Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, you're willing to listen. Half the battle is over. I'm a complete noob at this part of the discussion and it is such a difficult topic... here's my shot in the dark-

[/ QUOTE ]

Always willing to listen, that's why I keep writing.

[ QUOTE ]
But theft is theft and murder is murder and all of the labels and costumes in the world can not change that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever advocated murder, and as for theft (I'm gonna apply it here to taxes, but if I'm wrong correct me), I don't think I've ever said they were good (or virtuous) either, only that in a few cases (which I listed) they are "a necessary evil".

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter how small you start. The current US government under the Constitution started out pretty dang small, with more "safeguards" and "checks and balances" than had ever been seen in the history of mankind, and look at it now. And this wasn't an unforseen outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jefferson advocated reworking the constitution every 20 years, guess how often people did that. The government broke because the people to whom it was in service were/are lazy and uninterested in participation.

Only when that changes is any form of government possible.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
This strategy is much, much more effective when the officials you are bribing have monopoly positions. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

The strategy works when one side has more guns, period. Government doesn't have anything to do with it. If someone with more firepower wants in, they're coming in.

[ QUOTE ]
This point illustrates why an armed populace, even if they only have personal firearms, CAN successfully defeat a government with superior armament.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention Iraq in another post, exactly how free do you think they are. There is an army occupying their land. If that was us being occupied, how many of your freedoms do you expect you'd have.

[ QUOTE ]
because it NEEDS those citizens to keep producing in order to generate production that can be taxed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it does need production, that's true, but it doesn't need you or I, they could just sieze out money and kill us, it's not like we're going to be putting in days at the factory while we're at war with him anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
300,000,000 civilians vs. 1-2 million active duty military (assuming no defections!) - it's pretty clear who would win if it came down to this.



[/ QUOTE ]

One 10,000 lb bomb can kill tens of thousands of people if it's droped in a city, you really think we could win if the Government decided to attack.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think unjust power consolidations can be monitored, and you suppose that such power consolidations should be prevented, why do you advocate the creation of one? This is totally self-contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've lost grasp on scope and scale again. Government now=1000, my government=5. Yep, it is still higher then yours (0) but the advantage of mine is that it allows for protection for those freedoms you (and I) want.

[ QUOTE ]
These "non-evil" governments are not really governments in any useful sense of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can change the definition of words too, hell I can even call ones I don't like "non-useful" but it's pretty easy to see through.

[ QUOTE ]
We all need shoes (pragmatically speaking), but that is not a justification for nationalization of the shoe industry. It's OK if you wear nikes and I wear cowboy boots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know alot about shoes, but they don't seem to be something that would be a natural monopoly, get back to me with something that is.

[ QUOTE ]
Many are unanswerable. And it's a never-ending tarpit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good move. If you don't answer, you can't be wrong. I like that alot. I also love the never-ending tarpit analogy. I asked 3-4 examples and I'm going on allllllll day long.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're demanding satisfactory solutions to an endless series of scenarios?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

4=/= infinity. I'm not saying I might not think of any more, but you refuse to answer ANY.

[ QUOTE ]
The more manpower, the more money it's going to take. Where is it coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, the people? The people that see you big screen and decide they want it. The people that are too poor (or think they're too poor) to afford something and find violence as their only recourse. Etc. etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. So you see why your demands for solutions to whatever problems you dream up are pointless. That leaves us with the moral aspects of your proposal. In that regard, you're lacking by your own admission.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Well if we can't test it, there's no point in discussing it, there's only morals" Dammit, dammit, dammit, if I had been the first to justify my postion using something so fluid as "morals" this would've been over by now. Curse my snail like speed.

Cody

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh but it is, any group with guns can demand your money, unless you're immune from bullets, in which case you'll likely destroy us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe violent theft, pillaging, and murder is part of human nature?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "violent theft, pillaging, and murder is part of human nature" but you want to give some of these violent theives and murders power over others?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and yes. I'm cynical enough to see that in the temporary power vacuum of anarchy, some entity would eventually acquire the majority of that society's power. I don't see any mechanism within anarcho-capitalism to prevent this - and I don't see how an anarchy can reach some sort of equilibrium in which the power hungry wouldn't be able to go through the process of acquiring this power.

Some anti-power authority would need to exist which could prevent consolidation of power and the loss of freedom that comes with it. We're just crazy animals - If we don't grant some form of anti-power to some of us barbarian monkeys, some power-hungry, scheming monkeys are eventually going to take power - and there's no reason to believe their government is going to be better than any other form.

