Why Im no longer an ACist

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[xorbie]

owsley,

Was a good post indeed.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, very good post. Very similar to my story really.

I was Democrat then Republican then Libertarian now ACist. Parents were and still are heavily involved in Democrat politics. I also do not anticipate looking back at any point in my life and saying, "What was I thinking with all that AC crap?"

All ACism is is a consistent, ACTUAL opposition to violence (as opposed to a stated opposition). If being against violence makes me a loony, sign me up. I can't ever imagine looking back and regretting opposing all violence/coercion or supporting the Golden Rule.

ACism is also the only thing I have seen that approaches a logically consistent belief system. Pure socialism may come close, but it relies on what I consider to be a very undesirable set of first principles. Any belief system that allows a gov't mandates a belief in different moral classes of people, as pvn has shown many times.

Dem/Repub cheerleading is absolutely no different than Yanks/Sox cheerleading and has absolutely zero basis in any sort of logically coherent arguments stemming from any set of first principles. At the end of the day you are cheering for letters, colors, and caricatures of animals. Period. (Note: This is different than specific issue cheerleading - I am talking about straight party-line cheerleading, which we see plenty of on this forum.)

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

ACtually I almost posted a 'thank you for this post' post but got caught up in other discussions. I'm exactly the same way. I used to be a canadian socialist, kind of indifferent but still spouted the usual rhetoric. Once I understood how bad government legislation actually hurts the poor in most cases I became an ACist.

Socialists really just have to answer one question. If the main purpose of governments is to help the poor, why dont they eliminate poverty. The American government could eliminate poverty tomorrow. I dont really understand how you can be a proponent for a charity that doesnt accomplish its stated goals and then argue also that everyone should be forced to support your terrible charity. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, someone pay attention to me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this post mean?

I am a staunch opponent of the status quo and very sympathetic to AC theory but am saying that the mangling of anarchist thought by ACists through their absolutist value system which they believe to be an objective standard hurts the cause of liberty (as well as reason).

So why should we give those who have a blind spot to their own theory which causes us to go round and round the same worn out circle some "leeway"? This board would be 10 times better and we could really have some interesting debate if those ACists in question just recognized that their absolutist "morality" is just... not.

Edit: This forum sucks because ACists give each other too much leeway. And other groups give too much leeway to those with their own beliefs. You are all divided up into little camps. People like pvn and Boro and the like all come running out to jump on statists but rarely if ever challenge each others views because that would be "attacking" each other and we must stand united for the cause, right. Well bull [censored]. If the cause is reason and meaningful debate, we need to stop giving those with like-minded views so much "leeway" and start challenging our own biases. That is why I respect AlexM and hmkpoker above all other posters here.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that addresses my post. My point was about ACers making ridiculously bold claims juxtaposed with complaints about being held to a higher standard when those claims are questioned.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how that applies?