Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Tax dollars, 99.99999999999% of which you didn't pay. So now that I've answered your question, are you going to answer mine?

[/ QUOTE ]

99.9999999999% chance he will not answer the question unless its with a reference to "theft" or "coercion".

The line of thought about protecting your land from encroachment by your neighbor by hiring your private police to thwart his private police and calculating just how much to spend to make it not worth his while highlights the silliness of AC as well as any other thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does seem pretty adroit at the bob and weave. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I think the state is the only mechanism that can create rights because that is how I would define rights. It's like saying, "can an entity other than the state pass laws?". If there was another entity enforcing rights, then either that entity is actually a state or what they are enforcing cannot properly be called rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to violate rights in order to create them?



[/ QUOTE ]

This statement indicates that you don't understand what I am saying. In creating rights, it is impossible for the state to violate rights because these rights don't exist, and thus cannot be violated, before the state creates them. If the state creates rights that are in conflict with rights that it earlier created, this conflict must be resolved through state channels. It is possible for individual actors to illegally violate rights while acting in the name of the state, but this must also me resolved through state channels. Without the state, rights have absolutely no meaning.

You may not agree with this. But that is because you rely on an a particular axiomatic definition of rights. I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your axioms. But to someone who does not agree with this definition, most arguments in favor of AC have no resonance.

I just don't understand why ACists feel the need to claim that their arguments are so self-evident when it is clear that a large number of people don't agree with their assumptions.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A violently enforced monopoly can only be used to stifle more efficient methods of production (or law enforcement, or whatever) as it is unnecessary to stile less efficient one as they will go out of business on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to translate this into a syllogism for you.

P1: Inefficient methods of production (or law enforcement or whatever) will collapse in the face of competition
P2: It is "unnecessary" to stifle inefficient methods of production (or law enforcement or whatever)
C: Therefore, a violently enforced monopoly such as the state "can" only be used to stifle more efficient methods of production.

Notice that your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, hmmm, nope. As inefficient businesses will either have to change or go out of business the stifling through physical violence, or the threat thereof is unnecessary towards those businesses, hence the cost of forcing them represents an inefficiency in and of itself, so a state can only either be making itself more inefficient (that its stifling its own efficiency) or it can prevent more efficient businesses from starting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your syllogism remains incorrect. Please reread my post for details.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of the discussion, that of the government providing services such as roads, trains, education and the post office which "benefit" us and that we should therefore be thankful for all they do, it is logically consistent.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I'm stabbing you, and you object, you can fill out my "stabee satisfaction card". I take these very seriously, I assure you! Also, you can hire a lobbyist to petition me on your behalf to stop stabbing you. Feel free to blog about your stabbing, too!

If it's still not resolved to your satisfaction, you can always move.

Also, if you are a 2nd grader, and you don't like getting wedgies from the school bully, you can always go to a different school.

Do you see what you're ignoring? The act you say I can "vote" to change has not been justified.

Giving someone an escape route does not justify your aggression (I got tired of my barber, so I went to a different one; I got tired of the president, so I voted for a different one, but the old one is still here, I though you said I can change it if I don't like it???).

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, every example you cited is incorrect. In fact, I "cannot" fill out a card while being stabbed, nor can I hire a lobbyist while being stabbed, nor can a second grader choose which school to attend. Perhaps you could offer some other, more accurate comparisons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't vote while writing my check to the IRS, either. The polls aren't open on April 15th. And if a 2nd grader can't choose which school to attend, it's only because the state is severely distorting the market for grammar schools.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the justification, I've given this already in another post on this thread. To summarize, 1. It's created the most propserous, successful and free group of any size in the history of humanity, and 2. It isn't coercive, for reasons I've also explained elsewhere in this thread. (In a response to one of your posts, I believe.)

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Small sample size, no control group, results-oriented thinking. And if it's so wonderful, there's no need to coerce anyone to participate.

2. Yet here I am, being coerced. Saying it isn't coercive 100x doesn't make it so. Voluntary associations need no justification, yet you continue to try to justify this one. Why is that?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay dude, as I've noted repeatedly, you can't even begin to discuss your property without acknowledging that the state you live in did a great deal to help you establish it.

The roads leading to your property, the money you bought it with that they minted, the education you received at publically funded schools that enabled you to generate wealth in the first place, etc, etc, etc - all these assisted you in establishing what property you now hold. Having received these obvious benefits from the people whom the state enslaves, what is your plan to repay those from whom the money that benefitted you so greatly was coerced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did those roads, schools, "etc, etc, etc" come from? I await your answer (albeit without holding my breath).

[/ QUOTE ]

Tax dollars, 99.99999999999% of which you didn't pay and probably 80% of which were paid before you were born. So now that I've answered your question, are you going to answer mine?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what justified taking those tax dollars? The people who were taxed to build those roads and schools could not be obligated by already "benefiting" from them, obviously.

Can other people, acting without your consent, before you were even born, create obligations on you? This opens up all sorts of great business plans for me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I think the state is the only mechanism that can create rights because that is how I would define rights. It's like saying, "can an entity other than the state pass laws?". If there was another entity enforcing rights, then either that entity is actually a state or what they are enforcing cannot properly be called rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to violate rights in order to create them?



[/ QUOTE ]

This statement indicates that you don't understand what I am saying. In creating rights, it is impossible for the state to violate rights because these rights don't exist, and thus cannot be violated, before the state creates them. If the state creates rights that are in conflict with rights that it earlier created, this conflict must be resolved through state channels. It is possible for individual actors to illegally violate rights while acting in the name of the state, but this must also me resolved through state channels. Without the state, rights have absolutely no meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do I find the rights that the state has created? I looked at the offficial US documentation, since that's where I live, and I don't see any. In fact, I found quite a bit that indicates the opposite.

Also, you haven't told me why only the state is able to create rights, or enforcement mechanisms. What's the magic powder, and where does it come from?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
So where do I find the rights that the state has created?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So where do I find the rights that the state has created?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We, the people, hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I think the state is the only mechanism that can create rights because that is how I would define rights. It's like saying, "can an entity other than the state pass laws?". If there was another entity enforcing rights, then either that entity is actually a state or what they are enforcing cannot properly be called rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to violate rights in order to create them?



[/ QUOTE ]

This statement indicates that you don't understand what I am saying. In creating rights, it is impossible for the state to violate rights because these rights don't exist, and thus cannot be violated, before the state creates them. If the state creates rights that are in conflict with rights that it earlier created, this conflict must be resolved through state channels. It is possible for individual actors to illegally violate rights while acting in the name of the state, but this must also me resolved through state channels. Without the state, rights have absolutely no meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do I find the rights that the state has created? I looked at the offficial US documentation, since that's where I live, and I don't see any. In fact, I found quite a bit that indicates the opposite.

Also, you haven't told me why only the state is able to create rights, or enforcement mechanisms. What's the magic powder, and where does it come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would define rights as creations of the state. They are just a subset of laws. The fact that rights are created by the state is a premise and not a conclusion.

ACists construct their world view using different premises. They just don't want to admit that not everyone agrees with these premises.

But this is exactly why AC is such a marginal political philosophy. Its premises, such as the inherent desirability of freedom from coercion, are just not things that majority of people in the industrialized world think are particularly important.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So where do I find the rights that the state has created?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We, the people, hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's quote the whole paragraph, shall we?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
+)that all men are created equal,
+)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
+)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
+)That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
+)That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

[Italics, bold text, and "+)" thingies are mine. Everything else is verbatim.] -Jogger