Factions within AC

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering the number of posts per day that are in some way related to AC, and the popularity it seems to enjoy, a natural question arises. That is, what are the main factions within AC?

Also, given the strong opinions the subject causes (judging from the volume of posts), what are the main arguments you have among yourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, I misunderstood your question. I looked up the word faction and thought you had chosen the wrong word.


Me and Borodog have a different view on religion. Me and Stefan Molyneux have a different view on determinism vs 'free will'.

Let's see, what else..

HMK says he isn't interested in morality, and I think it's extremely important.

HMK thinks voting is a strategy for change, whereas I think it's about the changing of the minds, which means we should not vote (to show our consistency).

Hans Hoppe thinks a form of aristocracy has a legitimate place in a voluntary society, I disagree.

valenzuale thinks capitalist-owned towns are gonna be a big thing in a voluntary society (I think), I don't.

HMK thinks we shouldn't use emotion during arguments (I disagree). HMK thinks the voluntary 'cause' should not mix with art, I disagree.

Can't think of much else right now.

[NSchandler]

I think generally speaking the most useful distinction you can make between different factions of ACers would be natural rights ACers and utilitarian ACers.

A natural rights ACer will make the Randian/Rothbard type arguments that taxes are theft, etc.

A utilitarian ACer will focus on efficiency arguments.

There's also a 3rd type that practices the libertarian two-step, whereby they rely on one of the above arguments until it breaks down, then switches to the other. I think to some degree almost all libertarians/ACers are guilty of doing this at some point. Even Rand justified capitalism on the basis of natural rights, but then switches to a utilitarian argument when explaining that the police forces need to be government run if they are to work properly.

Of course, this is not to say you can't make both arguments, since they are complementary in many cases. That is, usually capitalism will be superior on natural rights AND utilitarian standards. But in those cases where the two standards conflict, you can't be allowed to choose whether you're a utilitarian or a natural rights advocate in each specific case, sometimes making the case for AC/libertarianism based on natural rights, at other times basing it on utilitarianism. That's just being inconsistent.

[TuNeCedeMalis]

[ QUOTE ]
A forced relation is an evil thing. There is only one class of people; no people should rule over other people. There is freedom and there is slavery. Government is a forced relation of a ruling class over other people.

A voluntary relation on the other hand is a wonderful thing. It's fair, it's extremely productive and useful for everyone; and it doesn't include this heinous covering up of violence, which is what a lot of our culture is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Very very very well said.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I think generally speaking the most useful distinction you can make between different factions of ACers would be natural rights ACers and utilitarian ACers.

A natural rights ACer will make the Randian/Rothbard type arguments that taxes are theft, etc.

A utilitarian ACer will focus on efficiency arguments.

There's also a 3rd type that practices the libertarian two-step, whereby they rely on one of the above arguments until it breaks down, then switches to the other. I think to some degree almost all libertarians/ACers are guilty of doing this at some point. Even Rand justified capitalism on the basis of natural rights, but then switches to a utilitarian argument when explaining that the police forces need to be government run if they are to work properly.

Of course, this is not to say you can't make both arguments, since they are complementary in many cases. That is, usually capitalism will be superior on natural rights AND utilitarian standards. But in those cases where the two standards conflict, you can't be allowed to choose whether you're a utilitarian or a natural rights advocate in each specific case, sometimes making the case for AC/libertarianism based on natural rights, at other times basing it on utilitarianism. That's just being inconsistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not clear on when someone would be being inconsistent, can you provide me with a spicific example to help me wrap my mind around what you are saying?

[valenzuela]

My stand on social issues: moral.
My stand on economic isssues: utilitarian.

For instance I think heroine should be legalized for moral reasons, I think the draft is wrong for moral resons, I think prostitution should be legal for moral reasons.
However Im against minium wage for utilitarian reasons, Im against redistribution for utilitarian reasons.

Here comes my biggest disagreement with ACists:
I sometimes disagree with the "libertarian idea"
Real example: Should we give money to poor single moms?
I think that we should give money to poor mothers, because the real libertarian stand is that mothers are able to sell their baby in the free market, if we deny mothers the right to give their baby to someone who wants a baby, we are forcing her to stay with the baby.
Since we are already forcing her to keep the baby, we might as well just give the woman some cash, I think that the effect of giving cash to poor single mothers is better than the effect of simply forcing them to keep their baby.( btw I wont reply to any ACist refutation of this example on this thread, if you are intrested in discussing it create another thread)

Btw NSchandler, even if Im saying that I support economic issues because of an utilitarian point of view, that doesnt mean I cant point out the inconsistency of other ppl moral views.
The same with social issues but the other way around.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
My stand on social issues: moral.
My stand on economic isssues: utilitarian.

For instance I think heroine should be legalized for moral reasons, I think the draft is wrong for moral resons, I think prostitution should be legal for moral reasons.
However Im against minium wage for utilitarian reasons, Im against redistribution for utilitarian reasons.

Here comes my biggest disagreement with ACists:
I sometimes disagree with the "libertarian idea"
Real example: Should we give money to poor single moms?
I think that we should give money to poor mothers,

[/ QUOTE ]

You went from 'I' statements to 'we' statements.

IMO it is not an AC issue regardless of what you 'think'. Think that you are a pink elephant flying through the air. Think you are God. Think you are superman. All OK with me. I am for the freedom of thought and it is my assumption at this point, because I am so new to the concept, that this is a postion of AC. Freedom of thought.

You can 'think' that everyone should wear pink rabbit ears and hop down the street singing funny songs. No problem. Try to legislate it, big problem.

I think we should do lots of things, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, I respect your right to think DIFFERENTLY. Therefore I do not intend to try to cooerce you to adopt behaviors I 'think' are good.

I am a big proponent of private charities. All of them, all the time. As much as you want. As big as you want as often as you want. But all by choice.

If you are talking about your opinions (as it what you hope would happen), great. If you are talking about cooercing others to make it happen, bad.

I like to help others, I believe in mutual voluntary transactions. If we go around trying to bully each other with our ideas of what is good and what is bad, intending on trying to force our way on others, we are all doomed. We are not even a civilized race yet (humans that is).

[Skidoo]

Thanks for all those replies, definitely some quality content there.

Actually, I'm beginning to get a notion of how you AC guys might be on to something though perhaps not in the way you expect. The choice of names, deriving from anarchy plus capitalism, seemed like an oxymoron at first considering the complexity of coordinated infrastructure necessary to previous, now dying, forms of capitalism, but maybe it fits after all.

The way anarchocapitalism could exist is as a sort of high-tech "afterlife of capitalism" where classical industrial capitalism becomes impossible as was predicted by Marx, though due to processes he didn't quite anticipate.

[ShakeZula06]

As borodog has said before (or maybe he borrowed it from Mises or some other guy, I haven't read much libertarian philosophy outside of this board) I am confident that Anarchocapitalism is best because of the triple coincidence, that is the most natural, the most moral, and produces the best results.

I don't see why we should choose which faction to belong to just because a certain argument might be more persuasive or more important in one person's eyes. The fact is the both arguments (moral or consequentialism/utilitarianism in this case) are both valid arguments.

[Skidoo]

No, not choose a faction to belong to.

I was wondering why, given the quantity of AC posts, so few if any are on topics about which you argue amongst yourselves.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

A natural rights ACer will make the Randian/Rothbard type arguments that taxes are theft, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rand rejected libertarianism and the title of libertarian because she thought that libertarians used moral arguments instead of utilitarian ones.