A/C in Action: The AP Case

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think my comment was strawman at all. Phil is clearly making a case for government intervention on the basis that some people are too dumb and pick the wrong thing when smart people don't limit their choices. Pointing that out isn't a strawman.



[/ QUOTE ]

The strawman is in stating the assumptions of the other position.

FWIW, I agree that government is never going to stop people from being dumb. Whether that is an argument against government intervention to prevent those dumb people from doing things that hurt themselves is another thing all together.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
This is AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also government.

[ QUOTE ]
So to prevent a few poker players from being ripped off you think we should have a world government?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I didn't say that. I said that expanding juristiction was a way to get people to participate in your juristiction.

[ QUOTE ]
The point I was trying to make is that AC isnt neccessarily a passivist society. When aggressed against through fraud there is nothing within AC that says we arent allowed to send police to confiscate your servers. We arent just relying on the particular consumer market that the crime has been comitted. We are also relying on the legal market, but the two are seperate. Sorry, the way I used it before was an oversimplification.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the concept of checks and balances to me. I think I read there was a government like that somewhere once.

There would have to be some way of insuring the market was balanced. In a "free" system, there is no way of guaranteeing that condition.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't really a "market failure". It seems that if you allow people to sell anything to anybody there is a risk the marketer fails to properly understand all potential effects of that thing on a perspective user. This is not a situation created by the market, so you can't say this is an example of market failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that according to some definitions of what a market failure is, you are technically correct. I was basing my statement on the platform that in a market where anyone can sell anything, there is no assurance of product safety. Perhaps unsafe products will create inefficiencies, I don't know who would care or measure that without government.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, limited liability laws encourage investment in such firms. Regardless, if contract law rules (meaning that the honoring of mutually agreed upon contracts is the standard of arbitration rather than 3rd party universal government law) then there is no reason to expect that contracts with drug companies won't contain clauses allowing people to sue when damaged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of and have studied and written papers on a number of incidents where companies made big mistakes. Enron, Worldcom, etc., etc., etc.. In every one I know of, there were consequences for the major stakeholders. Some went to jail, others got sued. There are still cases pending against Ken Lay and he's dead. If you are arguing that the government is rigging the game in favor of the companies, than I say that the government is rigging the game in favor of itself with the limited liability laws. After all, the interest of the government is to encourage participation in the interest of its juristiction. On the one hand, it must make examples. On the other hand, it must give concessions.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I didn't say that. I said that expanding juristiction was a way to get people to participate in your juristiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just following your arguement to its logical conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the concept of checks and balances to me. I think I read there was a government like that somewhere once.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that government controls many areas of our lives. Whereas AC would have one market for property protection and one market for education. Then we can 'vote' for what we want in each specific area of our lives and not have to accept these huge package deals that political parties represent.

[ QUOTE ]
There would have to be some way of insuring the market was balanced. In a "free" system, there is no way of guaranteeing that condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by insuring the market is balanced?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
As to your quote above, personally, I essentially agree with government intervention on an ethical basis. Ethics being defined as action taken to prevent harm from coming to the citizens of that government. The line where that charge comes into conflict with individual rights is debatable. I am not in favor of preventing anyone from willfully doing anything. If it harms them and they know going in of that potential, than what happens is their responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect this. I think a very, very limited government with very principled members could be a good thing. I don't see that ever happpening though. In fact, it appears to me that our government is spiraling further and further away from that with no end in sight. Perhaps it's just because I'm young and haven't been paying attention for all that long and this all just a cyclical thing. I don't know.

Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but the way I view our government today is like a very irresponsible parent. "The people" are it's child and it constantly spoils that child with social programs and by allowing people to be intellectually lazy so they become overly dependant on the government and can't 'fend for themselves' so to speak. The government also attaches strings to these "gifts" allowing it to perpetuate itself and constantly grow causing the people to be ever more dependant upon it.

You say this is a good thing, because the government is preventing harm to it's citizens. I think, in the long run this is a bad thing because the citizens lose their self reliance. Also, if you have people only looking to the government to tell them if the stove is hot, it will get to the point where the people will believe anything the government says so it can then take advantage of the people severely.

