? for ACists: Drawbacks of an AC society?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
There would be all kinds of problems. Alas, all human societies are composed of human beings. Huge drawback. The question is not, "will there be problems?" Rather the question is, "What is the best system for solving individual and societal problem?" One option allows any entrepreneur to try to identify problems, innovate solutions that compete against other options in a selective filtering process among consumers, each allocating their resources to their most urgent problems. This method produces a spontaneous order that rationally allocates resources to the best solutions of the most pressing problems, as identified and continuosly voted upon by the public via their patterns of spending and abstention from spending.

Contrast this with the government option, wherein a violent monopolist arrogated to itself the task of unilaterally identifying "problems", creating "solutions" and imposing those solutions on everyone in society. Since there is little if any competition allowed and usually no option for refusing to purchase, there is no mechanism beyond the political process for rejecting bad solutions, and since the political process is the same process whereby self-interested actors use the coercive power of the state for their own benefit bad solutions to "problems" will usually not only not be rejected, the become institutionalized and bureaucratized, and their deleterious unintended consequences become the excuse for ever greater coercive meddling in, and hence damage to, the market processthat is *actually* solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically contending that AC will deal with every single problem better than a government system? There is not one advantage that a government system has over an AC system?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would be all kinds of problems. Alas, all human societies are composed of human beings. Huge drawback. The question is not, "will there be problems?" Rather the question is, "What is the best system for solving individual and societal problem?" One option allows any entrepreneur to try to identify problems, innovate solutions that compete against other options in a selective filtering process among consumers, each allocating their resources to their most urgent problems. This method produces a spontaneous order that rationally allocates resources to the best solutions of the most pressing problems, as identified and continuosly voted upon by the public via their patterns of spending and abstention from spending.

Contrast this with the government option, wherein a violent monopolist arrogated to itself the task of unilaterally identifying "problems", creating "solutions" and imposing those solutions on everyone in society. Since there is little if any competition allowed and usually no option for refusing to purchase, there is no mechanism beyond the political process for rejecting bad solutions, and since the political process is the same process whereby self-interested actors use the coercive power of the state for their own benefit bad solutions to "problems" will usually not only not be rejected, the become institutionalized and bureaucratized, and their deleterious unintended consequences become the excuse for ever greater coercive meddling in, and hence damage to, the market processthat is *actually* solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically contending that AC will deal with every single problem better than a government system? There is not one advantage that a government system has over an AC system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Advantages for whom?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There is not one advantage that a government system has over an AC system?

[/ QUOTE ]
Government would probably beat out the market in death camp production. In terms of goods people are actually willing to pay for voluntarily, the government probably cannot beat the market.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would be all kinds of problems. Alas, all human societies are composed of human beings. Huge drawback. The question is not, "will there be problems?" Rather the question is, "What is the best system for solving individual and societal problem?" One option allows any entrepreneur to try to identify problems, innovate solutions that compete against other options in a selective filtering process among consumers, each allocating their resources to their most urgent problems. This method produces a spontaneous order that rationally allocates resources to the best solutions of the most pressing problems, as identified and continuosly voted upon by the public via their patterns of spending and abstention from spending.

Contrast this with the government option, wherein a violent monopolist arrogated to itself the task of unilaterally identifying "problems", creating "solutions" and imposing those solutions on everyone in society. Since there is little if any competition allowed and usually no option for refusing to purchase, there is no mechanism beyond the political process for rejecting bad solutions, and since the political process is the same process whereby self-interested actors use the coercive power of the state for their own benefit bad solutions to "problems" will usually not only not be rejected, the become institutionalized and bureaucratized, and their deleterious unintended consequences become the excuse for ever greater coercive meddling in, and hence damage to, the market processthat is *actually* solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically contending that AC will deal with every single problem better than a government system? There is not one advantage that a government system has over an AC system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Help me out here. What could such an advantage possibly be?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what the free market is all about- the method for finding the best solutions to problems, the less centralized the power/regulations are the more options there are to explore. DK is for centralized control of X, what happens when the control of X is shown to have flaws? Under a market when a business goes under you can look at other businesses that didn't and say "x> Y> Z but x +y < z+y, you get tons of information, and the second attempt is likely to be better than the first. Under a state you rock the whole 1 solution for one problem and if that doesn't work then you basically only know that X doesn't work and you have no real idea if proposed solution Y is better, worse or about just as bad as X. So no, getting behind DK would just be another step of one person thinking he can run the lives of 300 million people better than they can, end up being wrong and leave us with as loads of debt, badly written laws, and all kinds of unintended consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're jumping to conclusions saying that DK would also leave us with loads of debt, badly written laws, etc. etc., but again, what about the fact that implementing an AC society is, practically, not gonna happen?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) removal of the animals from the abusers possession. There is nothing unlibertarian about this; property rights are social norms, and it is perfectly conceivable to imagine a libertarian society where the norm is that one does not have the right to torture animals. Sure, he could sue to get his property back, but no reputable arbitrator will side with the animal torturer.


