How would an ACist suggest I act?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am newly converted to AC myself after about a decade of being a 'non active' libertarian. I converted to AC a relatively short time after coming to this forum.

The violence and cooersion you hear ACers talk about is frequently the states forcing people voilently and cooercively (pay tax or have peple with guns show up and kidnap you and take you to jail under the threat of death if you resist the kidnapping). I don't think any ACer would have a problem with a voluntary tax system.

People normally attack AC with ideas such as 'yeah but the poor will die in the streets under your greedy selfish ways'. Let me tell you that I am a social worker and used to be homeless. I converted to libertarianism after going through the public 'system' set up to 'help' the 'less fortunate'. So I lived the 'system's' help first hand and it keeps more people dependent and poor than it helps them.

Another common objection is 'yeah but the mafia will take over'. The STATE is a prime example of a mafia-esque operation NOW.

Others here can talk much more intelligently than I about AC, I just wanted to let you know I am a primary example of someone 'the caring statists' (dems at least) wanted 'to help' and they 'cared' about me (people in my situation). But their 'help' causes problems, it does not solve them.

[bkholdem]

[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we don't want to use guns to force it to work like statists do. It is voluntary. We use the free exchange of ideas to explain the benefits. For it to work people must choose it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I am newly converted to AC myself after about a decade of being a 'non active' libertarian. I converted to AC a relatively short time after coming to this forum.

The violence and cooersion you hear ACers talk about is frequently the states forcing people voilently and cooercively (pay tax or have peple with guns show up and kidnap you and take you to jail under the threat of death if you resist the kidnapping). I don't think any ACer would have a problem with a voluntary tax system.

People normally attack AC with ideas such as 'yeah but the poor will die in the streets under your greedy selfish ways'. Let me tell you that I am a social worker and used to be homeless. I converted to libertarianism after going through the public 'system' set up to 'help' the 'less fortunate'. So I lived the 'system's' help first hand and it keeps more people dependent and poor than it helps them.

Another common objection is 'yeah but the mafia will take over'. The STATE is a prime example of a mafia-esque operation NOW.

Others here can talk much more intelligently than I about AC, I just wanted to let you know I am a primary example of someone 'the caring statists' (dems at least) wanted 'to help' and they 'cared' about me (people in my situation). But their 'help' causes problems, it does not solve them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a fairly sympathetic view (of anarchism anyhow, less sure about the capitalism bit) although I come from australia where the welfare state is much more entrenched and (imo) more effective at providing actual help. My political views are similarly shaped by personal experiences. The statism I currently support is laid-back, deregulatory, etc etc with a social safety net. Of course, I come from a very fortunate country small enough to be able to run an effective bureaucracy.

I am struggling in this thread to articulate what my query is. What occurred to me though is that there seems a disparity between the oft-repeated "dont tell me what to do" attitude of ACists when considered with their urgings not to trangress another's property rights. I am trying to understand whether AC is just one end of a spectrum (oppressing people to some extent but only because it is logically impossible not to) or whether it is something else entirely.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Under the assumption the third party hasn't consented, I see nothing wrong with stopping someone from aggressing against that third party (within reason of course, I'm not saying it's OK to shoot someone in the head if you see someone stealing a snickers bar from Wal-Mart).
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]
From most premises that state the existence of natural rights, the logical conclusion is that any type of imposed coercion is immoral. A good post from AlexM that I put in the AC faq (it's linked in the politics sticky if you're interested) is kind of the standard for ACists-
[ QUOTE ]
Under ACism, property comes about as an effort of labor. If you take a branch from a tree and work it into a bow, that bow is your property. You might trade your bow for something else and then that something else would be your property. You might also go out hunting and kill a deer. Now, through your effort, the deer meat and the deer skin is your property. This is pretty obvious to most people. It's the land property part where people get confused, but it's not that much different.

Let's say a person goes out into the wilderness by themselves and builds something. They take 5 acres of land, and on that land they build themselves a home and turn the rest into farmland and grow crops, which they use to trade to other people for other stuff, for the benefit of all. By what we've established, the crops are obviously their property, but is the land itself? How can it not be? The land is much improved from its natural state due to this person's labor. If this person died and someone else took over, that person would have a *much* easier time with the house already built, the trees already cleared and the soil ripe for farming. Thus, by this person's labor, the land has significantly gained in value. Certainly they have more of a right to reap the rewards of this value than anyone else, and this translates into ownership.

