Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
So I can't open up a child sex brothel in AC land? Why not? The children will enjoy the drugs I give them, and voluntarily offer sex to consumers. The consumers will pay me. Everyone wins.

[/ QUOTE ]
Children are not moral agents

*awaits 100+ post hijack over how to be considered a moral agent*

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Until a very strong AC supporter can list at least a couple of things that will be WORSE under an AC style system, it's all a bunch of mish mash idealism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely possible that some things will be worse, but there's no way to tell without trying it out. Obviously, when you don't know, the supporters are going to generally favor the most ideal outcome. What's your point?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
We're against initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you conclude whether force has been initiated against a child?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're against initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you conclude whether force has been initiated against a child?

[/ QUOTE ]
With social and cultural norms.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're against initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you conclude whether force has been initiated against a child?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you do this today? This isn't rocket science. Kids can talk, show bruises, etc...

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget prevention. How about punishment?

The government can't really prevent people from molesting their kids if the parents REALLY want to, however surely the prospect of going to jail for along period of time provides a deterent, even if a small one.

It would seem all of AC land depends on contracts, "neutral" arbitrators, and "fair" insurance companies.

I fail to see how the corruption that exists in government would be kept out of any of these institutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Failure to comprehend something is not an argument against it. Nothing "keeps" "corruption" out of private organizations. What keeps it from spreading is market competition. People voluntarily change their patterns of buying and abstention from buying based on all sorts of information, including "corruption" of the businesses they might potentially patronize. "Corrupt" private businesses are simply and directly punished by customers choosing the competition. Since governments have no competition, and the "customers" have no legal competitors to choose from, indeed they often are not even allowed to not choose to "purchase" the "service" at all, there is little or no check on corruption except for silly PR stunts that attempt to calm a disgruntled public while not really affecting those in power.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the reasons such questions keep coming up is because people find the answers unsatistfactory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Such questions keep coming up is because a) new posters continually come along who are unfamiliar with these arguments, b) certain posters can read the same simple things numerous times and display a surprisingly deft ability to not comprehend them. Meanwhile a continual stream of posters are converted.

[ QUOTE ]
That is unless every single person who questions any aspect of AC'ism is a complete fool, total incapable of grasping the perfect system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people who question the theory are simply trying to understand something new and different. They have been raised their entire lives in government schools to believe that government is necessary and can actually solve problems rather than create them.

[ QUOTE ]
I've asked this question of AC'ers before, I would love to hear what YOU think is imperfect about AC'ism, as a believer in it. The fact that AC'ers can't seem to find any flaw in the system at all is very bothersome (i.e. points to pie in the sky mumbo jumbo)

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you understand what "AC'ism" actually is. There exist problems that individuals face. These include economic and physical security, among all sorts of other things. There are a number of strategies that one could contemplate using to address these problems. The demostrably best strategy known to mankind is the market strategy, wherein different people try different approaces to solving problems, and consumers choose the best of these approaches, which then thrive, and eschew the worst strategies, which then fail. Another strategy is to have a monopolist with a limited number of minds to work on any problem and coerce the entire populace into complying with their "solutions" to these problems and forceably prevent others from attempting to provide alternative solutions. One of these approaches is better than the other, regardless of what the problem is. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I want to say, dip a bunch of kittens in gasoline and lite them on fire, who am I accountable to? What am I accountable for?

Likewise say I want to sexually molest my young child. To what group or entity do I answer to, if any.


[/ QUOTE ]
People that want to stand up against animal cruelty and child molestation. You think everyone living around you are just going to throw up their hands and say "oh well"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think people will do this. How often do people allow men to beat their wives while the neighbors know about it and do nothing? I would make the assumption that most people naturally don't want to interfere with the business of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are stuck inside of a box, a particular mode of thinking that relies on a monopolist source of intervention. If your neighbor was beating his wife, what would you do now? Probably call the cops. Just because there would be no monopoly of intervention does not mean there would not be organizations you could contact that would intervene somehow. There are perfectly reasonable market examples of similar organizations, for example animal rescue organizations. In a culture where the norm is that it is ok to incur onto someone's property to stop them from harming another (not all that unual) then the wife-beater will not have a case against the intervening organization, since no reputable arbitrator is going to side with the wife-beater.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright then. I understand that your point is that it is hard for a statist like myself to see ACism. It's a massive jump to even think about. My(and everyone else's) natural response it to poke holes in it to justify our own system. I am trying to wrap my mind around it, but it's not an easy thing to do. For the sake of this argument that the monopoly of intervention makes people less active in their willingness to assist other people in times of crisis.

So in the wife beating scenario you state that a conscientious neighbor would alert an arbiter to intervene in the problem. I assume this arbiter will make some type of profit from this service. Since there is no shackle of the state the economy will be in a better position so this expense is not as intimidating as it would be in our system. Am I at all correct so far?

How does this arbiter make a profit? If the wealth is being accumulated by the man of the house. Let's say hypothetically the woman is a house wife with several kids and this is the way they chose prior to any of the negative behavior of the husband. Does the neighbor who sees this problem foot the bill? Or does the man once the bill has been processed and the arbiter has done his job? This is a very weird concept for me. I would assume that the private animal rights groups you are talking about are subsidized from the government in some way or have another side business which relates to the helping of animals.

I don't mean to be a dick about all this. But if you ACism is actually correct and my current model for everything is wrong it will have to be a fantastic leap in my thought process to get over there.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're against initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you conclude whether force has been initiated against a child?

[/ QUOTE ]
With social and cultural norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds oppposed to your rights-based system of morals. What if the norm in a small culture is to molest children? There are such cultures.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're against initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you conclude whether force has been initiated against a child?

[/ QUOTE ]
With social and cultural norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds oppposed to your rights-based system of morals. What if the norm in a small culture is to molest children? There are such cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

If such a culture exists, how do you expect the government to ever crack down on this?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
So in the wife beating scenario you state that a conscientious neighbor would alert an arbiter to intervene in the problem. I assume this arbiter will make some type of profit from this service. Since there is no shackle of the state the economy will be in a better position so this expense is not as intimidating as it would be in our system. Am I at all correct so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. It would not be the arbitrator that does the intervening, but rather (probably) some charitable organization for the defense of battered women or the like (or quite possibly even the neighbor himself, who knows). Where the arbitrators would come in would be if the wife-beater attempted to file some sort of suit over damages. In a culture where wife-beating is viewed as bad, and intervening to prevent harm is viewed as good (again, not unreasonable social norms, wouldn't you agree?) no reputable arbitrator will side with the wife-beater.

[ QUOTE ]
How does this arbiter make a profit? If the wealth is being accumulated by the man of the house. Let's say hypothetically the woman is a house wife with several kids and this is the way they chose prior to any of the negative behavior of the husband. Does the neighbor who sees this problem foot the bill? Or does the man once the bill has been processed and the arbiter has done his job? This is a very weird concept for me. I would assume that the private animal rights groups you are talking about are subsidized from the government in some way or have another side business which relates to the helping of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it went to arbitration, the only sane market solution would be "loser pays", which of course is a system we do not have. This is one of the reasons why tort law is so out of control in the US. Every other first world nation in the world has loser-pays, I believe. If you mean the third party organization, there are plenty of charitable organizations that exist and operate without government funding, and more would exist if government didn't crowd out charitable alternatives and outlaw so much charity.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be a dick about all this. But if you ACism is actually correct and my current model for everything is wrong it will have to be a fantastic leap in my thought process to get over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're obviously not being a dick. Those who want to be dicks, those who have closed their minds to anything but the default, are incredibly easy to spot.