AC -> Statism

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question above is the question of the thread: are we not already voluntary members of groups that have chosen to live by commonly agreed upon rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't agree to anything, so obviously not.

[valenzuela]

For example banning gay marriage is ok, you agreed to it.
Banning drugs is ok you agreed to it.
Banning online poker, you agreed to it.

Also you ignored my other post.

We clearly dont have AC now, youre basically making a prediction.
Communism will evolve into a representative democratic system so hey we are on communism right now!!!

[peritonlogon]

Shake, I have a question for the AC crowd...don't mean to hijack...

[ QUOTE ]

It is a (non) system devoid of government accompanied by a culture that recognizes private property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand private property without a government of some kind. I know all of the enlightenment thinkers seemed to call it a natural "right." That does not make sense to me. I only understand property "rights" in terms of agreements that hold some sort of weight. As in, "mine" only makes sense if there is a "thine." And the only way "mine" can exist is if you recognize it as mine. The moment this stops, it is no longer mine, I just wish it were.

This seems like a possible problem for AC because, if I'm right, then property itself cannot exist without government (government here used to mean some method of enforcing rules and agreements in order to make the agreements have weight). I'd like to hear your response.

(My understanding of property largely comes from reflection upon a number of Enlightenment political philosophers but, mostly Rousseau's discorse on the origin of and foundatin of inequality.)

To clairfy, the notion of "right" is something that ought to be, and something that we can more or less make happen, but it is not something that exists in nature. It is, instead, a product not a foundation of civilization.

[valenzuela]

Mexico has control over its territory despite the fact that there is no global goverment that recognizes it.

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
For example banning gay marriage is ok, you agreed to it.
Banning drugs is ok you agreed to it.
Banning online poker, you agreed to it.

Also you ignored my other post.

We clearly dont have AC now, youre basically making a prediction.
Communism will evolve into a representative democratic system so hey we are on communism right now!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree to allow your representatives to make certain decisions on your behalf, then, yes – banning things is ok. If you don’t like those decisions, there are manners of redress in the contract you agreed to. If you are unhappy with the contract, you are free to remove yourself from its effects by leaving its jurisdiction.

I am positing that we do have AC now and have for a very long time. Long enough, in fact, for many levels of agreements to pile up on top of each other to form what we now call representative government.

Which other post are you referring to?
--
Scott

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So my question above is the question of the thread: are we not already voluntary members of groups that have chosen to live by commonly agreed upon rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't agree to anything, so obviously not.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have. Assuming your user information is correct, I see you live in (or near) Atlanta, Georgia. At some point you purchased (or leased the use of) some land for yourself. By the premise of my original post, over many, many years certain contracts and covenants became attached to that land. You agreed to abide by these agreements when you took possession.
--
Scott

[valenzuela]

Nevermind I thought that you were saying that AC had evolved into statism, but now it seems youre saying we are on AC right now.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We are not on AC right now.
If every single exchange had been voluntary then we would be on AC, but that is not the case.

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind I thought that you were saying that AC had evolved into statism, but now it seems youre saying we are on AC right now.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We are not on AC right now.
If every single exchange had been voluntary then we would be on AC, but that is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I over-spoke, and you are correct. For true, absolute AC to exists, all exchanges throughout history must have been voluntary. If this is the only definition of AC that you will accept, then I concede. In that case, however, AC can never exist. We are human and we are flawed. I still maintain that in a perfect plane, where no rights are ever violated, that something very close to what we see now is the inevitable outcome of an AC society – representative government with irrevocable tenants attached to the land.
--
Scott

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind I thought that you were saying that AC had evolved into statism, but now it seems youre saying we are on AC right now.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We are not on AC right now.
If every single exchange had been voluntary then we would be on AC, but that is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I over-spoke, and you are correct. For true, absolute AC to exists, all exchanges throughout history must have been voluntary. If this is the only definition of AC that you will accept, then I concede. In that case, however, AC can never exist. We are human and we are flawed. I still maintain that in a perfect plane, where no rights are ever violated, that something very close to what we see now is the inevitable outcome of an AC society – representative government with irrevocable tenants attached to the land.
--
Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there would be such governments with wide jurisdictions. And they would be voluntary, OK, fine. But here's why their territory wouldn't be all-encompassing like today's states:

How much would you pay for a 100-acre plot where you didn't have to pay taxes, follow laws, or anything like that (basically Petoria)? How much would Phillip Morris pay? So, as these HOA-come-states were evolving and growing, wouldn't holding a non-governed plot be very valuable compared to neighboring governed plots? Wouldn't at least some (read lots but not all) owners of these lands want to keep them unencumbered instead of decreasing their land value by joining a government? Your argument is assuming that every single acre of land was voluntarily, by its owner, incorporated into one of your sub-governments. I think that's a stretch.

[valenzuela]

You know what I concede, youre right.
But why cant we have state vacations? you know until the inevitable happens.