Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

but as you've made obvious by your statement of "if one can even call it that," it's clear that you persist in refusing to recognize taxation for what it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Hey, that's exactly how I see your side. Strange how that works!


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Taxation is, as far as I'm concerned, a far lesser opression (if one can even call it that) than the evils it theoretically sets out to fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that the government is capable of fixing those problems. If they can't then you are just advocating adding tyranny and oppression ontop of tyranny and oppression.

[Coffee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most people are stupid, but if we let them vote, their stupidity cancels out and they make good decisions."

[/ QUOTE ]

The rationale of AC: "Immense fortunes tend to be expansively avaristic, but if we let the logic of the marketplace where such entities have home field advantage be the controlling influence in society, they won't act in any exploitive self-interest at the expense of the general prosperity, but rather their individual greediness will cancel out leaving the average person a winner."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, I would have no problem with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer to Adam Smith is a condescending and glib remark? Hmm...disturbing. I am doing my best to stay out of my own thread, since I asked the question, but it seems that the Smith quote was apropos as a counterargument and deserved a better response than that.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most people are stupid, but if we let them vote, their stupidity cancels out and they make good decisions."

[/ QUOTE ]

The rationale of AC: "Immense fortunes tend to be expansively avaristic, but if we let the logic of the marketplace where such entities have home field advantage be the controlling influence in society, they won't act in any exploitive self-interest at the expense of the general prosperity, but rather their individual greediness will cancel out leaving the average person a winner."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, I would have no problem with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer to Adam Smith is a condescending and glib remark?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm...disturbing. I am doing my best to stay out of my own thread, since I asked the question, but it seems that the Smith quote was apropos as a counterargument and deserved a better response than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not inclined to genuflect whether it was Adam Smith or Agent Smith who said it. Why don't you read the quoted posts leading up to my comment and see how Mr. Smith failed to address my concerns about the power wielded by immense wealth (not the local tradesman) in the marketplace.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
If this was Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, I would have no problem with AC.


[/ QUOTE ]

skidoo, would you be ok with everything AC represents but say with minimal government to protect property rights, provide us with a legal system, and defend us from foreign aggressors?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's really not like this at all. What you call "government" is something that naturally arises. AC can lead to taxation. What you are really arguing against is overly large and beuracratic governments, because that's what you live in.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you disbanded the American federal government and had the 50 states with freedom of movement between them, youd basically have AC. The states (DROs in AC land) would then have to compete for their 'tax payers' which would produce smaller governments. This is what we mean when we say that the feds are territorial monopolists, they dont have to compete for taxpayers.

Does anyone really have a problem with 50 states, freedom of movement, straight up?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea behind ACism and to a lesser extent libertarianism is that taxation is theft and that theft is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the arguement from morality. The arguement from effect states that governments cause more poverty than they fix. I find that they are both important aspects of AC. I would be a fanatical worshoper of keynsianism if it actually worked. Tax everyone, ship it back to tax payers, stimulate the economy, everyone gets rich!!! Who cares if taxation is moral.

Once you see that the government doesnt do what it claims to do, you realise what it is actually there for. To get you to believe its lies so that it can take your money.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea behind ACism and to a lesser extent libertarianism is that taxation is theft and that theft is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the arguement from morality. The arguement from effect states that governments cause more poverty than they fix. I find that they are both important aspects of AC. I would be a fanatical worshoper of keynsianism if it actually worked. Tax everyone, ship it back to tax payers, stimulate the economy, everyone gets rich!!! Who cares if taxation is moral.

Once you see that the government doesnt do what it claims to do, you realise what it is actually there for. To get you to believe its lies so that it can take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the govt isn't my friend trying to help me?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this was Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, I would have no problem with AC.


[/ QUOTE ]

skidoo, would you be ok with everything AC represents but say with minimal government to protect property rights, provide us with a legal system, and defend us from foreign aggressors?

[/ QUOTE ]

An approximation to AC with such minimal governmental functions would be close to ideal, I'd say.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

kinda like the mafia don who sets out to 'fix' the businesses in his neighborhood from their lack of 'protection'. he is theoretically helping them by keeping them safe from harm. and they in turn pay and are greatful. the 'danger' never goes away and the 'theoretical fix' is needed forever. that is government.

If you want to help people government is not the way.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's really not like this at all. What you call "government" is something that naturally arises. AC can lead to taxation. What you are really arguing against is overly large and beuracratic governments, because that's what you live in.

[/ QUOTE ]
To modify this a bit, I think what most ACists are against is the coercive monopoly. Most, if not all, ACists wouldn't have a problem with a group of people choosing to have a large bureacracy and "taxation" as long as they're not being forced to participate.