Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I find it fascinating that statists (a word that does not even show up in my spell checker by the way) go straight to roads and the military and ignore all the rest of the theft and wealth distribution. Although I would be happier with a private military and roads, if that was all the gov't was doing I might be able to live with that. But that is not all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking for myself, I'll concede many (specific) points to libertarians of any stripe, including AC's, when they point up government abuses, waste, corruption, etc.

Want smaller government? Me too. That said, I'm highly confident that "none" is a bit too small. Add intellectual property protection and criminal law to your list above, and we're likely not too far apart, at least as far as "functions you'd prefer in the private sector but could tolerate in the public sector" and "functions I'd prefer in the public sector"

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that we are the wealthiest best off nation on the earth. But what we are saying is that that is the case DESPITE the gov't not because of it, and if the gov't would get out the way then one can only imagine the riches and wealth for us all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know. I've heard that many times, and I like the way you put it, including the very last phrase, "one can only imagine the [prosperity]."

When I imagine an AC society, one of the first things I think of - and this bears very significantly on your comment above as well, that we're wealthy despite government rather than because of it - is that it offers no mechanism to protect intellectual property.

I view IP protection as one of the most, if not the most, important regulatory functions of government. Beyond question, IP protection incents progress. That fact in itself doesn't absolutely "prove" that IP protection has done the slightest bit of good for society, but I don't see any way an intellectually honest individual can claim to simultaneously believe that incentive power is one of the virtues of a market economy but that IP protection, and the government that has enforced it, has not played an important part roll in the US's success.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
One more question... Why is that most people have no trouble seeing that government control over the press is a very bad idea while they push for more government control over the schools (public education)? I know, I know, because we all want little Johnny to get a good education and to prohibit him from getting one is evil. But what if what he is being taught is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to this. As far as I'm concerned, both public and private (elementary and secondary) schools [censored] suck, with public schools probably sucking more at the moment.

Personally I favor vouchers - but this is a function of the fact that I want every kid to have a real shot at a decent education, yet another scenario I can't envision AC dealing with. (Presumably there will still be poor families with 8 kids and lower income single moms with 2 or 3 kids in AC. How will their education work?)

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What AC myth?

[/ QUOTE ]
The myth that government has monopoly control, territorial or otherwise, in these areas.

[ QUOTE ]
Government monopolies (redundant LDO) do prevent competition (that is to say, they exclude it from legal parameters or expressly outlaw it and attempt to destroy it).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm blanking at the moment; in what fields does the government specifically outlaw its competitors? (Maybe there are some; it's early for me yet.)

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly understand here that government *allows* competition in schooling, so why are you professing that some non-existent monopoly on schools is evidence that the very definition of monopoly isn't in fact the definition of monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yow. No: I'm asserting that the government does not hold monopoly control of anything. Again, maybe I'm missing something, but this is true at least as far as schools, roads, defense, security, and mediation.

[ QUOTE ]
Private security firms and private mediators do not compete with justice and law enforcement. If I hire Brinks to protect my house, its evidence that government law enforcement is a failure (LDO) but it doesnt mean I get to stop paying my taxes that fund the police department.

[/ QUOTE ]
Utterly false. It means you want more security than the government provides. In no way does that imply the government is a failure, unless you believe it should somehow provide 100% certainty of security (something which, incidentally, none of its competitors can do either).

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't mean that a cop doesn't drive up and down my street every other hour. Likewise, if I hire a private mediator, I don't cease paying taxes for state and local courts and judges. You obviously didn't think about this one enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly one of us obviously didn't think about this one enough. Please see my response above this one for additional help, then reconsider and repost maybe?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and a big [censored] LOL at linking private defense contractors being paid by the government and claiming they compete with government.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is precisely what they do. The government has decided to use force. Then they've looked at their cost to do it and realized a private contractor can (in some instances) do it better than they can for the same amount of money, or do it as well as they can for even less money. That is the definition of competition. The fact that the government is both the customer and one of the service providers is stronger, not weaker, evidence for the point.

[ QUOTE ]
(and a residual LOL at your repeated accusations of intellectual honesty)

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're saying you believe:
A) that I am intellectually dishonest and
B) that the folks I've made that remark to have not.
Is this the case?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They can not only choose what school their child attends, they can even choose to send their child to no school at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not without notifying the state, and maintaining regular upkeep on curriculums, progress, and professional evaluations. Fail and your child may be taken away from you by CPS and sent to a foster home where you can't do any more harm.

[/ QUOTE ]
And? Are you arguing parents should have absolute, unfettered control over their children? I assume you're anti-incest? (And as a random aside, (he asks), would AC deal with incest prevention in any way whatsoever?)

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You claim that we are the wealthiest best off nation on the earth. But what we are saying is that that is the case DESPITE the gov't not because of it, and if the gov't would get out the way then one can only imagine the riches and wealth for us all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know. I've heard that many times, and I like the way you put it, including the very last phrase, "one can only imagine the [prosperity]."

