|
|
#11
04-26-2007, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I thought it was understood that people would act to "maximise their own utility function" or something similar. If supporting a state-enforced social safety net, police, court system etc etc maximises my happiness isnt that what I do? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, just don't force people that don't agree with you to get involved and you're 100% legit by AC. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not really advocating a position as I am clearly ignorant/unused to thinking about political theory, but I am puzzled as to how you would argue this. What I am suggesting is that (hypothetically at least) violating property rights and using coercive violence is more desirable to some than letting the market decide everything. How does an ACist argue that they should refrain from doing what maximises their happiness(or utility, forgive me if I use the wrong words)? Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. [/ QUOTE ] Rapist to father and family, as well as potential rapee her/his self: What I am suggesting is that (hypothetically at least) violating property rights (body of rapee in this case) and using coercive violence is more desirable to some (rapist in this case) than letting the market decide everything (instead of looking for another person who will agree to sex voluntarially). How does an ACist argue that they should refrain from doing what maximises their happiness(or utility, forgive me if I use the wrong words)? Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. Let me know when your ass is in the air and I will come over Bunny, I'm tired and don't want to have to do too much cooercing but am intent on maximizing my utility. 
|
|
#12
04-26-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but it means that all people should do what they want, and thus nobody should aggress against others and remove their ability to 'act as they want'. [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. [/ QUOTE ] Well, even ACists are gonna disagree here since some are utilitarians and others believe in something like natural rights. As an advocate of natural rights, I would characterize their 'inviobility' as something morally objective rather than morally absolute. The difference being that 'natural rights' are real and objective, and hence hold even if breaking them might bring greater 'utility' to someone or some group. But they're not morally 'absolute', since their are occasions when other ethical concerns (ie, other than considerations about justice) might cause an individual to temporarily disregard such rights.
|
|
#14
04-26-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but it means that all people should do what they want, and thus nobody should aggress against others and remove their ability to 'act as they want'. [/ QUOTE ] The point I was laboring to make is isnt that just an arbitrary line you are imposing on everyone else, just like a statist but to a lesser degree? Understand that I dont have an issue with that per se, but it has seemed to me that ACists portray statists as violent oppressors for insisting that we all adhere to a variety of rules, when it seems that what you mean above is that there is one rule that everyone must follow, regardless of if they want to. (Obviously, anticipating another rapist analogy, I also think it's a good rule to follow.) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. [/ QUOTE ] Well, even ACists are gonna disagree here since some are utilitarians and others believe in something like natural rights. As an advocate of natural rights, I would characterize their 'inviobility' as something morally objective rather than morally absolute. The difference being that 'natural rights' are real and objective, and hence hold even if breaking them might bring greater 'utility' to someone or some group. But they're not morally 'absolute', since their are occasions when other ethical concerns (ie, other than considerations about justice) might cause an individual to temporarily disregard such rights. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks - this seems to make sense. I'm glad it's possible to be in favor of AC without abandoning a belief in natural rights (I've clearly read rather narrowly). Morally objective is a much better term than morally absolute.
|
|
#15
04-26-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It has seemed to me that the strongest argument a statist has against AC is to accept most of its claims and just say "I want a state more than anarchy. Therefore, I shall act to maximise my own utility and work to institute and maintain the existence of a state." I was wondering how AC would reply. [/ QUOTE ] The fundamental "AC claim" is that initiating force is immoral, which you're rejecting as soon as you make that decision. There are some ACists who are strictly utilitarian (whatever that means), but they're a minority. [/ QUOTE ] So there are situations where people should act counter to what will maximise their happiness due to moral obligations? I thought ACists often cite some -ology or other which said people always act to maximise their happiness. Also, what you have written above just says you regard it as immoral. Statists obviously have a different opinion and how is it possible to insist they abandon their moral principles without invoking moral absolutism (or objective morality at least).
|
|
#16
04-26-2007, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but it means that all people should do what they want, and thus nobody should aggress against others and remove their ability to 'act as they want'. [/ QUOTE ] The point I was laboring to make is isnt that just an arbitrary line you are imposing on everyone else, [/ QUOTE ] No. Defending yourself from being aggressed upon is not imposing on anyone. [ QUOTE ] it seems that what you mean above is that there is one rule that everyone must follow, regardless of if they want to. [/ QUOTE ] If person A and person B are fine with aggressing against each other, let them to what they want. But not letting them aggress against person C who hasn't consented to such is not any type of aggression. Free market anarchy is all about voluntary solutions. Do whatever you want, as long as the parties involved consent to it. [ QUOTE ] I'm glad it's possible to be in favor of AC without abandoning a belief in natural rights [/ QUOTE ] Fwiw many rights-oriented ACists argue for AC *because* of natural rights.
|
|
#17
04-26-2007, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It has seemed to me that the strongest argument a statist has against AC is to accept most of its claims and just say "I want a state more than anarchy. Therefore, I shall act to maximise my own utility and work to institute and maintain the existence of a state." I was wondering how AC would reply. [/ QUOTE ] The fundamental "AC claim" is that initiating force is immoral, which you're rejecting as soon as you make that decision. There are some ACists who are strictly utilitarian (whatever that means), but they're a minority. [/ QUOTE ] In an economic sense, utilitarian means highest total utility.
|
|
#18
04-26-2007, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not really advocating a position as I am clearly ignorant/unused to thinking about political theory, but I am puzzled as to how you would argue this. What I am suggesting is that (hypothetically at least) violating property rights and using coercive violence is more desirable to some than letting the market decide everything. How does an ACist argue that they should refrain from doing what maximises their happiness(or utility, forgive me if I use the wrong words)? Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. [/ QUOTE ] Rapist to father and family, as well as potential rapee her/his self: What I am suggesting is that (hypothetically at least) violating property rights (body of rapee in this case) and using coercive violence is more desirable to some (rapist in this case) than letting the market decide everything (instead of looking for another person who will agree to sex voluntarially). How does an ACist argue that they should refrain from doing what maximises their happiness(or utility, forgive me if I use the wrong words)? Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions. Let me know when your ass is in the air and I will come over Bunny, I'm tired and don't want to have to do too much cooercing but am intent on maximizing my utility. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that this would be wrong, that's kind of my point. A statist says it's wrong and part of the power a state has should be used to stop rapists. The (admittedly few) AC arguments I have heard say that people are justified to prevent rapists from harming them and their families. I am wondering what an ACist would say to a potential rapist (who understands he is about to violently interfere with someone's property rights but wants that more than he wants to respect them). It seems to me that AC is on the same spectrum as statism but with much fewer rules (only one rule in fact). Maybe this is old news, or maybe I've just got it all wrong. Like I say, I have very little experience discussing politics (although a healthy respect for freedom and non-violence).
|
|
#20
04-26-2007, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but it means that all people should do what they want, and thus nobody should aggress against others and remove their ability to 'act as they want'. [/ QUOTE ] The point I was laboring to make is isnt that just an arbitrary line you are imposing on everyone else, [/ QUOTE ] No. Defending yourself from being aggressed upon is not imposing on anyone. [/ QUOTE ] But preventing me, or telling me I shouldnt agress against a third party? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm glad it's possible to be in favor of AC without abandoning a belief in natural rights [/ QUOTE ] Fwiw many rights-oriented ACists argue for AC *because* of natural rights. [/ QUOTE ] *nod* I hadnt appreciated the possibility but it makes more sense to me to think of it in those terms (although I still have the "it's just not gonna work" mentality)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
