AC and Mortality - Page 6

TomCollins · #51 12-22-2006, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think you proved his point for him. Good job troll!

I think your deductive reasoning skills are a little lacking. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its just your debating skills. Unfortunately, they are nowhere near as refined as your ability to make insults.

CallMeIshmael · #52 12-22-2006, 10:59 PM

Though overall I like a lot of AC ideas, I do have a few problems with it, but this isnt one of them.

A land owner would do a much better job of keeping his land valuable than would happen when it is communally owned.

Though, there might be a problem here when dividing things like air or ocean space, that have problems not associated with privatizing things like land.

Smasharoo · #53 12-22-2006, 11:58 PM

A land owner would do a much better job of keeping his land valuable than would happen when it is communally owned.

Possibly. I think one of the biggest downfalls to AC is the seeming blanket assumption that every property owner will somehow magically be an enlightened participant who fully understands what's best for his self interest. The reality is that most people aren't this. Most people do things that are against their self interest, fairly consistently.

pvn · #54 12-23-2006, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

A land owner would do a much better job of keeping his land valuable than would happen when it is communally owned.

Possibly. I think one of the biggest downfalls to AC is the seeming blanket assumption that every property owner will somehow magically be an enlightened participant who fully understands what's best for his self interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's assuming that? If you want to drive your car off a cliff, go right ahead. I'm not really worried about whether it's in your own interest or not.

Obligatory FYP (these things practically write themselves):

[ QUOTE ]
I think the one of the biggest downfalls to statism is the seeming blanket assumption that every government agent will somehow magically be an enlightened participant who fully understands what's best for each individual citizen's interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

PS: learn how to a) use the quote function and b) reply to who you're actually replying to.

Smasharoo · #55 12-23-2006, 12:33 AM

Who's assuming that? If you want to drive your car off a cliff, go right ahead. I'm not really worried about whether it's in your own interest or not.

Not sure if you just skipped the the rest of the thread or not, but the point is that you would care if someone had control of all of a valuable resource and then just decided to destroy it.

I think the one of the biggest downfalls to statism is the seeming blanket assumption that every government agent will somehow magically be an enlightened participant who fully understands what's best for each individual citizen's interest.

As usual, no one's making that case at all. Pointing out how completely unworkable AC is in no way constitutes endorsing the status quo as perfect or even particularly effective. It is, however, by default, functioning. AC is not and will never be.

pvn · #56 12-23-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Who's assuming that? If you want to drive your car off a cliff, go right ahead. I'm not really worried about whether it's in your own interest or not.

Not sure if you just skipped the the rest of the thread or not, but the point is that you would care if someone had control of all of a valuable resource and then just decided to destroy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I care? If you own a picasso and you want to burn it, I don't care.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the one of the biggest downfalls to statism is the seeming blanket assumption that every government agent will somehow magically be an enlightened participant who fully understands what's best for each individual citizen's interest.

As usual, no one's making that case at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOSH! It went right over your head.

[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out how completely unworkable AC is in no way constitutes endorsing the status quo as perfect or even particularly effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I said nothing about the status quo in particular.

WordWhiz · #57 12-23-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you just skipped the the rest of the thread or not, but the point is that you would care if someone had control of all of a valuable resource and then just decided to destroy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, like Saddam Hussein setting all the Iraqi oil fields on fire?

TomCollins · #58 12-23-2006, 12:56 AM

Who's assuming that? If you want to drive your car off a cliff, go right ahead. I'm not really worried about whether it's in your own interest or not.

Not sure if you just skipped the the rest of the thread or not, but the point is that you would care if someone had control of all of a valuable resource and then just decided to destroy it.

because this is very likely to happen. I'll worry about this once I stop worrying about the coming alien invasion.

Smasharoo · #59 12-23-2006, 12:59 AM

WHOOSH! It went right over your head.

Maybe. First I assumed it was meant to be funny, but I just couldn't bring myself to believe that because it was such a poor attempt at humor. Then I thought, well pvn posts things all the time that seem completely nonsensical, maybe he's serious here, I'll just assume that.

Except I said nothing about the status quo in particular.

Statism isn't the status quo then?

Nielsio · #60 12-23-2006, 06:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Though overall I like a lot of AC ideas, I do have a few problems with it, but this isnt one of them.

A land owner would do a much better job of keeping his land valuable than would happen when it is communally owned.

Though, there might be a problem here when dividing things like air or ocean space, that have problems not associated with privatizing things like land.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd typically not divide/own air, as there simply is no scarcity whatsoever. But damaging other people's property through air is certainly taken care of in competitive law and insurance.

http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.co...ronmental.html