What is AC?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
See several posts back for an AC admission that people might be left without very necessary services.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that, but people get left behind all the time now. I think the number of such people would be lower under AC than it would now because there wouldn't be policies enacted that make them worse off (see the drug war, printing money, min wage, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself if you want to live in a policeless-fireless-no-water neigborhood, and are stuck there because your mom makes 3 dollars an hour, damn genetic lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this all that much different from poor slums now? Not really.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
War isn't profitable, in will only happen in a taxless society if people perfer injuring others to money, and in any society where this feeling is prevelent there will be widescale violence regardless of its political form

[/ QUOTE ].

My job sucks, I need money. You have lots, and I don't care about you. Why does a taxless society prevent me from robbing everyone I can? My point is that conflict will exist in AC and in state.

[ QUOTE ]
It is way worse to be a victim of a war than to live without health insurance. You act so concerned about the "runts" in AC land, but totally ignore that the runts in statism land are [censored] BURNED TO DEATH IN OVENS. This is what makes statits positions amoung the most dispicible things i have ever read.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wont get mass murders, on varying scales, in statism? So it's worse to die by bullet than slowly of a terrible ailment that you can't afford to treat? Read my posts before you assert I am ignoring something. I admit over and over, that statism has conflict. Where do I state we live in a peaceful utopia. Prove to me AC land will be better: that it will be more free of violent death, group conflict (religious or whatver you wish), and that scores more people won't die due to lack of medical treatment.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does crack carry harsher penalties (for use and dealing) than regular cocaine? Why are blacks sentanced to longer sentances on average for similar crimes and similar criminal backgrounds than whites? If its all about poverty why aren't Latinos being incarcerated at the same rates as blacks? The institution of government is clearly being used to oppress blacks in the US in this day and age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discrimination doesn't exist in AC? Arbiters won't be racist? Awesome. You are trying to make me defend the WOD. The state makes lots of terrible decisions. Again, my arguments do not assert the state is a utopia, I just prefer what we have to your proposal of a world that I think will be much more cruel and dysfunctional. Argue the merits of your own land, and tell me why discimination/violence/ignoring the poorest don't continue/worsen under AC. Please.

[ QUOTE ]
"Lower class" is a red herring- if the lower class has ffod, shelter, health care, insurance, education and has the ability to live a good life who cares if they are "lower" than other people?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is all this provided in AC land for those with few skills, poor upbringings, mental problems? Those who become your worlds' dishwashers, with little chance to be much else, and try to raise a family. Standard of living has improved, because aggregate wealth has improved. Are you arguing that with free capitalism, we will arrive at the day where the lowest rungs have everything you mentioned? A dishwasher's pay will accelerate faster than the costs of goods and services? If so, please show some empirical evidence/studies that the elimination of poverty is inevitable through capitalism.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
The state is given authority to act for the people, through democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what Hitler did wasnt immoral because he was given authority to act for the people, through democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
We can't refund your fire and police taxes, and just not help you out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be able to choose a security company from the market, its not that I dont want a security company, same goes with fire, court system, roads, etc.


