Reactions to AC

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you were serious. Well, we could start with the whole "exterminating Jews" thing. I don't think Hitler cared whether they were rich or poor.

[/ QUOTE ]
So when Hitler was reuniting Germany and gathering up the Rhineland and Sudetenland, conquering Poland, France, and parts in North Africa, attacking Russia and Britain, and generally forming the Third Reich, it was never about being after the land or empire? It was only about exterminating the Jews? That's an interesting theory. Have you tried pitching it to some historians? Because it certainly runs counter to all the history I've ever read.

Maybe you just don't know what the hell you're talking about and your example for this "fallacy" is wrong...

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "AC axiom of natural property rights." Property rights are simply social norms.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if you assume your conclusion, then the state can do no wrong by definition. This same brilliant argument says that if the state makes droit du seigneur legal, then it is not rape, even though it is still forcing sexual intercourse on a woman against her will.

Furthermore, since property rights clearly existed before the state, such an assumption is patently false. Dogs understand property, as well as stateless societies such as tribal cultures. To declare that rights only exist to the extent that they are guaranteed by the state is simply to assume one's conclusion. In fact, the state does not exist as an entity that grants or guarantees rights, it exists solely as an entity that grants itself the exclusive power to violate rights.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "AC axiom of natural property rights." Property rights are simply social norms.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if you assume your conclusion, then the state can do no wrong by definition. This same brilliant argument says that if the state makes droit du seigneur legal, then it is not rape, even though it is still forcing sexual intercourse on a woman against her will.

Furthermore, since property rights clearly existed before the state, such an assumption is patently false. Dogs understand property, as well as stateless societies such as tribal cultures. To declare that rights only exist to the extent that they are guaranteed by the state is simply to assume one's conclusion. In fact, the state does not exist as an entity that grants or guarantees rights, it exists solely as an entity that grants itself the exclusive power to violate rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership of property, especially real property beyond which one is physically inhabiting, has not always pre-existed the state. I could certainly imagine a society that does not recognize real property ownership and yet is just as "moral" as one that does recognize these property rights. I could not say the same about one that permits rape.

I think the state exists largely to create the rights that we as a society think are appropriate. I would hope that everyone in society could agree that a right against unprovoked physical assault would be one of these. But rights to own property are more debatable.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "AC axiom of natural property rights." Property rights are simply social norms.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if you assume your conclusion, then the state can do no wrong by definition. This same brilliant argument says that if the state makes droit du seigneur legal, then it is not rape, even though it is still forcing sexual intercourse on a woman against her will.

Furthermore, since property rights clearly existed before the state, such an assumption is patently false. Dogs understand property, as well as stateless societies such as tribal cultures. To declare that rights only exist to the extent that they are guaranteed by the state is simply to assume one's conclusion. In fact, the state does not exist as an entity that grants or guarantees rights, it exists solely as an entity that grants itself the exclusive power to violate rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership of property, especially real property beyond which one is physically inhabiting, has not always pre-existed the state. I could certainly imagine a society that does not recognize real property ownership and yet is just as "moral" as one that does recognize these property rights. I could not say the same about one that permits rape.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with anything? Who said anything about morals? You said you assumed that property rights only exist when they are guaranteed by the state. I pointed out that property rights predate they state, therefore this cannot be correct. I also pointed out that your argument that taxation is not theft because the government defines that kind of coercive taking of property to be legal would imply that if the state makes forceable sexual intercourse legal it would not be rape, a farcical semantic argument. Forced sexual intercourse is forced sexual intercourse, whether you call it rape or not. Coercive taking of property is coercive taking of property, whether you call it theft or taxes or what. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and theft by any other name would smell as violent.

[ QUOTE ]
The state exists largely to create the rights that those in the state think are appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[ QUOTE ]
I would hope that everyone in society could agree that a right against unprovoked physical assault would be one of these. But rights to own property are more debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I boggle. You cannot have the first without the second. Do you see why?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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'm not aware of having engaged in any physical aggression or coersion since the last time I got into a fistfight - which was during high school.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 can also start a petition, write your congressman, run for office personally, expatriate, etc. There are a litany of things that come between "love the government" and "overthrow the government".

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
You can, of course, do that anytime you want, though it would be wise to first leave the country and renounce your citizenship. (Throwing off the chains of statehood.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem at all! Tell him to start here:
link He should be able to figure out what to look at next. If you find anything not to your liking, try any of the methods I suggested above for bringing about change, or you could make your exit, per the "throwing off the chains" link, also above.

[jogger08152]

[ 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 ]

Think of the laws of the US, your state, and your community as one single long, extremely detailed, and of course negotiable, AC contract. If you find you don't like some of them, work to change 'em. If you find them intolerable and unfixable, you can also of course leave. In no way are you "compelled" to abide laws you can't stomach.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "AC axiom of natural property rights." Property rights are simply social norms.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if you assume your conclusion, then the state can do no wrong by definition. This same brilliant argument says that if the state makes droit du seigneur legal, then it is not rape, even though it is still forcing sexual intercourse on a woman against her will.

