What is AC?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Sorry, I had to respond to this. I'm told my arguments are 'retarded' later by the same poster.

So wait, I have one view of the world, you have one view of the world. We know what my world looks like, so we have something on which to compare your view. Your view doesn't exist. And, you aren't burdoned with proving what is unobserved is better than what is? If I am being accused of a strawman, I'd accuse many of you of unfettered idealism in a situation that does not exist. The kind of headstrong belief that prevents you from seeing problems within your framework, whereas I can actually admit problems within the state. This is getting ridiculous, as only a couple posters are demonstrating enough objectivty to actually recognize a fault in a very different new world. Thanks for the discussion to the civil posters.

[valenzuela]

Do you think the world would be better with a coercive central goverment?

[valenzuela]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you killed somebody with a bullet? Have you not helped someone who could have used some of the money you have?
Do you get the difference now?


[ QUOTE ]
So wait, I have one view of the world, you have one view of the world. We know what my world looks like, so we have something on which to compare your view. Your view doesn't exist. And, you aren't burdoned with proving what is unobserved is better than what is? This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why arent you burdoned with proving what what is unobserved is worse than what it is? If youre so sure that statism its better than AC then you must have some kinda argument to disprove AC.

Anyway I will attempt to take a shot at youre question.
-We will have less violent deaths because there wont be an army on Iraq and there wont be violent drug dealers.
-AC doesnt stop religious conflicts.
-more ppl will have a health system because capitalism will result on more wealth for everyone.

[tolbiny]

[ 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 ]

No one on this board has ever pretended that AC would eliminate 100% of crime, violence and bigotry. I, and my neighbors who value living in a low crime area will spend money to further that end. I can protect myself numerous ways, from gaurd dogs, to guns to security systems, to Tae Kwon Jilligy.


[ QUOTE ]
You wont get mass murders, on varying scales, in statism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean in AC. People who kill other people? Yeah, will probably exist, but its pretty tough to compete with the scale of those who can use the gov apparatus to further those ends.

[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be blatently obvious. The expenses of exterminating large numbers of people are huge. Currently the WOT has cost ~400 billion over 5 years. These expenses of course don't count the years preceding it in which the buildup was nessecary to begin these military actions. The trianing of troops, maneuvers, R&D- there isn't a single company in the world that could afford to pay for 6 months of this action without going completely busto. Moreover in a competitive environment a company that even began to spend these sums of money would be outcompeted before it could begin aggressive actions.

[ QUOTE ]
and that scores more people won't die due to lack of medical treatment.


[/ QUOTE ]

When a group spends X dollars on war, are there more or fewer resources left to spend on medical treatment? When a soldier requires surgury after being shot, or months of intensive care after stepping on a land mine are there more or fewer resources left for other peopel to use? When a person has 13% of their inome taken for SS tax that they never see do they have more or fewer resources with which to provide medical treatment for their families, or to buy a home so they need less money for retirement, or to buy XY and Z which they really want? The government is inefficient at best (post office) when compared to the free market and outright wastfull (war) all of which reduces the overall wealth of all its taxpayers. So yes, i think its pretty obvious that there will be more resources availible on average and that fewer people will die or suffer from wants.

[ QUOTE ]
Arbiters won't be racist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who will do more business, a fair arbitrator or one who has a reputation for being unfair? Hiw whole business is predicated upon giving fiar rulings or else there would never be two parties who will agree to use him as one side (at least) will fear an unfair judgment.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Its simply more profitable to have 100% of the population being willing to patronize your stores than to have less than 100%. In this manner those who don't descriminate will have access to wider markets, make more money, reinvest that money, provide better services and ultimately dominate the market place. Borodog had a very detainled post recently on who cooperation is beneficial.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dishwashing, good example, i've washed dishes in three different restaurants, been a grill cook, a kitchn manager and a server, I've run a snack bar on summer vacations during college. I have worked with probably hundreds of people in the restaurant industry, from high school kids to 45 year olds with 3 kids, to a mentaly retarded 45yr old alcoholic. If you show up to work on time, and work and aren't a giant [censored] you will NOT remain on the lowest rung of pay. You will get moved to being a cook, or host or server or food prep or get a pay bump once you establish that you are dependable. You don't see many 40 yr old dishwashers when you work in restaurants. I can think of exactly 1 (mentally retarded alcoholic who couldn't be fired due to MA laws).