[/ QUOTE ]

The US may be the wealthiest nation on earth but it is most certainly not the best. Either way it is precisely because of the government that it is, and not because of liberty, human rights, or democracy but in spite of those ideals. There are a few dozen millions of dead indigenous people and Africans, that didn’t get the “self-evident truths” and liberties during the “nation building” (or any other euphemism for human rights violations/genocide). It makes me wonder what version of history every other patriot or citizen is reading. The myth of General George Washington being some champion of liberty and democracy was irrevocably annihilated when I discovered he freed his slaves in his will. I guess it doesn’t matter though, since they’ve only been considered people recently.

[ QUOTE ]
When I imagine an AC society, one of the first things I think of - and this bears very significantly on your comment above as well, that we're wealthy despite government rather than because of it - is that it offers no mechanism to protect intellectual property.

I view IP protection as one of the most, if not the most, important regulatory functions of government. Beyond question, IP protection incents progress. That fact in itself doesn't absolutely "prove" that IP protection has done the slightest bit of good for society, but I don't see any way an intellectually honest individual can claim to simultaneously believe that incentive power is one of the virtues of a market economy but that IP protection, and the government that has enforced it, has not played an important part roll in the US's success.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do as well (IP being important, not a function of government (I’m an inventor)). There is no reason that AC cannot protect IP any less than any other property. I’ve argued for it since I’ve adopted AC, but I haven’t done a good job of it. Someone makes a claim on your front yard you go to x, someone makes a claim on your trademark/copyright/patent you got to x. There will most certainly be a market for it. It won’t be the same as it is now. For ex. in ACland the patent holder will have to actually be in the business of providing whatever is patented. Whereas now in Stateland, there are companies whose entire business model is based on buying and using patents to prevent technology from reaching the market. The same way some wealthy guy in ACland with 300 acres will have an incredibly hard/expensive time defending his claim against homesteaders (I suspect 300 acre estates will be a terrible rarity in ACland). An issue I’m having with patents (and copyrights to some degree) in ACland is how/when would they expire? Any input from pro IP ACist would be greatly appreciated.

The entire anti-IP argument stems from the regurgitation of the “Lords of AC”: ideas aren’t scarce. I’m still working on my argument and may start a new thread.

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmed...lish_music.swf

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this, a lot. It actually makes a case for IP as the product of your labor and the use of an idea requiring the consent of its creator. It also implies that people are their parent’s property. ???

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more question... Why is that most people have no trouble seeing that government control over the press is a very bad idea while they push for more government control over the schools (public education)? I know, I know, because we all want little Johnny to get a good education and to prohibit him from getting one is evil. But what if what he is being taught is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to this. As far as I'm concerned, both public and private (elementary and secondary) schools [censored] suck, with public schools probably sucking more at the moment.

Personally I favor vouchers - but this is a function of the fact that I want every kid to have a real shot at a decent education, yet another scenario I can't envision AC dealing with. (Presumably there will still be poor families with 8 kids and lower income single moms with 2 or 3 kids in AC. How will their education work?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Eventually there won’t be, most certainly not as many as there are now. Don’t you remember a time when single moms went “away” for nine months? It’s no surprise that there is an increase in single mom’s with 2-3 kids and poor families with 8 kids as soon as they became subsidized. Your want of free education doesn’t legitimize robbing me to provide it.

By the way, how did all these un-publicly-educated people get smart enough to realize that education was good? Smart enough to get together and rob everyone to fund it (+ a little extra, it’s hard work after all)? Smart enough to obfuscate the theft? Poor won’t be so poor without all those taxes. Instead of paying for the privilege of dying in Iraq, they could use that money to get Johnny Bobby Billy and Mike some schoolin’ or pound some brews while watching the final four (they’re not poor because of their fiduciary acumen after all).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

The entire anti-IP argument stems from the regurgitation of the “Lords of AC”: ideas aren’t scarce. I’m still working on my argument and may start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, like many things in these discussions, the "ideas aren't scarce" statement is not meant as an argument against the protection of Ideas, but as a rebuttal to those who claim that if we want to protect property then we must protect intellectual property since they are the same thing (otherwise we are hypocrites).

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The entire anti-IP argument stems from the regurgitation of the “Lords of AC”: ideas aren’t scarce. I’m still working on my argument and may start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, like many things in these discussions, the "ideas aren't scarce" statement is not meant as an argument against the protection of Ideas, but as a rebuttal to those who claim that if we want to protect property then we must protect intellectual property since they are the same thing (otherwise we are hypocrites).

[/ QUOTE ]
Noted.
The criteria for protected property claims is scarcity. It still isn't valid. It would be nice if there was some minimum criteria of property that everyone can agree too. There doesn't seem to be anything objective or empirical about "property" scarce or not.

[plzleenowhammy]

All your ac questions answered.

"Government is about the family!"