I see this happening today. Look at the presidential debates, I don't care which side. They are an absolute joke. It's gotten to the point where candidates are barely paying lipservice to "the issues" spouting a little empty rhetoric, then they attack one of the other incompetant candidates in an effort to shift focus away from the fact that they don't really have any substantial plans other than to perpetuate the status quo in Govt. And people eat this [censored] up! I don't know how many, but it has to be a substantial portion of voters. Then there is a small minority of people (people in this forum and others like it) that aren't interested in Republican/Democrat pep rallies and are just interested in who will be the best person to run this country. Then the rest of people, the majority, are just looking forward to the next season of 24. It's depressing to me.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Statism always gets a free pass. Don't you know the rules? We have to thoroughly prove everything before we begin to have a semblance of a point. But they throw darts and then they're on to something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really not understand why this would be the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why it rationally should be the case. Why don't you enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I am kind of surprised that you think it would be more "rational" if we changed the entire way our society works everytime someone has such an amazing new idea for government! If we did that everytime someone wanted to change the government we would literally be doing this every single day. People question A/C'ism because A/C'ism just would not work in so many situations. When people point this out they are called government shills or something.

Sorry if im crazy, but it seems like it is a bit more "rational" to continue using a system that has worked for hundreds of years over this ridiculously retarded system people have decided "will" work for no real reason other than their own, incredibly biased, speculation.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I am kind of surprised that you think it would be more "rational" if we changed the entire way our society works everytime someone has such an amazing new idea for government!

[/ QUOTE ]

Baseless assumption.

Hypothetical:

The government issues everyone grape jelly. Other types of spreadable fruit are forbidden. Every 10 years, an election is held, and a new type of jelly is elected.

Someone suggests that this is dumb, and everyone should just get whatever kind of jelly they want.

ZOMG WHO IS GOING TO MAKE ALL THESE DIFFERENT JELLIES?!?!? What about poor people who can't afford jelly? Think of all the wasteful duplication of competing jelly factories!!!!!

Then you come along. "Boy, this sure would be stupid for "us" to all change our entire jelly distribution system every time someone thinks of a new flavor of jelly."



[ QUOTE ]
If we did that everytime someone wanted to change the government we would literally be doing this every single day. People question A/C'ism because A/C'ism just would not work in so many situations. When people point this out they are called government shills or something.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if im crazy, but it seems like it is a bit more "rational" to continue using a system that has worked for hundreds of years over this ridiculously retarded system people have decided "will" work for no real reason other than their own, incredibly biased, speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not crazy, you're just not listening.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think my comment was strawman at all. Phil is clearly making a case for government intervention on the basis that some people are too dumb and pick the wrong thing when smart people don't limit their choices. Pointing that out isn't a strawman.



[/ QUOTE ]

The strawman is in stating the assumptions of the other position.

FWIW, I agree that government is never going to stop people from being dumb. Whether that is an argument against government intervention to prevent those dumb people from doing things that hurt themselves is another thing all together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not what a strawman is. We all have to make educated guesses about the assumptions and implicit beliefs of those we are arguing against. We try to do it as best we can. It is only a strawman when you INTENTIONALLY and DISHONESTLY ascribe beliefs or assumptions to someone that you know they dont really have because it makes it much easier to defeat them. Otherwise, its not a strawman, its just an error. Of course, since they are unstated assumptions and implicit beliefs, whoever is being talked about can always just make a big fuss and pretend he doesnt really hold those beliefs and scream STRAWMAN STRAWMAN whenever he is painted into a corner. Not accusing anyone in this thread of that, jus' sayin'.

[PITTM]

pvn,

the fact that you guys consider what you just made a "convincing" argument is all I need right there.

its like those ibm commercials, everyone can talk endlessly about their ideas or what we should do, but when asked how to implement such a thing the person is left standing saying "[censored] how would i know? its just an idea"

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Statism always gets a free pass. Don't you know the rules? We have to thoroughly prove everything before we begin to have a semblance of a point. But they throw darts and then they're on to something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really not understand why this would be the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why it rationally should be the case. Why don't you enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I am kind of surprised that you think it would be more "rational" if we changed the entire way our society works everytime someone has such an amazing new idea for government! If we did that everytime someone wanted to change the government we would literally be doing this every single day.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not changing anything by debating ideas. We're merely discussing ideas, and they should be weighed based on nothing but their merit and the merit of the arguments against them. Otherwise, the whole thing is sort of pointless.

Why should it be any other way? If you think AC is so outrageous, go ahead and defend your position.

[ QUOTE ]
People question A/C'ism because A/C'ism just would not work in so many situations. When people point this out they are called government shills or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. You say this as if "ACism just wouldn't work in so many situations" is mutually accepted. Obviously if we thought that, we wouldn't argue in favor of it. When people jack off to the status quo and support their position with logically weak arguments, then sometimes yes, they are called what they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if im crazy, but it seems like it is a bit more "rational" to continue using a system that has worked for hundreds of years over this ridiculously retarded system people have decided "will" work for no real reason other than their own, incredibly biased, speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apology accepted. And you probably are.

Now feel free to support your position that says the lack of government is "ridiculously retarded" and the dependence on government has "worked," or just stop with the pointless mud slinging about a topic you clearly haven't put much thought into.