And, yeah to answer your question literally: the people in charge of this anti-government, being human, would have used violence if they were a hungry caveman trying to get some meat from other hungry cavemen... That doesn't really mean anything though.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I've ever advocated murder, and as for theft (I'm gonna apply it here to taxes, but if I'm wrong correct me), I don't think I've ever said they were good (or virtuous) either, only that in a few cases (which I listed) they are "a necessary evil".

[/ QUOTE ]

In the realm of the family this means: "When I was a kid I behaved badly. I was inconvenient for my parents and they were right to punish me. And when they ignored me or belittled my feelings they were right to do that. When they taught me all of their irrationalities as truth that was ok. They're still good people. They tried their best. They only aggressed against me when it was necessary. Their disrespect for parental authority was virtuous because I was just such a rotten brat."

Do you see the connection? You recognize theft as bad but consider it necessary so you can make excuses for your parents. You still want to believe that your parents were just so virtuous and you were just so wrong. Also, if you really make the connection that taxes are theft then you would never wish taxes on me. The fact that you're telling me that it is a "necessary evil" that I be stolen from is saying that it is a "necessary evil" that parents abuse their authority.

Is this accurate? Will you get a chance to listen to the podcasts I linked?

[plzleenowhammy]

I don't believe violence and murder are parts of human nature. Not now anyway. Violence and murder come from looking for virtue in the wrong places.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I've ever advocated murder, and as for theft (I'm gonna apply it here to taxes, but if I'm wrong correct me), I don't think I've ever said they were good (or virtuous) either, only that in a few cases (which I listed) they are "a necessary evil".

[/ QUOTE ]

In the realm of the family this means: "When I was a kid I behaved badly. I was inconvenient for my parents and they were right to punish me. And when they ignored me or belittled my feelings they were right to do that. When they taught me all of their irrationalities as truth that was ok. They're still good people. They tried their best. They only aggressed against me when it was necessary. Their disrespect for parental authority was virtuous because I was just such a rotten brat."

Do you see the connection? You recognize theft as bad but consider it necessary so you can make excuses for your parents. You still want to believe that your parents were just so virtuous and you were just so wrong. Also, if you really make the connection that taxes are theft then you would never wish taxes on me. The fact that you're telling me that it is a "necessary evil" that I be stolen from is saying that it is a "necessary evil" that parents abuse their authority.

Is this accurate? Will you get a chance to listen to the podcasts I linked?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Podcasts, not yet, but I will, sorry a little busy at the moment.

As for the other things, I get what you're saying, and I think from a theoretical perspective, it's pretty agreeable.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you're telling me that it is a "necessary evil" that I be stolen from is saying that it is a "necessary evil" that parents abuse their authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehhh, yes, but it's a clinched teeth yes. It's a yes because, in my estemation, some small amount of large organization (forced organization as it's been defined) is the only way to accomplish some things.

There's a reason I asked the questions I did. Because if ACers can't explain to me how we're going to be safe, then I can't agree with it. If they can't explain to me how all those diabetics wouldnt' be dead, then I can't sign off. If they can't explain how the free market is going to fend off natural monopolies, then I can't sign off.

I ask these questions because I really want an answer, it's not a set-up (jesus christ that's all this board knows), it was a search for answers. I asked you, what you meant, and you answered me. Because of that I hope I've explained what I think a little better, and I certainly understand what you mean (probably even better when I get a chance to listen to those PCs you linked).

Cody

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe violence and murder are parts of human nature. Not now anyway. Violence and murder come from looking for virtue in the wrong places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not now anyway? Were they at some earlier point? I'm saying that aversion to violence and murder isn't something that is natural or innate in humans. Violence and murder are bad because they are bad for the society in which we are raised, and our society tells us this... Nearly everyone would agree that violence and murder are bad, but it's not nature, it's society.

What does that last sentence even mean? Virtue? Virtue is part of human nature? Self-interest is human nature.

[plzleenowhammy]

When you're finished with a few of the podcasts let me know on where you stand with regards to the family stuff. If you really get that all of this "necessary evil" stuff is just an excuse for your family then everything else is cake.

I gave you an example of private security earlier and you said not to get bogged down in the details.. You would probably reply with something like "but what if I have a bigger private security force?". How does the state solve that problem? Especially the minimal state that you advocate. Wouldn't there just be bigger states attacking our smaller state all of the time?

Ip, is a lost cause for me. You'll have to get someone else to talk to you about it.

The free market can't fend off natural monopolies so let us create a monopoly? This is about your parents.. "My parents treated me badly but it's ok because they were preparing me for being treated badly by the world". But if parents stopped treating their kids badly then there would be no bad world to be afraid of... Your moral stance here is that private monopolies with profit incentives are bad but public monopolies funded through theft are good!