Reactions to AC

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common argument against anarchocapitalism. It presumes that governemnt just inexplicably disappears and leaves a vacuum. Of course, in such a scenario, all sorts of crazy [censored] could and would happen.

But this is not a likely scenario. If anarchocapitalism does come about, it will not be an overnight process. A significant portion of the population will have to become so displeased with the state that it will decay; once it's gone, these people are not going to simply roll over for the first bozo who comes along claiming to be their god and emperor.

There will be no "vacuum" because the state will not simply recede, it will be *pushed aside* by market actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Some anti-power authority would need to exist which could prevent consolidation of power and the loss of freedom that comes with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that would be soverign individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there's no reason to beleive that yours is going to be better either.

What a horrible worldview. My sympathies.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need your sign-off to be free. You, on the other hand, need my sign-off to get me to participate in your system. Morally speaking of course.

If you don't agree with, say, evolution, well, what can I say? If you don't agree that the earth orbits the sun, well, it doesn't change the fact that it does.

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe human nature has evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Society has evolved, obviously. Is that human nature, though? If you were to magically place infants born today into a pre-historic caveman hunter-gatherer society, would their nature be any different than the infants born at that time? (obviously, magically fooling some families in that society into raising the time-traveling infants as their own, and all that). I don't think so. Violence and murder are bad because society tells us they are bad. It is good that society does this, but this kind of morality is not innate.


[ QUOTE ]
So, you're saying that we don't have a natural instinct to be peaceful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that we don't have a natural instinct that would prevent us from using violence to get things from other humans. Sure, we have survival instincts, which would often result in peaceful behavior if we felt that using violence to obtain something would be too risky - and there are likely other innate human qualities that would result in peaceful behavior in various situations. But, when we want something from someone else, and we think that the risks and rewards of using violence to get this thing are suitable, there is no innate quality about us that would preclude violence.


[ QUOTE ]
Society tells us that killing some people are bad but killing other people are good. If you're telling me that I'm naturally violent and inclined to kill people and society tells me that it's okay to kill people (soldiers) then why haven't I joined the Marines? Wouldn't that be a fulfillment of my nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that being a homicidal maniac is human nature, or that we have a natural desire to kill for the sake of killing. I just meant that we have no innate morality that would prevent us from using violence or murder as a means to an end. We're greedy - it is in our nature to want things from other people - violence is the most basic way to get things from other people, so violence and murder are part of human nature.

[ QUOTE ]
If self-interest is human nature and peace is in our own self-interest then peace is human nature? What am I missing? Don't rip me apart too hard. Leave some scraps for when I post in OOT plz!

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace may be in society's best interests, and it may be in your best interests - but, that doesn't matter. Peace is not in the best interests of the party that is initiating the violent action, since they decided to initiate it in the first place. They don't give a [censored] about your desire, or society's desire, for peace - they just want your things.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Cody here (Actually I rather like that name). Anyway, I love this. "Don't you see, he's asking questions, and worse yet, he has alot of them, don't both answering them, it'll only create answers and knowledge about a topic." Glad we got that out of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep harping on this as if you're being ignored; you demand explanations but ignore the explanations you're given.

If you ask me what species is going to evolve to become the dominant form of life on earth in 10,000,000 years, any answer I give you is going to be almost pure conjecture and has nearly a 0% chance of being correct. So what's the point in talking about it?

Do you think this "disproves" evolution?

Does the uncertainty bother you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of what concern is the nth stage of human evolution to me today. If it were of any concern, I'd likely talk to someone with evolutionary knowledge, like an evolutionary biologist. But I'm talking about my welfare if we were to adopt your system of government (or non-government) and this directly influences me.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both systems in which behavior *emerges* rather than in which behavior is conciously planned.