[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, you are in it, benefiting from its services.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose that I have the food monopoly, now suppose that I dont let anyone compete with me. Also suppose that I force everyone to pay for my food.
People are actually feeding themselves with my food and some ppl will actually find it tasty, but im not really giving them a benefit because Im disallowing someone else to sell their food and compete with me.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See several posts back for an AC admission that people might be left without very necessary services.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that, but people get left behind all the time now. I think the number of such people would be lower under AC than it would now because there wouldn't be policies enacted that make them worse off (see the drug war, printing money, min wage, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself if you want to live in a policeless-fireless-no-water neigborhood, and are stuck there because your mom makes 3 dollars an hour, damn genetic lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this all that much different from poor slums now? Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, these are the actual merits of the argument. Not attempts to narrow the argument to extreme real-world situations while pretending, or ignoring the idea, that AC might not be atrocity-free. Thank you, honestly. I disagree with both of your statements, which is why I disagree with AC. We have the state to critique. We don't have that for AC, so, it's hard for you to elaborate, but I'll ask some questions anyway. Why do you think elimination of poor policies won't be outdone by extreme private exploitation of skilless workers that can be replaced by any bum? And why would they outnumber the large number of working class recepients (they have a job, it just doesn't pay them enough for necessities), who would be made worse off by a lack of government benefits? Why won't lack of a national enforcement capacity prevent large scale mafia-type operations from sprouting everywhere? We have enough trouble with an entire government agency devoted towards it. I can easily envision a mafia-run AC world.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No one gave you authority, as a robber, to rob. The state is given authority to act for the people, through democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a smokescreen. SOME people, through democracy (supposedly) gave authorization for some people (acting as "the state") to do these things to OTHER people. However, the problem is that the people giving the authorization have no legitimate power to give that authority over those other people. I might "give" Hulk Hogan "authorization" to give you an atomic pile driver, but I have no legitimate right to give such authorization.

[ QUOTE ]
This is no comfort to you, as you did not voluntarily birth yourself into a democracy. Regardless, you are in it, benefiting from its services. Services you have been coerced to pay for, but services that cannot be refunded to you. We can't refund your fire and police taxes, and just not help you out. You suffer somewhat, for the existence of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take all of your money and leave you some bread crusts. Since you're hungry, and have no money, you eat them. Since you benefit from my generous gift of bread (which I was under no obligation to provide), you must be consenting to our arrangement. I can't refund the funds that paid for the taxes (because I said so). And if I didn't give you bread, you'd starve. I mean, I can't "just not help you out." I'm a nice guy.

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings us back to the initial argument: why do we need a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well?

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does a taxless society prevent me from robbing everyone I can?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you do an efficient and reputable security company will pwn you. And after u get pwned by them you will pwned by an efficient and reputable court system.

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me AC land will be better: that it will be more free of violent death, group conflict (religious or whatver you wish), and that scores more people won't die due to lack of medical treatment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove to me statism is better.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's worse to die by bullet than slowly of a terrible ailment that you can't afford to treat?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply retarded.

[ QUOTE ]
Discrimination doesn't exist in AC? Arbiters won't be racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we will have racism on AC. However black people wont want to deal with racist arbitrators.



[ QUOTE ]
Argue the merits of your own land, and tell me why discimination/violence/ignoring the poorest don't continue/worsen under AC. Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well because since there is only one court system available, that court system doesnt have any incentive to not be racist. If an arbitrator wants to profit on AC the best way to do it is to be totally fair and objective.

[ QUOTE ]
How is all this provided in AC land for those with few skills, poor upbringings, mental problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not, just like its not provided for africans either.

[ QUOTE ]
Standard of living has improved, because aggregate wealth has improved.

[/ QUOTE ]

And aggregate wealth has improved because of capitalism, hooray!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
My job sucks, I need money. You have lots, and I don't care about you. Why does a taxless society prevent me from robbing everyone I can?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. But the man who has "lots" will have the resources to repel you. You might get lucky and rob a couple of guys, but eventually you'll be stopped. Most likely, permanently.

What stops you from robbing everyone you can know? Security forces. Those forces happen to be supplied by coercive government funding to a large degree right now; however, we know that such services will be provided in an open market, because there are supplemental services offered RIGHT NOW despite the government provision.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that conflict will exist in AC and in state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, nobody has suggested otherwise. Except those who like to make assumptions about theories they don't understand in order to knock them over easier. Strawman much?

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me AC land will be better: that it will be more free of violent death, group conflict (religious or whatver you wish), and that scores more people won't die due to lack of medical treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the standard attempt to flip the burden of proof. The fact that statism is the status quo does not exempt those who support it from fufilling the burden of proof.

Further, the fact that statism *might* "prevent XYZ" or "provide ABC" etc does not in and of itself justify it.

