AC and power

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, you 'understand' how one can harm others and themselves and these libertarians are stupid because they 'horribly' misunderstand what is clear to you. No, you can't be wrong. It's the other people. And you are willing to teach them at the barrel of a gun...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely said barrel of a gun.

agfdjkaghadflg

I have no idea what I even bother. You guys just see what you want to see.

[xorbie]

It's like in your world, nothing exists but monies, guns and exogenously given "desires". Let's ignore everything we possibly can about humanity until this stuff works out!

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, you 'understand' how one can harm others and themselves and these libertarians are stupid because they 'horribly' misunderstand what is clear to you. No, you can't be wrong. It's the other people. And you are willing to teach them at the barrel of a gun...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely said barrel of a gun.

agfdjkaghadflg

I have no idea what I even bother. You guys just see what you want to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 'barrel of a gun' is a reference to the way government cooerces people into 'voluntarilly' paying taxes, ect.

YOu want to force people to go along with your morality even if they are not harming others or themselves because you invent cute definitions of what is harming others.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like in your world, nothing exists but monies, guns and exogenously given "desires". Let's ignore everything we possibly can about humanity until this stuff works out!

[/ QUOTE ]

And you propose that we discuss every single hypothetical social situation and conflict that could possibly arise and tell you how they will all get resolved.

Is this what you do when a few friends invite you out for dinner? You start saying yeah but what about ABCDEFG..... and say it's a bad idea until these friends can convince you the dinner will be utopia in the face of your never ending objections and what ifs?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

the 'barrel of a gun' is a reference to the way government cooerces people into 'voluntarilly' paying taxes, ect.

YOu want to force people to go along with your morality even if they are not harming others or themselves because you invent cute definitions of what is harming others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your "reference" is pointless until you accept that you can "coerce" people into doing things without using any physical force whatsoever. Then we can try to have a discussion about something that bears resemblance to reality.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's like in your world, nothing exists but monies, guns and exogenously given "desires". Let's ignore everything we possibly can about humanity until this stuff works out!

[/ QUOTE ]

And you propose that we discuss every single hypothetical social situation and conflict that could possibly arise and tell you how they will all get resolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because having huge mobs that function like the government in having a lot of money and forcing you to pay for their protection is just some unimportant hypothetical.

LOL.

I'm not the one starting threads like "how can we deal with excess pony poop in AC????", although those questions are important.

This is sort of like, kinda central, ya know?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you seem to imply that a move towards AC is automatically a move towards no coercion. I can desire a move towards AC and still have in mind a means to coerce people into giving me money.

I am asking, and have been asking, how it is that we are supposed to prevent large concentrations of power and the coercion that inevitably follows. Let's dispense with the useless sidetalk, it's not like I've invented some sort of extraordinarily stylized hypothetical scenario. This is a basic question.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, why is this "large concentration" inevitable?

Second, how large is a large concentration?

Third (and for the third time) why do you think this population, who was able to successfully deal with a large-scale, highly organized coercive force like the government will be unable to deal with whatever force it is you're claiming is inevitable? Once they get rid of government, do they suddenly become dumb and not realize what's going on?

Is it possible for a government to reform? Yes.

Is it possible for some huge force to conquer the population? Yes.

Now,

Is it possible for one state to displace another state? Yes.

Is it possible for some force to conquer the state? Yes.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
So in AC people voluntarily give money to some organization to protect them. This is somehow just completely different and ensures no coercion whatsoever because ________. Fill in the blank please.


[/ QUOTE ]

When people actually have to fund their wars of aggression they are quickly going to realise that there are better things to spend their money on. To say that there is going to be 1 company take over the role of the state in AC means that all of those people want to spend money on supporting that company murdering people and forcefully taking over territory. Even assuming that there are enough amoral people to support something like this, once they realise that their company is making no headway vs defensive companies they are going to start spending their money on TVs and ipods instead.

People that claim that some organization is just going to replace the state in AC dont get the economics that are going on within the state. Imagine that the war in Iraq was completely volutary. Every year when you did taxes you got to check a box that said 'I support the war'. If you didnt check the box you got $5000 back (or whatever rediculous number it is now). So immediately Bush loses half the money from people that dont support the war on moral grounds. Then there are going to be those that support the war but dont support it for $5000 much, so bush loses another 25-40%. Considering how inneffective the strongest military the world has ever seen is as this point, I cant imagine it would be able to do anything with 10-25% of its current strength. The war in Iraq ends.

When violence is subsidized by taxpayers people engage in increasing amounts of violence, when people actually have to bear the costs of their aggression violent state like actions will cease to exist. The problem with todays society is that people dont understand that the state is violence. They dont understand just how much money they are losing because it is coming out of some abstract pool of money called the government. But your hypothetical starts with the assumption that people understand the costs of this violence. Therefore its hard to understand how another state like entity is going to arise.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you seem to imply that a move towards AC is automatically a move towards no coercion. I can desire a move towards AC and still have in mind a means to coerce people into giving me money.

I am asking, and have been asking, how it is that we are supposed to prevent large concentrations of power and the coercion that inevitably follows. Let's dispense with the useless sidetalk, it's not like I've invented some sort of extraordinarily stylized hypothetical scenario. This is a basic question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are large concentrations of power more likely to develop--in a highly decentralized anarchist society, or in a highly centralized statist one?

I don't think anything can 'guarantee' that a stateless society won't fall prey to other forms of coercion--but it certainly seems like it has the best chance of avoiding coercion.

Especially since I'm not sure what alternative could possibly have less coercion. Once you start asking for a centralized government to 'stop' coercion, you have already provided society with most efficient instrument of coercion and cartelization that there is.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, you 'understand' how one can harm others and themselves and these libertarians are stupid because they 'horribly' misunderstand what is clear to you. No, you can't be wrong. It's the other people. And you are willing to teach them at the barrel of a gun...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely said barrel of a gun.

agfdjkaghadflg

I have no idea what I even bother. You guys just see what you want to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you seem to be ignoring our central points. Instead of responding to 'barrel of the gun' taxation, or simple monopoly arguements, I think it would be more productive if you addressed the central economic arguements that have been said several times already.

When everyone is aware and must fund their own aggression how is it possible for large concentrations of power to develop. Try going around your neighbourhood and coercively force them to pay you taxes. Not gonna work out so well.