[ QUOTE ]
So I ask you these questions (to you, an ACer), ranging from very specific to very general to get a better sense of how this new form of cohibiation is going to work, yet you give me nothing. I don't think you're an economist, so I wouldnt' fault you if you said "I don't know enough about X to give an answer" (which is exactly what one of your compatriots did earlier) but you don't, you don't even aknowledge the question, except to say that I'm being "delusional" and making up "boogymen".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "knowing enough about X". I could know EVERYTHING about X and STILL not be able to give you an answer. There's no amount of knowlege about biology that will enable a scientist to predict what will emerge from evolution in the future. It's *impossible* to predict. Does that "disprove" it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your dog example only illustrates that, to you, when there is too much of something the only way to get rid of it is to add in more of that same thing but maintain the fantasy that you can now control what is an even bigger problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If pvn says, "this is how it would work" and I say, "no, THIS is how it would work" and patrik antonius says "no, it won't work like that it would work like THIS" well that's all fine and good but that has no bearing and how it will actually work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to quote it because it's in a differnt post, but you actually answered one of my examples and said something to the effect of "well what happens when one of those 8 road owners says 'I'm just gonna undercut the other guys'".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see the difference between this example and your others? In this one, you made some declaration about how it would work, and I showed you that you were wrong. In the others, you're demanding to know how it will work. For any answer I give, you can come up with a response that shows it's wrong.

Do you see why these sorts of exercises are pointless yet?

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe human nature has evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Society has evolved, obviously. Is that human nature, though? If you were to magically place infants born today into a pre-historic caveman hunter-gatherer society, would their nature be any different than the infants born at that time? (obviously, magically fooling some families in that society into raising the time-traveling infants as their own, and all that). I don't think so. Violence and murder are bad because society tells us they are bad. It is good that society does this, but this kind of morality is not innate.


[ QUOTE ]
So, you're saying that we don't have a natural instinct to be peaceful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that we don't have a natural instinct that would prevent us from using violence to get things from other humans. Sure, we have survival instincts, which would often result in peaceful behavior if we felt that using violence to obtain something would be too risky - and there are likely other innate human qualities that would result in peaceful behavior in various situations. But, when we want something from someone else, and we think that the risks and rewards of using violence to get this thing are suitable, there is no innate quality about us that would preclude violence.


[ QUOTE ]
Society tells us that killing some people are bad but killing other people are good. If you're telling me that I'm naturally violent and inclined to kill people and society tells me that it's okay to kill people (soldiers) then why haven't I joined the Marines? Wouldn't that be a fulfillment of my nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that being a homicidal maniac is human nature, or that we have a natural desire to kill for the sake of killing. I just meant that we have no innate morality that would prevent us from using violence or murder as a means to an end. We're greedy - it is in our nature to want things from other people - violence is the most basic way to get things from other people, so violence and murder are part of human nature.

[ QUOTE ]
If self-interest is human nature and peace is in our own self-interest then peace is human nature? What am I missing? Don't rip me apart too hard. Leave some scraps for when I post in OOT plz!

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace may be in society's best interests, and it may be in your best interests - but, that doesn't matter. Peace is not in the best interests of the party that is initiating the violent action, since they decided to initiate it in the first place. They don't give a [censored] about your desire, or society's desire, for peace - they just want your things.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you haven't answered it. You've said that you need unity to achieve your goals; you have NOT answered why you think you or justified in coercing this unity, or why you feel you are entitled to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've answered this so many times it's getting silly. I (and we) need your help because certain things involve all of us. The environment would be a good example. Alot of evangelical groups take the "Jesus is coming, take what we want from the earth approach", there is alot of manpower in that group, they can certainly make their own communities, and yet, their raping of the earth is going to effect you. You, and whatever group you choose to align with, is going to feel this whether you want to or not, but you have no power to stop them from effecting you.

Some things are "over-riding" concerns.

[ QUOTE ]
If something cannot be provided by the market, I say "oh well". Let the chips fall where they may.


[/ QUOTE ]

No (whomever said it above me), this is /endthread material. "If my system can't do it, whatever, it'll work out somehow." Wonderful

[ QUOTE ]
So "why this applies or doesn't" is a totally arbitrary distiction? So much for normative analysis. "It's different because I say so." Well, that's certainly helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sort of. Although I much prefer science to "hey lets throw [censored] at a dartboard and see if it works".