But to humor you, who, in an anarchocapitalistic scenario, is going to *pay* for all of this violent death, group conflict, etc? Bill Gates is going to buy a private army?

But what if the KKK gets millions of members and they outspend everyone else? Well, guess what - the state won't be able to stop them, either. If the death star shows up in orbit around Earth tomorrow, we're all dead, state or no state.

[ QUOTE ]
Discrimination doesn't exist in AC? Arbiters won't be racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it will exist; however, racists will not be able to hold monopoly positions of power; they can therefore be routed around.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think elimination of poor policies won't be outdone by extreme private exploitation of skilless workers that can be replaced by any bum?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by exploitation.

[ QUOTE ]
And why would they outnumber the large number of working class recepients (they have a job, it just doesn't pay them enough for necessities), who would be made worse off by a lack of government benefits?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think those working class people would benefit from removing harmful policies. The drug war, minimum wages that set price floors and create shortages, inflating the money supply giving people less purchasing power, granting monopolies to companies, and taxes that raise the cost of living are all things that hurt the poor.

[ QUOTE ]
Why won't lack of a national enforcement capacity prevent large scale mafia-type operations from sprouting everywhere? We have enough trouble with an entire government agency devoted towards it.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have trouble with mafias because the government creates black markets which incentivize violent people to enter them. Take away the black markets and you make it much, much harder for a mafia organization to be profitable.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one gave you authority, as a robber, to rob. The state is given authority to act for the people, through democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a smokescreen. SOME people, through democracy (supposedly) gave authorization for some people (acting as "the state") to do these things to OTHER people. However, the problem is that the people giving the authorization have no legitimate power to give that authority over those other people. I might "give" Hulk Hogan "authorization" to give you an atomic pile driver, but I have no legitimate right to give such authorization.

[ QUOTE ]
This is no comfort to you, as you did not voluntarily birth yourself into a democracy. Regardless, you are in it, benefiting from its services. Services you have been coerced to pay for, but services that cannot be refunded to you. We can't refund your fire and police taxes, and just not help you out. You suffer somewhat, for the existence of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take all of your money and leave you some bread crusts. Since you're hungry, and have no money, you eat them. Since you benefit from my generous gift of bread (which I was under no obligation to provide), you must be consenting to our arrangement. I can't refund the funds that paid for the taxes (because I said so). And if I didn't give you bread, you'd starve. I mean, I can't "just not help you out." I'm a nice guy.

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings us back to the initial argument: why do we need a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the last 300 pages for the answer to your last question. And 50 other threads. I was trying to show how most of these arguments devolve into that central question. By me answering, you are asking me to answer it again. Which devolves into your assertion, which well never be conceded either way by you or me, so arguing is actually rather inane.

AC: We are born free, no one has the right to make us do anything without voluntarily contracting.

This says nothing about the consequences of that assertion.
I don't like AC for many scattered reasons, but I imagine it's probably much worse than the more well-run states, and maybe even poorly-run states. The lack of central authorities to even begin to think about stopping massive private exploitation and mafia-esque violence/private coercion without benefits are some of the reasons I believe AC more destructive to the average human than the state. Some states are as corrupt as what I envision AC to be already. Some are better. Because of the extremity that I envision will probably ensue, the majority is in a sense protecting itself, by stripping you of some rights you think you were born with.

This issue of whether the majority is ever allowed to oerce the minority is a dead horse. If AC isn't something statists should be scared to live in, can I hear some arguments of what life will be like in AC, so the majority doesn't have to protect itself from it? Someone, please, illustrate why AC will not result in worse rates of poverty, more corruption, and more violence.

I'm done for the night, sorry if I don't reply to ensuing posts timely, but the debate is getting unproductive quickly and I'm being pulled in too many directions to make this fruitful.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
"ACland" doesn't do anything. Only people act.

[/ QUOTE ]

What anarchy-capitalism does is remove the most effective capacity for collective action from the common people while preserving the equivalent forms used by private wealth.