Reactions to AC

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are biologically capable of surviving without charges to order about and bosses to recieve orders from.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Now. Which doesn't negate the last 50 million years of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so then you agree, it's not (present tense!) a "biological mandate".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Like you, I have problems with eminent domain powers. (I see them as solvable, however, without eliminating the power; if you're interested, ask, and I'll explain how.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Start a thread.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, at times the process truly is for the good of society, and if it could be made harmless or all but harmless to the eminent domainee, having the possibility would be better than not having it. Even today, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. (And incidentally, my perspective holds despite the fact that my father used to own a tennis court as a business, which the city snagged it via e.d. to put up a fire station.)

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine "the good of society"?

You seem big on utilitarian calculus. Please show your calculations, with the numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the people paying through the nose for roads don't even use said roads, never have and never will.<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
False. You don't need to drive on a road to receive benefits from it. How did the grocer who sells you groceries get them? How does the pizza guy you called deliver your order? When your grandpa has a heart attack during Thanksgiving dinner, how do the paramedics get to your house to try and revive him? Etc, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, by that logic, I also get benefits from the 18 wheeler that delivers the frozen pizza to the grocery store, and I don't own that, so the state should get into that business as well.

I don't own a car factory, but I benefit from it. I don't own a lightbulb factory, but I benefit from it. Now, should these things be nationalized? If not, what is your point with the road example? That there's some positive benefit, so I mustn't complain?

Do you feel that the ends justify the means?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Want smaller government? Me too. That said, I'm highly confident that "none" is a bit too small.

[/ QUOTE ]

And like I've said over and over again, you should be free to submit to whatever government you're comfortable with.

[ QUOTE ]
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"

[/ QUOTE ]

While your personal preferences are interesting, I don't see any actual significance here to the discussion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asserting that the government does not hold monopoly control of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drugs? (hint: there are lots more, think about it)

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I may want DIFFERENT security than government provides. Security isn't some commodity, like gasoline, of which I get a ration, and that I'm free to get extra if I want. I don't want a war on drugs, but I have to pay for it. Sure, I can go out and buy the security that I actually need, but I'm still forced to pay for the stuff I don't need.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I boggle. Doling out jobs to contractors is not competing. The city I live in hires a private firm (TrashCo) to pick trash up from my house. I can arrange for my own garbage pickup if I want, sure, but I still have to pay for TrashCo. Is TrashCo "competing" with the city?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellectual honesty strikes again! If you're against state interference in education, you must be all for child molestation!

Nevermind that self-ownership would make such abuse criminal. Let's just try to smear as much poop as fast as we can.

I'm through reading your tripe.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I will say that we agree on our ideas, but I've come to a slightly different conclusion. Again, I love pragmatism, (like most schools of thought it's ultra-complicated, but it's best simplified as "compromise"), which is why I'm a Libertarian. Almost everything the government touches turns to crap. It's really sad. However, I can't go so far as AC (which incidentally says "no compromise" in its end) because like I said, if you can think of even one thing that disproves it, I can't justify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be a wishy-washy "compromiser" then AC is right up your alley. All possible alternatives are allowed. Statism requires one option be selected (via one method or another) and promoted while the alternatives are repressed.

As for "disproving" AC, I'm not really sure what that means, but you just admitted that the state is "crap", so I'm wondering how you justify that.

PS: you can have all the government you want. I have no interest in preventing you from participating in one. Why do you think others should be forcibly prevented from participating in the government they want and be forced to participate in yours?

[vhawk01]

I would just like to chime in and say thank you to jogger, Richard, tolbiny, pvn and all the others who have made posts in this thread. I'm a giant politics n00b, and I've enjoyed your discussion about this topic. Learned a lot.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your want of free education doesn’t legitimize robbing me to provide it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another non-utilitarian claim about "justice". A society that doesn't provide for the education of some of its children will be a classist society (with, of course, all the violence and misery that typically implies). If you see that as desirable in its own right, or perhaps as an acceptable consequence of a "just" AC society, that's on you. Personally I see it as neither desirable nor acceptable. I'd rather live in a "good" society, that is, one in which the maximum amount of good is done for the largest number of people AND the least harm is done to the rest, than in the sort of ACland you describe.

To me, it sounds like the kind of world you long for is one in which there is a vast gulf in the opportunities different people are born into (even greater than exists in the US, which is among the more extreme of the western democracies), largely driven by their luck in the genetic lottery. (Were your parents smart and industrious? Great - easy street for you, son, born to wealth and property. Were they stupid or lazy? Guess you're f*cked then: no money, no health care, no education for you. Hope you like manual labor, kiddo... always assuming you survive childhood.)

Bottom line: I see neither justice nor virtue in the sort of society this describes. If you do, good luck and godspeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you care so much about educating the poor then wouldn't you just cut a check to provide for their schooling? I mean, if it's so important to you wouldn't you do something about it?

p.s. please go to freedomainradio.com.. this utilitarian stuff is often about your family.

[/ QUOTE ]

freedomainradio sucks ass. the guy who runs the site is a megalomaniac [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Leveling?

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Go for it. But if you find such virtue in providing free education for the poor then wouldn't you buy less berrettas and more schoolbooks? If you would not volunteer to fund an education system for the poor than it could be said that you only support free education because you are forced into doing so. If you wouldn't pay for it voluntarily then you do not value it. If that is the case then why are you defending the institution that forces you to pay for things that you do not value?

Did that make sense? If not, just let me know and I'll try to explain it better or just point out the relevant links at the web site I posted earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't do it alone. Thus, classism. Thus, guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you care about free education and would voluntarily pay for it. Great! But why should I be kidnapped and tortured because I disagree? I mean, am I not understanding this. I'm sure that I'm not.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to be a wishy-washy "compromiser" then AC is right up your alley. All possible alternatives are allowed. Statism requires one option be selected (via one method or another) and promoted while the alternatives are repressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna start here. Please for the love of Sweet Zombie Jesus don't tell me you don't believe in comprimise. Idealistic thought is great, but practicality requires comprimise.

[ QUOTE ]
As for "disproving" AC, I'm not really sure what that means, but you just admitted that the state is "crap", so I'm wondering how you justify that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state is crap, there's so much burracracy and waste it's sickening, but that doesn't mean AC is right. We've only proven that our current state is guilty of waste, etc. not that anything else is right. Two seperate arguments.

As for "disproving" AC, what I meant was the AC has no safety net. There is nothing to stop us from falling right into warlord-rule if we as a society try AC and it fails. So, if we can prove that somethings in life need government, or that certain things will fail miserably in an AC setting (read back over my and Tol's Pharm talk) then we can't site AC as fully viable.

[ QUOTE ]
PS: you can have all the government you want. I have no interest in preventing you from participating in one. Why do you think others should be forcibly prevented from participating in the government they want and be forced to participate in yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have this on perma-clipboard no? It's a great applause line and all, but c'mon in your heart you have to know this isn't practical. We've talked about barriers to entry before, we've talked about inter-dependence. Do some forcasting, what's really going to happen when the chips are down and we're all on our own? I'm for scaling back government quite a ways, but all the way? Can't go that far.
Don't think I don't understand. "Hey if I don't want it, why should I pay for it" and you're right, but certain things are too big for you or I to handle on our own, there is some need for larger organization.

Lastly, if you'd be so kind, read back over Tol and I's Pharm convo, I'd be curious to see some of your observations on what we talked about.

Cody