[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a pretty big problem...Could there be a norm that one doesn't have the right to smoke weed, and therefore a libertarian society could remove your stash? Against social norms to read dirty magazines? Against social norms to build "too big" a house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you could imagine such a society. I doubt very strongly whether such a norm would last. A whole lot of people like to smoke weed. The people paying for the weed confiscation organizations would go broke if they couldn't externalize the costs (like they can and do under government) and avoid the liability (like they can and do under government). There are very few animal torturers, and plenty of animal lovers willing to fund animal rescue organizations (just like exist now). Since so many people like to smoke weed and most people are indifferent, I find it highly unlikely that such a norm would be reinforced. Whereas there is a small number of animal torturers and the vast majority of people find it abhorent. I am nearly 100% certain this would be the case. But you still have economic ostracism in any event, which is an extremely powerful deterent and punishment. I'm happy with either solution.

Think of it this way. If it is just for government to stop animal torture, then it must be just for anyone to stop animal torture. The question is just, what is the best way to stop animal torture? For reasons I've already explained I will take the market process for finding the best solutions to problems over the government process any day.

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would be all kinds of problems. Alas, all human societies are composed of human beings. Huge drawback. The question is not, "will there be problems?" Rather the question is, "What is the best system for solving individual and societal problem?" One option allows any entrepreneur to try to identify problems, innovate solutions that compete against other options in a selective filtering process among consumers, each allocating their resources to their most urgent problems. This method produces a spontaneous order that rationally allocates resources to the best solutions of the most pressing problems, as identified and continuosly voted upon by the public via their patterns of spending and abstention from spending.

Contrast this with the government option, wherein a violent monopolist arrogated to itself the task of unilaterally identifying "problems", creating "solutions" and imposing those solutions on everyone in society. Since there is little if any competition allowed and usually no option for refusing to purchase, there is no mechanism beyond the political process for rejecting bad solutions, and since the political process is the same process whereby self-interested actors use the coercive power of the state for their own benefit bad solutions to "problems" will usually not only not be rejected, the become institutionalized and bureaucratized, and their deleterious unintended consequences become the excuse for ever greater coercive meddling in, and hence damage to, the market processthat is *actually* solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically contending that AC will deal with every single problem better than a government system? There is not one advantage that a government system has over an AC system?

[/ QUOTE ]

That will never happen, most likely. ACism applied is pretty difficult to talk about outside of theory. As a theory, I can fully see how one would think that AC doesn't have any problems that any other system wouldn't also have (and to a worse degree, at that). The problem, is that most people just cannot apply the theory to reality and forsee what problems might occur, it would just be too complex. So we have to look back on history to examine why government was getting involved in the first place. So, to me, the veracity of ACism as a whole is dependent on how well of a historian one can be.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way. If it is just for government to stop animal torture, then it must be just for anyone to stop animal torture. The question is just, what is the best way to stop animal torture? For reasons I've already explained I will take the market process for finding the best solutions to problems over the government process any day.



[/ QUOTE ]

Once the government found out about Michael Vick's Bad Newz Kennels they were effectively out of business. Now they are getting their sentences. How exactly in an AC society would they have been stopped or punished? Run us through the steps that would occur. Or could they even be stopped since they had their own little free market operating the kennels and might choose to continue to operate?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
That will never happen, most likely. ACism applied is pretty difficult to talk about outside of theory. As a theory, I can fully see how one would think that AC doesn't have any problems that any other system wouldn't also have (and to a worse degree, at that). The problem, is that most people just cannot apply the theory to reality and forsee what problems might occur, it would just be too complex. So we have to look back on history to examine why government was getting involved in the first place. So, to me, the veracity of ACism as a whole is dependent on how well of a historian one can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this argument holds water. The reasons governments were constructed hundreds if not thousands of years ago to address problems that societies faced hundreds if not thousands of years ago are largely irrelevant to the modern world. You must acknowledge that the world has changed sufficiently enough that the problems of human interaction NOW must be addressed with solutions that make sense NOW.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That will never happen, most likely. ACism applied is pretty difficult to talk about outside of theory. As a theory, I can fully see how one would think that AC doesn't have any problems that any other system wouldn't also have (and to a worse degree, at that). The problem, is that most people just cannot apply the theory to reality and forsee what problems might occur, it would just be too complex. So we have to look back on history to examine why government was getting involved in the first place. So, to me, the veracity of ACism as a whole is dependent on how well of a historian one can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this argument holds water. The reasons governments were constructed hundreds if not thousands of years ago to address problems that societies faced hundreds if not thousands of years ago are largely irrelevant to the modern world. You must acknowledge that the world has changed sufficiently enough that the problems of human interaction NOW must be addressed with solutions that make sense NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

what hasnt changed is the universality of government. Any solution that claims to not involve government in one guise or another is fooling itself.