Reactions to AC

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The status quo is justified because it is the status quo, until someone comes up with something better?


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply, yes. Not only do you have to come up with something better, but you also have to come up with something significantly better to overcome the switching costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better by whose subjective personal preferences? Slavery is justified until the slaves can convince me that not owning them is significantly better?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between a "want" and a "need"?



[/ QUOTE ]

You WANT an Xbox, without you are unhappy. You NEED clean water, without it you die. The differnece is clear.

[ QUOTE ]
How clean is "clean water"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clean enough to drink and sustain life, without causing illness.

[ QUOTE ]
Is a bike enough to check off the "transportation" box or do you "need" a hummer?

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on your distance from work.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same problem as with "security" - is the war on drugs part of satisfying this basic need?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your neighbor doing drugs in his living room doesn't harm you, and since there is no healthcare, his coked-out old frame isn't your burden.

[ QUOTE ]
Why won't people get these things, even with monopolies?

[/ QUOTE ]

They will, at a price that makes their anuses bleed. Unless of course they can't afford it and it's a "need", then they die.

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of monopoly is going to form in the "clean water" market, considering the stuff falls from the sky on a regular basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

With the continued pollution of the air, this isn't always true. More over, can you sustain yourself out of buckets in your backyard? My guess is no. And even if you can, most can't.

[ QUOTE ]
Natural monopolies are assumed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide an example of one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Going to stick with roads here, to be consistant.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not quite sure which definition of natural monopoly you're using, since there are several tossed about in this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

A natural monopoly is something (or some industry) that will, when left alone, likely be dominated by one business or industry. Now it's obvious that since resources are scarce, everything will end this way, but I'm refering to those things which should happen quickly (roads would take less then 2 years I would estemate).

[ QUOTE ]
And shoes, like roads, are made from scarce materials, and require scarce labor to produce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again we get into scale, it would be very hard to control all the materials needed for shoes, and they are hardly labor intensive (just ask those 6 year olds).

[ QUOTE ]
And I have no idea what this "larger scope of infulence and planning" is supposed to mean. The roads I drive on today are built by the state, and uniformily exhibit *poor* planning. They take forever to build, are poorly constructed at high cost, don't carry enough traffic to meet demand, etc etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a government to step in and break up monopolies =/= having government's make roads. I'm all for allowing people to compete for roads. The space issue is tough, but it could be worked out.


[ QUOTE ]
If everyone agrees, then who could possibly object?

[/ QUOTE ]

But won't that board begin to gather power? Isn't that what we said happens to any group with power?

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that AC, which would be *rooted* in property rights, could possibly work like that is completely laughable, yet people try to portray it as a given over and over again.


[/ QUOTE ]

But is it a stretch to imagine that a system where people have no authority over one another, where your arbiter has no authority over me, would lead to a change in habits like dumping etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The state provides an apparatus for the most ruthless, diabolical, power-hungry people in the population to satisfy their basest urges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree, the state forms A way, but it may not the best way. It can form a dangerous machine, and it can also help out. For every gain in life there is risk.

[ QUOTE ]
a ready-made machine of immeasurable power waiting to be commanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Issue of scale again. Government has many levels, it's not always the massive wrecking-ball we have in the US, nor is it always as massive socialist Scandinavian state.

[ QUOTE ]
Define greed. Are we talking Gordon Gekko greed?


[/ QUOTE ]

It can be, another issue of scale. People are different, but most if not all have a greedy streak. Greed, as I'm using it, means want for power

[ QUOTE ]
A thug like, for example, Abraham Lincoln would never have been able to kill 700,000 men, totally wreck an entire economy, and consolodate as much power as he did without the state apparatus handed to him on a silver platter. How else could he have funded that sort of destruction?


[/ QUOTE ]

Free Market baby. Little Abe never did anything in our history, instead in the USoAC he got a job, was very successful and raised lots of money. Then he became aquainted with a group of people with money and power who don't like X about their neighbors. They take their money, hire then men, buy the arms, and it's killing time.

Obviously that's made up and silly, but the point is that there's no mechanism keeping him from killing. Your accusation that it was easier might be fair, but the accusation that it's impossible isn't.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Not true. The majority is only a magic number when it comes to arbitrary decsion-making processes. In real life, all things being equal, a 51-49 battle to the death will almost always be decided in favor of the defender, regardless of whether the attacker has 51 or 49. Defense is much, much easier than offense. If this were not true, and might really did determine every face-off, we'd never progress past the stone age. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What, battles are won by the better force. That's it and that's all. Better is defined as stronger, better armed, and better strategized.

[ QUOTE ]
AC does not require "total mental agreement". It can easily withstand coercion-loving dissenters. More so than any tinystate. Once a thug sneaks his way into office, no matter how small the state, he can begin the rolling snowball of expansion. And it won't stop until it collapses, at which point the process begins again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on the powers of the man elected. Not every government is run the same.