[ QUOTE ]
...you haven't proven that YOUR way is "better" than mine (and in fact, you *can't* since "better" is a personal and subjective ranking), so you can't even *begin* to justifiy compelling me to follow YOUR method.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor have you proven you're method is better, and despite the reply you've already subconsciously begun typing, it's not as if you "aren't forcing anything on me". We are inter-connected so you not taking my money is not the only way we are forced (by nature and the world) to interact.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you won't get X unless others pay for it is not justification for making them pay for it. So where is the justification?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above, we all interact, it's time we realize that. With our level of sociological and technological sophistication, we all push and pull each other, even if we don't realize it. As such, some things are going to have to be addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you dispute the point that you quoted above or not? "Oh, it's different." What's different? HOW DOES GOVERNMENT REMOVE NATURAL BARRIERS? For someone who bitches and moans about someone not answering your questions, you sure grease your way around a lot of them. I'm not asking you for some specific prediction, either, we're talking about broad-based theory here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually answered this, government subsidizes (which I almost always hate), but in the case of situations that involve scarcity (roads) or huge barriers to entry (the Pharm issue) someone/something has to step in.

[ QUOTE ]
When "they" take their prices from X to 8X, as we discussed, only one of those eight firms will get the 8X. The others get zero. So they can't "all get rich" in your example. The greed that you assume is leading to the cartel formation actually gives rise to incentives to break ranks with the cartel. You said "do the math", well, do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's not reading, I'll explain thus:

Road guy 1: Well guys we can charge a fair price or we can all agree to run the price up
Road guy 2: Hahah jokes on you, I'm just gonna sell for less then the fixed price
RG1: Oh yeah well I'm gonna sell for $1 cheaper then you.
ON and On and On until we get to fair market price
RG1: hahah the system works
RG2: Wait, right now we're making market price, but we control all the roads, let's just move prices up waaaay higher then what we could make individually.
RG1: Brilliant *lights cigar with $100*

There's no need to follow basic economic guidlines when you own a monopoly, you'll just jack the price up, split the profits and rape the consumers. No one can move in to compete because some resources are scarce.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, the ones we've been talking about for 200 pages??? Again, you're not getting the answer you were looking for, so you assume you're being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't answered anything, in fact you said in this very post that you weren't interested in answering them.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that sounds just like government.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some do. YOU do. You don't like to call it that, but that is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Systemic violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok where does you AC power come from if not violence. Man's nature to always be good? ALL POWER COMES FROM VIOLENCE.
Just like the first thing I quoted, it is like government. You've already agreed that people in power like to get more, so what's going to happen when people consolodate power, they're going to stop out of concern for their fellow man?


[ QUOTE ]
What? Why do I need to work together to eat lunch? I'm pretty sure I can eat lunch at any number of places regardless of what 99 other people do. Oh, and look, a bunch of other people are eating at the same place! And nobody is stabbing anyone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice ignore the directions, and write your own solution. Do you really think there aren't issues that will effect those 100 groups, and that there may not be 100 seperate choices (hint: there are, I'm listed some). But whatever, I'm pretty used to you "Don't answer, smug comment" tactic by now.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right. There's nothing crazy about, say, demanding that I run an experiment where I have to ask 99 people where they want to eat and expect that they all will agree or else devolve into violent conflict. Nothing at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahhah yep, that's it, asking you to think is well beyond reason. Wow

[ QUOTE ]
Like I could find them at this point. And as has been pointed out...

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting better and better. "I can't find them, and searching for your posts is too hard"

[ QUOTE ]
You want broad answers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want ANY answers that apply to the questions. Hell at his point I'll take anything more specific then "the free market will do it, and if not, whatever".

[ QUOTE ]
True, it isn't nice. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this assessment was correct, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

More and more, you made a statment, "I think I'm done with you", you don't sound like you need any more convincing.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
So government isn't possible now???


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I don't know enough to say for sure, but it sure seems like in it's present form it's not working too well. It remains to be seen what would happen in reduced governemnt or AC, but it's worth it to investigate.

[ QUOTE ]
And note, if those conditions are met, all of your concerns about thugs consolidating power in an AC scenario are squarely addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and No, the man with the most guns will always make the rules, regardless of the social system.

Cody