Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[Dane S]

Ok, that makes sense. I'm just using the word government wrong.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's easy to let nitpickers bog you down with details. Ultimately, these debates about "how will such and such work in AC land" are undecidable. And anyone who says that shows a weakness in AC is completely missing the point. But that's really the only semi-effective strategy against AC in this regard; go after details and hope the AC-proponent drowns trying to nail everything down.

Of course, statism is vulnerable to the same attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see this tactic in action right now; xorbie is using it in his "freedom" thread, trying to hold AC up to a standard that statism has never met.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally understand what you mean, and actually I'm with you in a lot of ways. Capitalism is good for macroeconomic activity, but (voluntary) socialism has a lot of merit in microeconomics.

[m_the0ry]

I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check. Extremely unnatural constructs like tax bracketing and constructs against monopolies and oligopolies are in place in most capitalist governments. You can't speculate what it would be like to live in a market driven society without centralized government without considering this.

Anarchocapitalism would lead to horrendous problems in distribution of wealth (.01% wealthiest owning 99.99% of the wealth).

[WillMagic]

m_theory,

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

b) your statistic is completely absurd. 01% controlling 99%...yeah right.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalism would lead to horrendous problems in redistribution of wealth

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Thats the whole point! To remove ppl who think like you from our lives and pockets forever. Not to mention the fringe benifits of universal equality for once.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's the only way you can make communism not look horrible vs. capitalism.

[valenzuela]

Post deleted by [censored]

[UATrewqaz]

[ QUOTE ]
wasting 400 billions dollars on killing thousands and thousands of ppl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you make it sound like the stated goal of the mission is primarly killing people.

That's not to say people aren't dying, but them dying is a by-product of the stated goal (the stated goal might very well be a complete waste of time as well, but the whole "OMG THE ARMY JUST WANTS TO KILL PEOPLE!!" routine is lame)

If the government wasn't wasting the money on the war it'd be wasting it on something else.

However the conclusion "Well the government isn't perfect, so we simply must disband government period!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Government is a necessary evil.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
However the conclusion "Well the government isn't perfect, so we simply must disband government period!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Now when you find someone who has come to that conclusion, you let me know. I know ACists have other, much better reasons.