Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not answering the question...

[H]ow can voluntary associations not be more moral than a state?

How can a lack of institutionalized aggression not be more moral than institutionalized aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming you equate aggression with immorality - an assumption I don't share, incidentally, as all aggression is clearly not equal - then a state would be more moral than a non-state if the net aggression of the state were less than the net aggression of the non-state.

Whether AC would involve less net aggression than a western-style democracy is a question you probably find more compelling than I do: I think the answer is a pretty clear 'no'.

I also want to address this point specifically:

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that someone might try to interact with you without your at some point doesn't give you license to force interactions upon others without their consent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, which is why western democracies have both
A} mechanisms for internally-driven change, and
B} open borders

You need never feel coerced in a democracy. The situation is same as AC, in fact: sign the (social, as opposed to AC's insurance-based) contract and receive all the benefits and obligations it includes, or decline it and find or create an alternative.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No: once you concede that the government does good things as well as bad, the headlock analogy *completely* fails.

Prefering 'nothing' to 'something' makes sense only if the 'something' is -EV. A headlock is. Government may not be.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
"Divide and conquer" is one of the oldest and best-known military maxims because it's very effective. An enemy that is not united is easier to defeat than one that is fractionalized and uncoordinated. So, in my opinion, privatized defense makes it easier for a conquering nation to succeed by lowering coordination and communication, not to mention more nebulous (but important) factors like nationalism and duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Decentralized communication and coordination systems are orders of magnitude harder to disrupt than centralized systems. That was the motivation behind the creation of the internet!

Nationalism and duty are more often than not used to create frenzied mobs for *offensive* purpses. When the huns are coming, you don't need "nationalism" or "duty" to drive you to action.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not answering the question...

[H]ow can voluntary associations not be more moral than a state?

How can a lack of institutionalized aggression not be more moral than institutionalized aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming you equate aggression with immorality - an assumption I don't share, incidentally, as all aggression is clearly not equal - then a state would be more moral than a non-state if the net aggression of the state were less than the net aggression of the non-state.

Whether AC would involve less net aggression than a western-style democracy is a question you probably find more compelling than I do: I think the answer is a pretty clear 'no'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think.

Standard.

But hey, if that's what you need to sleep at night, feel free to indulge yourself.

Now, explain why you need to subject everyone else to your aggression because you "think" it will be better (according to your subjective preferences) in the end).

Your aggression is *exactly* the aggression we're talking about here.

[ QUOTE ]
I also want to address this point specifically:

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that someone might try to interact with you without your at some point doesn't give you license to force interactions upon others without their consent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, which is why western democracies have both
A} mechanisms for internally-driven change, and
B} open borders

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, right. I can feel better because I can put an opinion on a comment card once every two or four or six years. That gives others free license to do whatever they want, because I can say something if I don't like it.

[ QUOTE ]
You need never feel coerced in a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. OK. I'll stop paying my taxes then.

[ QUOTE ]
The situation is same as AC, in fact: sign the (social, as opposed to AC's insurance-based) contract and receive all the benefits and obligations it includes, or decline it and find or create an alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, OK, send that contract over. I'd like my lawyer to take a look at it before I sign it.

Until then, I decline.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No: once you concede that the government does good things as well as bad, the headlock analogy *completely* fails.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, while you're in the headlock, you get a scalp massage. Mmm, it feels good.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No: once you concede that the government does good things as well as bad, the headlock analogy *completely* fails.

Prefering 'nothing' to 'something' makes sense only if the 'something' is -EV. A headlock is. Government may not be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government can never do anything "good" because to do these supposedly good things it must first perpetrate bads, things that if they were done by individuals would be immediately recognized as criminal (theft, fraud, murder, slavery). Since utility cannot be intersubjectively assertained, there is no way to show that the supposed "goods" outweigh the bads.

[LooseCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

someone please explain how intellectual property rights might function in an AC society, i am very curious and interested in the answer.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

someone please explain how intellectual property rights might function in an AC society, i am very curious and interested in the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being lazy and think of one yourself.

It might go like this:

Most everyone in society agrees that ideas can be owned. You think of an idea, and register it with a firm that provides such a service, documenting your claim to the idea. Someone "steals" your idea. You file suit in a reputable court. The arbitrator, who is reputable because his decisions reflect the social and cultural norms of the society he operates in, finds in your favor. The "thief" will either recompense you or face various consequences, depending on social norms, which might include economic ostracism (which has worked well for hundreds of years) or forced compensation of you, the wronged party. His insurers and security contractors would not be interested in defending him from the enforcement of the judgement because it would open them up to legal liability and you cannot insure yourself against yourself committing theft (or any other crime).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

"Divide and conquer" is one of the oldest and best-known military maxims because it's very effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Divide and conquer is military maxim for fighting against other armies. It only works against united armies with a central head because the plans are usually interconnected. If your plan has you relying on Your ally to support you and protect you flank and they get cut off before they arrive then you are SOL. The terrain you have picked is now no good, you have to spread your troops thin to protect that area, you don't have much time to do it in, ect ect. Divide and conquer only works when you enemy is integrated because integration is a weakness.
There are many examples of this in action, one of the main advantages of the Blitzkrieg was that the commanders of individual battalions were given directives and left up to their own discretion how to achieve them. Vietnam is another, probably the best ever. The US had air superiority, naval superiority, thanks to the helicopter we could land large numbers of troops behind enemy lines where we decided, napalm, agent orange. We dropped more bombs on vietnam that in all of WW2, we killed 500,000 troops, 2-4 million civilians and we lost the war. Why? because there was no objective, there was no capital hat we could take which would make the enemy lay down its arms. Each and every square mile of South vietnam had to be protected, and every square mile of the north would have to be taken to win the war. Iraq also has turned out this way. Once Baghdad was taken the Iraqi army was done for, however those not in the army, and those recently disbanded from it continued to fight. There isn't one person that you can kill to end it, there isn't one city that you can capture to end it, you have to go city by city, block by block and clear it out. And then you have to hold it, you can't leave or they just re infiltrate.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No: once you concede that the government does good things as well as bad, the headlock analogy *completely* fails.

Prefering 'nothing' to 'something' makes sense only if the 'something' is -EV. A headlock is. Government may not be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government can never do anything "good" because to do these supposedly good things it must first perpetrate bads, things that if they were done by individuals would be immediately recognized as criminal (theft, fraud, murder, slavery). Since utility cannot be intersubjectively assertained, there is no way to show that the supposed "goods" outweigh the bads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxation is only theft, and thus an inherent "bad", if you accept the ACist axiom of natural property rights. If you believe that property rights do not inherently exist, but only exist to the extent that they are guaranteed by the state, then this argument falls apart.