No more AC for me

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I do feel an official FAQ about ACism is warrented, somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the repetitive, frivolous questions that get asked are started by new posters who won't think to read through a FAQ.

[ QUOTE ]
It does get tired, though, reading that AC is the solution to every problem known or unknown in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace "AC" with "people voluntarily working toward something better" and you'll see why we think that way.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do feel an official FAQ about ACism is warrented, somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the repetitive, frivolous questions that get asked are started by new posters who won't think to read through a FAQ.

[ QUOTE ]
It does get tired, though, reading that AC is the solution to every problem known or unknown in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace "AC" with "people voluntarily working toward something better" and you'll see why we think that way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Voluntarism > violent mob coercion.

ZOMG

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

Discussion cannot come at the cost of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Tacos, do you?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, I think, is that some people want to talk about political events and others about political theory. Studying politics is two fold: first you have to make observations of society, then you have to interpret them in an attempt to understand the laws that dictate economic/political behavior so that they can be later applied. It's like a science experiment; first you create observable data, then you attempt to refine your theories. One without the other is meaningless.

What makes the ACist position appear so goofy is that our social observations are much more microcosmic and individualized; the "political events" we observe are more appropriate for psychology or SMP. Contrast this with the far leftists (who also tend to be theory-heavy) who derive most of their observations from macrocosms, like surveys and economic data.

What it must appear like to non-ACists is blind rhetoric; theory is being produced in the absence of what most people consider to be valid political observation.

People interested in political theory and people interested in political events aren't even talking about the same thing. Some people want to talk about political events, while others want to talk about the principles behind them. That's what makes conversation here so annoying to some.

Unfortunately, there is a great imbalance in theory here. The only non-ACist posters who seem genuinely more interested in understanding political theory than observing events are the far left (moorobot and propertarian), and that's about it. There's a few others; I know bobman leads the Keynesian front on debates about economic theory and iron81 tends to approach socialist issues from a theoretical perspective, but for the most part, the "statists" are very dissimilar amongst themselves (hence why they usually don't identify as statists), and tend to get outnumbered in all the debates.

While I, of course, like to see a strong anarcho-capitalist presence, I think an overwhelming amount is bad for the forum since it discourages debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on. I never debate politics in real life because I've never met a person outside of academics (or the internet) who is nuanced in theory. It's best to just keep your mouth shut when people are discussing pointless political matters, lest you look like a douche.

[The Don]

Actually, if you keep the debate to that specific issue (i.e. the merits of a minimum wage) it's not too bad. Somehow doing this always expands into a discussion about the merits of government itself though.

[lehighguy]

It's a bit hard for someone to debate wheter the R or D is better if they both suck.

Peronsally I find R vs D debates incredibly boring and full of basically [censored] and dishonest arguements.

I suppose we could return to the days of jokerthief and gang.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a bit hard for someone to debate wheter the R or D is better if they both suck.

Peronsally I find R vs D debates incredibly boring and full of basically [censored] and dishonest arguements.

I suppose we could return to the days of jokerthief and gang.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the same

[lehighguy]

Spot on. For instance, the least interesting thread in the forum right now, to me, is whether Dems will win X seats of Y. Since I can have no effect on the outcome (other then a tiny vote) it's not very participatory.

The question of whether person A or B will win isn't really, well, a discussion of value IMO. It's like a discussion of which sports team will win. A nice diversion, but not exactely mentally stimulating.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Discussion cannot come at the cost of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Tacos, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If this thread now turns into a discussion about tacos and who likes them/what's better soft or hard/what resturant has the best tacos, is that a good thing or a bad thing and why?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Spot on. For instance, the least interesting thread in the forum right now, to me, is whether Dems will win X seats of Y. Since I can have no effect on the outcome (other then a tiny vote) it's not very participatory.

The question of whether person A or B will win isn't really, well, a discussion of value IMO. It's like a discussion of which sports team will win. A nice diversion, but not exactely mentally stimulating.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all politics is to most Republicans and Democrats. "So and so did this, and I think that's good." "Really? Well I think that's bad." Or they'll attack the credibility of so and so, or talk about how they have no chance. There's little talk of why certain principles are good or bad, because for the most part Republicans and Democrats don't have any principles. That's why they're the ones getting elected.

I would like for this forum to be mostly about political theory, but I would like to see more political theories. We're very Austrian-heavy, and I think we would benefit more from posters with strong Keynesian or Marxist backgrounds. Heck, I'd like to hear more about what Chomsky has to say about things. That's much better than listening to people whine about how AC can never happen and then start threads on Obama's presidential prospects.