To take it one step further, if this person decided to move on to something else and they pay someone else to take care of this land, they are still contributing to the upkeep of the land. If, on the other hand, instead of paying someone to take care of it they instead neglect it, they start to lose the right to the land. A person maintains a right to own land only so long as they care for that land. By neglecting it, they can lose that right and leave someone else with an opportunity to claim it for their own.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I still have the "it's just not gonna work" mentality

[/ QUOTE ]
Stay with us a while [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. The majority of ACists here weren't ACists until we came to the this politics board. Me, HMKPoker, BCPVP, BKHoldem, OJC, and Valenzuela are posters just off the top of my head who have changed their views to Anarchocapitalism only after first debating against the concept. In the year give or take that AC has been debated here, it's gotten more recruits then any other political philosophy.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I come from australia where the welfare state is much more entrenched and (imo) more effective at providing actual help.

[/ QUOTE ]
What reasons are there that a self-imposed, coercizely funded and implemented, centrally planned territorial monopoly be better then giving each individual both the right to decide if he wants to donate to a charity, and the right to decide which charity to donate to? The standard answer (I've been through this many times before) is that people wouldn't voluntarily give their money to charitable causes and create social nets for others. But, isn't the premise of democracy (for democracy supporters anyway) that representative governments are of the people? The people that control government are not benign angels imbuned with the ability to righteously determine which charities are best to donate to. Furthermore, the people somehow decided, through democracy (well, democracy supporters will tell you that) to give money voluntarily to charitable causes. Why wouldn't people decide to do so without a government doing it for them? There would still be people in a stateless society that care about the poor.
[ QUOTE ]
The statism I currently support is laid-back, deregulatory, etc etc with a social safety net.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that historically minarchy is unstable. When you give one class of people exclusive rights to do things to their advantage, history has shown that they take them, especially when you take the fact that those in public office will be disproportionately more "power hungry" then the average person. We see that here in the US, a well thought out Constitution was devised to keep government small and unabusive, and before the ink was dry elected officials began violating it.

While I'd prefer anarchocapitalism over minarchy, if I was shown a stable minarchy, I'd be happy in it. I'd actually find it to be slightly immoral and slightly less effective then ACism, but not enough to the point that I'd care enough to argue against it. It's just that history has shown that minarchy is not stable over the long term.
[ QUOTE ]
What occurred to me though is that there seems a disparity between the oft-repeated "dont tell me what to do" attitude of ACists when considered with their urgings not to trangress another's property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "don't tell me what to do" attitude comes from situations where the guy saying it isn't aggressing against others. If you're robbing from person A and person B trys to stop you, I don't think "don't tell me what to do" is a justifable response.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious, what have you read that gave you the idea that abandonment of natural rights would be necessary?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What occurred to me though is that there seems a disparity between the oft-repeated "dont tell me what to do" attitude of ACists when considered with their urgings not to trangress another's property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the disparity here? What is trangressing another's property rights if not "telling another what to do"??

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to understand whether AC is just one end of a spectrum (oppressing people to some extent but only because it is logically impossible not to) or whether it is something else entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom
^
|
|
|
|
v
Thuggery

What do you see as oppressive "to some extent"?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The statism I currently support is laid-back, deregulatory, etc etc with a social safety net.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I'd prefer anarchocapitalism over minarchy, if I was shown a stable minarchy, I'd be happy in it. I'd actually find it to be slightly immoral and slightly less effective then ACism, but not enough to the point that I'd care enough to argue against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am one of the utilitarian ACers (a 'rule' utilitarian). I am also a pragmatist. I don't know if I would be completely satisfied with a libertarian state but would be in favor of moving in that direction. I am in favor of pretty much any steps toward deregulation.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in favor of pretty much any steps toward deregulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, or decentralization.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

These things are not contradictory. If you believe that doing X is immoral, you will not do X because it will maximize your happiness to not be engaging in immoral actions.


[ QUOTE ]
Statists obviously have a different opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

Some do, but a great many have deluded themselves into believing that their actions are not aggressive and forceful.