with it. Once the government stopped enforcing slavery it went away because it's not economically practical when you can't externalise your costs.


But answer the question, if you can't provide an individual account of how each slave will survive after we stop enforcing slavery then I'm afraid under tames principles we have to keep it going.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he's right...sort of. We should ask questions about this system and all systems. If the system now is so awful, we should revolt (be it peacefully or otherwise).

I agree though, without a plan for change, any attempt is little more then a shot in the dark.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that you should question all systems of society ofcourse. But what I mean is that everything in due time, I want to ask questions about AC - not have them flipped around and use two hours on stating my views on democracy and answering rhetorics.

I'm a pragmatic first and foremost, not an idealist. That something yields a good and relatively ethically sound outcome is more important to me than it being ethically superior on paper. That something is wrong doesn't always mean that things will get better by removing it - I'll stray away from painful analogies, but hence I ask questions about the removal of the state.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Well tounge in cheek or not, the market did deal with it. Once the government stopped enforcing slavery it went away because it's not economically practical when you can't externalise your costs.


But answer the question, if you can't provide an individual account of how each slave will survive after we stop enforcing slavery then I'm afraid under tames principles we have to keep it going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're exaggerating the question myself and others have asked. A better question (i.e. one more in line with those asked of ACists) might be: "How will we be safe from a possible revolt, should the freed slaves choose too?" and my answer would likely be "The local police forces can handle it, and if they fail or the riot is too big, then the larger state and national armed forces can step in."

Asking "what will they all do" is equally as silly as asking what company will make each road in my town in ACland, and to my knowledge no one's asked that.

Cody

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Well tounge in cheek or not, the market did deal with it. Once the government stopped enforcing slavery it went away because it's not economically practical when you can't externalise your costs.


But answer the question, if you can't provide an individual account of how each slave will survive after we stop enforcing slavery then I'm afraid under tames principles we have to keep it going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're exaggerating the question myself and others have asked. A better question (i.e. one more in line with those asked of ACists) might be: "How will we be safe from a possible revolt, should the freed slaves choose too?" and my answer would likely be "The local police forces can handle it, and if they fail or the riot is too big, then the larger state and national armed forces can step in."

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I don't accept your "don't worry the state will handle it" explanation. You can live in your fantasy world utopia where a small number of armed men can stop millions of slaves from running rampant and destroying everything in their path, I think we should stick with slavery and try and work from within the system to make things better for the slaves.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Well tounge in cheek or not, the market did deal with it. Once the government stopped enforcing slavery it went away because it's not economically practical when you can't externalise your costs.


But answer the question, if you can't provide an individual account of how each slave will survive after we stop enforcing slavery then I'm afraid under tames principles we have to keep it going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're exaggerating the question myself and others have asked. A better question (i.e. one more in line with those asked of ACists) might be: "How will we be safe from a possible revolt, should the freed slaves choose too?" and my answer would likely be "The local police forces can handle it, and if they fail or the riot is too big, then the larger state and national armed forces can step in."

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I don't accept your "don't worry the state will handle it" explanation. You can live in your fantasy world utopia where a small number of armed men can stop millions of slaves from running rampant and destroying everything in their path, I think we should stick with slavery and try and work from within the system to make things better for the slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The worst part isn't really that your painful analogy didn't stop, the worst part is probably that your analogical answer contains an incredibly big logical flaw.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to remove slavery. Give me answers on what job every slave is going to get and show me conclusivly to my own personal satisfaction whether all slaves will be better off or not. If you can't the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you that, the market will handle it. If enough white land owners want freedom and eqaulity, we'll have that, if they want lynchings, then we'll have those. Either way the market will deal with it.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Well tounge in cheek or not, the market did deal with it. Once the government stopped enforcing slavery it went away because it's not economically practical when you can't externalise your costs.


But answer the question, if you can't provide an individual account of how each slave will survive after we stop enforcing slavery then I'm afraid under tames principles we have to keep it going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're exaggerating the question myself and others have asked. A better question (i.e. one more in line with those asked of ACists) might be: "How will we be safe from a possible revolt, should the freed slaves choose too?" and my answer would likely be "The local police forces can handle it, and if they fail or the riot is too big, then the larger state and national armed forces can step in."

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I don't accept your "don't worry the state will handle it" explanation. You can live in your fantasy world utopia where a small number of armed men can stop millions of slaves from running rampant and destroying everything in their path, I think we should stick with slavery and try and work from within the system to make things better for the slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The worst part isn't really that your painful analogy didn't stop, the worst part is probably that your analogical answer contains an incredibly big logical flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enlighten me. If the analogy is so painful it should be the work of a moment to show what's wrong with it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay then. Let us then set aside the ethical dilemmas of democracy and the ethical dilemmas of AC.

Here comes the simple question: Why should 'society' (I use it loosely here, take it to mean a large group of individuals if you wish) have an AC system instead of a democratic system based on a state?

And don't you need predictive capabilities to answer that?

[/ QUOTE ]

An AC system isn't a system! This isn't "rhetoric". Any "system" you want can exist under AC (to a certain extent).

If you want democracy, you can join a democracy. If you want a commune, you can join a commune. If you want to do your own thing, you can do your own thing.

Further, there is nothing society "should" have.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is for the removal of an existing system. And you can flip it around all day if you like, but this leads to change - and it is the outcome of this change I'm asking questions about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the answer. If Mr. X is stabbing Mr. Y, we don't know what Mr. Y would do if Mr. X wasn't stabbing him. But we can still say, without "predictive capabilities," that Mr. X should not be stabbing Mr. Y.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the legitimacy of the current system I should be asking questions about. That is just another clever rhetoric meant to flip the question over at me, and I suspect I would be strawmanned to death if I ever answered it anyway.

I should continue to ask questions if the proposed removal of the current system is going to work and how, because without no such answers and viable ones, the proposed change is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the victory conditions for your "is this going to work" question?

If you don't like the proposed change, well, don't change. Stay inside your little statist bubble. Nobody is forcing you to come out.

What you're doing here is flipping the burden of proof.

Statist place claims upon other people. ACist place NO claims. The party making the claim must be the one saddled with the burden of proof. Otherwise your argument is that the status quo is justified *by virtue of* being the status quo.