Furthermore, since property rights clearly existed before the state, such an assumption is patently false. Dogs understand property, as well as stateless societies such as tribal cultures. To declare that rights only exist to the extent that they are guaranteed by the state is simply to assume one's conclusion. In fact, the state does not exist as an entity that grants or guarantees rights, it exists solely as an entity that grants itself the exclusive power to violate rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership of property, especially real property beyond which one is physically inhabiting, has not always pre-existed the state. I could certainly imagine a society that does not recognize real property ownership and yet is just as "moral" as one that does recognize these property rights. I could not say the same about one that permits rape.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with anything? Who said anything about morals? You said you assumed that property rights only exist when they are guaranteed by the state. I pointed out that property rights predate they state, therefore this cannot be correct. I also pointed out that your argument that taxation is not theft because the government defines that kind of coercive taking of property to be legal would imply that if the state makes forceable sexual intercourse legal it would not be rape, a farcical semantic argument. Forced sexual intercourse is forced sexual intercourse, whether you call it rape or not. Coercive taking of property is coercive taking of property, whether you call it theft or taxes or what. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and theft by any other name would smell as violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pointing out that property rights don't pre-exist the state. Certainly not as they are imagined in an AC society. The existence of this society assumes the existence of property rights that I don't think are natural, and have not been considered natural by other societies.

Furthermore, if property rights are only justified as social norms, then why not consider taxation also a society norm? Maybe the society norm is to deem as property only what has not been taken by taxation.

The main point is that if you don't accept property rights in the same way that ACists do, then "theft" is not necessarily as "bad", and thus neither is taxation.

I don't think murder is necessarily a "bad" either, e.g. in self-defense, and so I don't think the state murdering someone in my defense is a bad.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Think of the laws of the US, your state, and your community as one single long, extremely detailed, and of course negotiable, AC contract. If you find you don't like some of them, work to change 'em. If you find them intolerable and unfixable, you can also of course leave. In no way are you "compelled" to abide laws you can't stomach.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your position on civil disobedience?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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'm not aware of having engaged in any physical aggression or coersion since the last time I got into a fistfight - which was during high school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet here you are, slinging the tired old "love it or leave it" (i.e. subsidize the good and services I want or else GTFO of your own property) line. With a good measure of the social contract (a concept so obviously oppressive that it's been ripped to shreds in this forum even by statists) thrown in. Yet, to you, this isn't aggressive.

The reason "love it or leave it" IS aggressive is that the property you want people to vacate if they don't kowtow to your demands is NOT YOURS. Therefore, you have no right to place conditions on their occupancy. That's why I don't have to move when I want a different stock broker, or a different grocery store, or barber.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 can also start a petition, write your congressman, run for office personally, expatriate, etc. There are a litany of things that come between "love the government" and "overthrow the government".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the standard "join us or die" argument. You're either with us or you're against us. Giving someone the option to join your gang doesn't excuse violence against that person when he declines.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
You can, of course, do that anytime you want, though it would be wise to first leave the country and renounce your citizenship. (Throwing off the chains of statehood.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem at all! Tell him to start here:
link He should be able to figure out what to look at next. If you find anything not to your liking, try any of the methods I suggested above for bringing about change, or you could make your exit, per the "throwing off the chains" link, also above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I decline, and I stay here. What's your next move?

EDIT: BTW, you can't just "renoucnce and leave". The IRS will have more than a few objections, unless you're dirt poor.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
You said you assumed that property rights only exist when they are guaranteed by the state. I pointed out that property rights predate they state, therefore this cannot be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't point it out, you asserted it. In another post, you gave an example of dogs "understanding" property rights to support your claim. But I dispute both your claim and your example.

As to your dog example, animals of all sorts, including social animals, compete for land and food. If dog pack A is hungry, it will move onto "dog pack B's land" without hesitation in search of prey. The rival packs may fight over the territory, but both will assert "their claim" with equal fervor, neither recognizing any sort of implied "first come, first served" rule. Even intrapack (or troup - chimpanzees are another good example), "property rights", say, to the most recently found food, don't exist absent social hierarchies: instead the shares are distributed according to the pecking order. Government predates property, as near as I can tell, not only in our species, but in -every- species.

As far as your assertion that property rights antedate social hierarchies (which is just another name for "the state") among humans, you couldn't be more wrong. Social hierarchies are hardwired into the R-complex, the oldest part of the human brain (well older than the human brain, in fact: we share it with crocodiles, among other ancient species, and it is at least a hundred million years older than the neocortex). In a sense, pecking orders exist precisely to establish property ownership, but not by "right". Property ownership has historically been established by domination, not only of other humans, but of everything hostile it contains, either through combat or ritual combat, and has lasted precisely as long as the "owner" can hold it through violence or the threat of violence. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong.