|
|
#21
07-11-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I agree with the statement that individuals can only act as individuals and not as a collective. I also think this is a completely meaningless statement that offers zero backing to any ACist argument. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. People can act as individuals with a collective goal in mind, but I don't see how people are acting as one. They might agree to make complementary actions, but they are still making individual choices. [/ QUOTE ] I agree -- I think the OP question stems from a certain point in a debate with an AC'r when he says that "society can't decide/choose/want _________, because societies are not individuals" -- or something like that. I never understood it, either. 
|
|
#22
07-11-2007, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My understanding is that AC claims are founded on property rights, not "desires". Again, implying that you are not AC. [/ QUOTE ] I claim they are the same thing. An AC society is one in which no-one forces you to do stuff with your property that you never agreed to. There's a real theoretical difficulty about what is your property but in practice I doubt its a big problem (apart from stability which we're ignoring). I think the rest is just confusion. If you think society has some value in its own right i.e. it may not matter how bad things are for individuals if the society thrives, then that's incompatible with AC but I don't agree with that idea, does anyone? [/ QUOTE ] I desire to breathe clean air. Who should I talk to about that (i.e. where is the owner, and who should I pay to make sure it's clean)? [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't mean you can have whatever you desire. I might desire to fly by flapping my arms - who do I talk to about that? The argument against AC with regards to clean air would have to be of the form that if there's a general desire for clean air (I assume we agree there is) then this can be better brought about by government forcing people to act against their will. The ideological argument for AC (weak imo) is that if people generally desire clean air then they will cooperate to do ensure the air doesn't get too bad. The pragmatic arguent for AC (much stronger imo) is that although an AC society won't provide perfectly clean air, it won't do significantly worse than a governed one. chez
|
|
#23
07-11-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My understanding is that AC claims are founded on property rights, not "desires". Again, implying that you are not AC. [/ QUOTE ] I claim they are the same thing. An AC society is one in which no-one forces you to do stuff with your property that you never agreed to. There's a real theoretical difficulty about what is your property but in practice I doubt its a big problem (apart from stability which we're ignoring). I think the rest is just confusion. If you think society has some value in its own right i.e. it may not matter how bad things are for individuals if the society thrives, then that's incompatible with AC but I don't agree with that idea, does anyone? [/ QUOTE ] I desire to breathe clean air. Who should I talk to about that (i.e. where is the owner, and who should I pay to make sure it's clean)? [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't mean you can have whatever you desire. I might desire to fly by flapping my arms - who do I talk to about that? The argument against AC with regards to clean air would have to be of the form that if there's a general desire for clean air (I assume we agree there is) then this can be better brought about by government forcing people to act against their will. The ideological argument for AC (weak imo) is that if people generally desire clean air then they will cooperate to do ensure the air doesn't get too bad. The pragmatic arguent for AC (much stronger imo) is that although an AC society won't provide perfectly clean air, it won't do significantly worse than a governed one. chez [/ QUOTE ] On this issue it seems like ACers want to protect an individuals right to pollute. Basically, it isn't fair that your desire for clean air trumps my desire to produce my goods in any way I see fit. I think this stems from the denial of a concept of a 'public good'. The statists would say that we need government to make sure that nobody damages these public goods no matter the cost to the individuals. A major problem from an AC point of view is the question of who gets to decide what the public good is. If it's only individuals deciding and not some centralized government, then we all get what we want. Or at least we get an equal chance at what we want. I agree that it's not clear that an AC system in practice would be significantly different from our current government system.
|
|
#24
07-11-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My understanding is that AC claims are founded on property rights, not "desires". Again, implying that you are not AC. [/ QUOTE ] I claim they are the same thing. An AC society is one in which no-one forces you to do stuff with your property that you never agreed to. There's a real theoretical difficulty about what is your property but in practice I doubt its a big problem (apart from stability which we're ignoring). I think the rest is just confusion. If you think society has some value in its own right i.e. it may not matter how bad things are for individuals if the society thrives, then that's incompatible with AC but I don't agree with that idea, does anyone? [/ QUOTE ] I desire to breathe clean air. Who should I talk to about that (i.e. where is the owner, and who should I pay to make sure it's clean)? [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't mean you can have whatever you desire. I might desire to fly by flapping my arms - who do I talk to about that? The argument against AC with regards to clean air would have to be of the form that if there's a general desire for clean air (I assume we agree there is) then this can be better brought about by government forcing people to act against their will. The ideological argument for AC (weak imo) is that if people generally desire clean air then they will cooperate to do ensure the air doesn't get too bad. The pragmatic arguent for AC (much stronger imo) is that although an AC society won't provide perfectly clean air, it won't do significantly worse than a governed one. chez [/ QUOTE ] On this issue it seems like ACers want to protect an individuals right to pollute. Basically, it isn't fair that your desire for clean air trumps my desire to produce my goods in any way I see fit. I think this stems from the denial of a concept of a 'public good'. The statists would say that we need government to make sure that nobody damages these public goods no matter the cost to the individuals. A major problem from an AC point of view is the question of who gets to decide what the public good is. If it's only individuals deciding and not some centralized government, then we all get what we want. Or at least we get an equal chance at what we want. I agree that it's not clear that an AC system in practice would be significantly different from our current government system. [/ QUOTE ] but what is a 'public' good. Seems to me that X is only clearly a 'public' good if there's a general concensus amongst the public that X is good. If there is such a concensus then yes you can produce your good and pollute the air but others can take advantage of the concensus to produce the good with less pollution and take your market. In the west this happens with or without government, examples are the growing; green, organic and fairtrade type markets. How else could public good be implemented. In theory there could be a benign patriarchal government so much cleverer and more competent than the public that government could decide on and implement all Xs. In practice its a joke, governments are grossly incompetent, not terrible bright and not benign (imo the saving grace of government is the lack of competence, god help us if they could actually get what they wanted [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). chez
|
|
#26
07-11-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
but what is a 'public' good. Seems to me that X is only clearly a 'public' good if there's a general concensus amongst the public that X is good. [/ QUOTE ] That's exactly my point. It's a very powerful objection. [ QUOTE ] If there is such a concensus then yes you can produce your good and pollute the air but others can take advantage of the concensus to produce the good with less pollution and take your market. In the west this happens with or without government, examples are the growing; green, organic and fairtrade type markets. [/ QUOTE ] I agree to a point. A polluter would still have a market share in an AC system. Some people don't really care, so they would buy the cheaper "polluting" good. The ACer thinks this is fine, the statist usually thinks this is undesirable because it allows the pollution in the first place. The statist wants to force people who are lagging in their 'englightenment' to catch up, while the statist claims that this is nonsense. People should be allowed to choose whatever they want no matter how uninformed or unsophisticated this choice is. If you think someone is making a bad choice, you have the right to educate them, but not the right to force them to change. Both arguments have some merit IMO. [ QUOTE ] How else could public good be implemented. In theory there could be a benign patriarchal government so much cleverer and more competent than the public that government could decide on and implement all Xs. In practice its a joke, governments are grossly incompetent, not terrible bright and not benign (imo the saving grace of government is the lack of competence, god help us if they could actually get what they wanted [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). [/ QUOTE ] That's exactly the problem at hand. Do we try to improve the government or abolish it? Both strategies have flaws.
|
|
#27
07-11-2007, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
From earlier:
[ QUOTE ] An AC society is one in which no-one forces you to do stuff with your property that you never agreed to. There's a real theoretical difficulty about what is your property but in practice I doubt its a big problem (apart from stability which we're ignoring). [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can a collective group of individuals 'act'? [/ QUOTE ] Its just two ways of describing the same thing. A group of people acting individually in a scenario where their actions interefer can be described as a collective act. chez [/ QUOTE ] Who would you say was the actor? In discussion with ACists I have often been told that government/society/corporations cant act - only people act. Does it mean anything to say Australia boycotted the test tour of Zimbabwe? Who acted there, in your view? With regard to property rights. Can a corporation have property rights? Or is it "really" than each shareholder owns 1/400000000th of each factory, machine, piece of land, etc. How about with regard to proprietary limited companies where the shareholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Leaving aside the morality - wasnt it a purely social construct which borrowed the money, then repaid it (or failed to)?
|
|
#28
07-11-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- but what is a 'public' good. Seems to me that X is only clearly a 'public' good if there's a general concensus amongst the public that X is good. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's exactly my point. It's a very powerful objection. [/ QUOTE ] Not very powerful as even if its true it doesn't follow that AC is worse and there's strong arguments that it would be no worse, and some argument that it would be better. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there is such a concensus then yes you can produce your good and pollute the air but others can take advantage of the concensus to produce the good with less pollution and take your market. In the west this happens with or without government, examples are the growing; green, organic and fairtrade type markets. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree to a point. A polluter would still have a market share in an AC system. Some people don't really care, so they would buy the cheaper "polluting" good. The ACer thinks this is fine, the statist usually thinks this is undesirable because it allows the pollution in the first place. The statist wants to force people who are lagging in their 'englightenment' to catch up, while the statist claims that this is nonsense. People should be allowed to choose whatever they want no matter how uninformed or unsophisticated this choice is. If you think someone is making a bad choice, you have the right to educate them, but not the right to force them to change. Both arguments have some merit IMO. [/ QUOTE ] This goes wrong. Those people who don't really care will support the government that doesn't do anything about because they don't want to pay for it. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How else could public good be implemented. In theory there could be a benign patriarchal government so much cleverer and more competent than the public that government could decide on and implement all Xs. In practice its a joke, governments are grossly incompetent, not terrible bright and not benign (imo the saving grace of government is the lack of competence, god help us if they could actually get what they wanted ). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's exactly the problem at hand. Do we try to improve the government or abolish it? Both strategies have flaws. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but even on the issues like clean air where governmemnt might be the answer in theory, in practice its hopeless, expensive and arguable counter-productive. on other issues its a disaster in practice and morally objectionable. but I'm all for good government, just no idea what that would mean. chez
|
|
#30
07-11-2007, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Idle musing
[ QUOTE ]
Who would you say was the actor? In discussion with ACists I have often been told that government/society/corporations cant act - only people act. Does it mean anything to say Australia boycotted the test tour of Zimbabwe? Who acted there, in your view? [/ QUOTE ] "Australia boycotted the test" means that Howard and others decided that the Australian team shouldnt be going to the test and that in fact they did not go. [ QUOTE ] With regard to property rights. Can a corporation have property rights? Or is it "really" than each shareholder owns 1/400000000th of each factory, machine, piece of land, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Seems many ways of looking at it, I'd say it comes down to the terms of the agreements made between the owners and customers. [ QUOTE ] How about with regard to proprietary limited companies where the shareholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Leaving aside the morality - wasnt it a purely social construct which borrowed the money, then repaid it (or failed to)? [/ QUOTE ] No, the owners of the PLC are being given a wierd sort of unsecured loan by the creditors. Wierd because the owners get all the benefits of a secured loan but the strange benefit of sometimes not having to pay it back even when they could. chez
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