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The prices of goods and services are reduced under capitalism. Farmers don't buy machines to harvest crops because it is more expensive to do so, they do it because is less expensive per unit of crop. Henry Ford didn't install assembly line processes because its less competitive to do so. Inflation comes from the Gove [censored] around with the money supply, not from capitalist enterprises. Here's an idea of just how much the gove likes to monkey around.

classic AC pic

[ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing that with free capitalism, we will arrive at the day where the lowest rungs have everything you mentioned?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly seems like the trend. People flocked toward horrendeous (by our standards) conditions in cities because regular pay, even in tiny amounts and terrible conditions, was better than having the risk of one bad growing season wipe out your entire family. Look at blue collar manufacturers now, homeowners, cars, retirement plans, the progress is staggaring.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is either a bald faced lie or just an ignorant statement. You pick.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm asking you to answer again. Because your first try was extremely poor.

[ QUOTE ]
Which devolves into your assertion, which well never be conceded either way by you or me, so arguing is actually rather inane.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit you have nothing other than assertion (i.e. your personal preference) to back your claim. Therefore, you have no legitimate authority to impose upon others. Since the proponents of anarchocapitalism make no claims upon others, the allegation that all they have supporting their position is personal preferences does nothing to weaken that position.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't need to. It makes no claims upon others.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. You can believe that if you want. You can even have a state if you really think it will provide you with a more satisfactory situation. Now, all you need to do is explain why you need to compel others to participate in your state against their will.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, your entire argument is that "I think XYZ would be bad, therefore nobody should be allowed to experience XYZ," right?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't matter. And is unanswerable, anyway. Do you see why?

If you support evolution, please illustrate what the species that dominate earth 10,000 years from now will be like. What mutations will be selected? Which species will adapt, which will go extinct?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

THe most effective capacity for collective action that common people have is voluntary action. The "capacity for collective action" that is embodied by the state benefits the elite much, much more than the common man. Who builds fortunes from war? Who sends their kids off to die in war?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So wait, I have one view of the world, you have one view of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And instead of allowing each to pursue their own personal preferences, you feel that your preference should be imposed upon *everyone* until you can be convinced that someone else's is better.

I can eat crunchy peanut butter, and my neighbor can eat creamy. I don't have to convince him that crunchy is better in order to enjoy crunchy.

[ QUOTE ]
I am being accused of a strawman, I'd accuse many of you of unfettered idealism in a situation that does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you care?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The "capacity for collective action" that is embodied by the state benefits the elite much, much more than the common man. Who builds fortunes from war? Who sends their kids off to die in war?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an argument against out-of-control government. Something few defend.

In fact, a limited, constitutional government is one of the best defenses the people have against lawless (anarchistic, as it were) capitalism (piracy).

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
We have enough trouble with an entire government agency devoted towards it. I can easily envision a mafia-run AC world.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you have to do to envision a mafia run world is to open your eyes and see what life is like today. We are in a mafia run world, the government is the mafia.

Don't you think the mafia provides welfare to the poor? Don't you think they do favors for people? Don't you think they want to collect their money without resorting to violence?

They do not engage in violence for it's own sake, they do it to enforce their power. They extort enought to stay comfortable and in control, but not so much as to have pandamonium in the streets. There are occasional violent conflicts and power struggles. This is life as we know it today. The politicians are the dons and captains and the police and soldiers are the mafia soldiers.

Put italian suits on all the politicians and put leather jackets on all the enlisted soldiers and police and change their names to give them slick nic names or last names of whatever ethnicity you imagine when you think of the mafia and what do you have? You have the USA today.

Taxes are the 'tribute'/ extorted money. Stop paying and see what happens. Men with guns will eventually show up at your door.