Cody

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not true. The majority is only a magic number when it comes to arbitrary decsion-making processes. In real life, all things being equal, a 51-49 battle to the death will almost always be decided in favor of the defender, regardless of whether the attacker has 51 or 49. Defense is much, much easier than offense. If this were not true, and might really did determine every face-off, we'd never progress past the stone age. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What, battles are won by the better force. That's it and that's all. Better is defined as stronger, better armed, and better strategized.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, "No."

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you *brought them up*. "Bringing them up" isn't a *logical proof* that they are true.

You might prefer a different distribution of, say, roads, than would emerge from a free market. This doesn't mean that your preference is "better", or that the market allocation is "inefficent."

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained some of them too, you admittedly didn't bother to read them.

[ QUOTE ]
I can find flaws (lots of them) that are both general and specific that are going to exist in any statist system you can cook up. No doubt about it. So we shouldn't engage in any statist system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well drat. We have flaws in AC's free market, and we have flaws in a statist system (I agree with this by the way). Well, AC agrees with PVN's morals, so let's go that way. Not exactly scientific, but hey, whatever works.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Social norms, individual preferences, etc determine stuff at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

You get ~6.2 billion "yes" votes on this proposition, and I'm down. I don't think it'll last, but let's give it a whirl.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Get 6.2 billion yes votes on yours, and I'm down. Until then, everyone does what they want, K?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, until then, we might do what we want, but other countries aren't going to, and if they wanna take our newfound freedom, we're so boned.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not true. The majority is only a magic number when it comes to arbitrary decsion-making processes. In real life, all things being equal, a 51-49 battle to the death will almost always be decided in favor of the defender, regardless of whether the attacker has 51 or 49. Defense is much, much easier than offense. If this were not true, and might really did determine every face-off, we'd never progress past the stone age. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What, battles are won by the better force. That's it and that's all. Better is defined as stronger, better armed, and better strategized.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, "No."

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah are war's played with Risk Rules now? Wars, battles, etc are won by the better force, simply being on D doesn't promise victory.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't say things that won't happen? Like, err, a ministate that is perpetually frozen in a limited existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I was one of the ones that said people are greedy. Can't keep the state small forever, unless we get some new ideas. Even those might not be enough, like we said, people are after all greedy.

[ QUOTE ]
People in power won't *have a choice* about giving it up. When people *stop believing* in the state, it will disappear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this. The government has the weapons, they have the soldiers, simply because we don't vote/pay taxes, don't mean that one single man can't press the red button. What makes you think government is going to go quietly into the night.

[ QUOTE ]
If you blow up all the churches in America, they will be rebuilt. If people *stop believing* those churches will crumble. Not overnight. But eventually, they'll all be gone, replaced with something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Churches aren't people, they're buildings. They also don't have power.

Cody

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems the accepted rule is that market distributions are "better" than coercive distributions. Agree or disagree (in general, for the sake of discussion)?


[/ QUOTE ]

You asked in general, so I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree, then it's up to you to show why you think a particular scenario deviates from the rule, not for anyone else to show why it doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have, remember those "particular scenario"s that I brought up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you *brought them up*. "Bringing them up" isn't a *logical proof* that they are true.

You might prefer a different distribution of, say, roads, than would emerge from a free market. This doesn't mean that your preference is "better", or that the market allocation is "inefficent."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Market applications are "good" because they are "not bad". It sounds dumb, but it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt dumb at all, this is the basis for a linear view of science. If something must be either X or Y, then if it's not X it must be Y.

[ QUOTE ]
And if AC still has advantages (freedom) over the ultimate, perfect form of central planning, while producing
at worst the same results, then, well, what the [censored] are you doing supporting central planning, in any form?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't think that's the perfect centrally planed market, like I said. I think it's missing something. Also, your example was binary, either full on one way, or the other, no middle ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what conditions would be "perfect"? And it is binary. It's like being pregnant. There's either distortion in the market or there isn't. It might become more obvious as it gets bigger, but it's still there from the beginning.

[ QUOTE ]
If we can find flaws that are both general and specific that are going to exist in a 100% free market, we shouldn't engage in that system. If the flaws are addressed, then it's game on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can find flaws (lots of them) that are both general and specific that are going to exist in any statist system you can cook up. No doubt about it. So we shouldn't engage in any statist system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utterly and obviously false: we should engage in whatever system, statist or otherwise, has the least flaws in fact. Thereafter, we should work to correct even those.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Social norms, individual preferences, etc determine stuff at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

You get ~6.2 billion "yes" votes on this proposition, and I'm down. I don't think it'll last, but let's give it a whirl.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Get 6.2 billion yes votes on yours, and I'm down. Until then, everyone does what they want, K?

[/ QUOTE ]

I also find it odd that in a previous post you said something to the effect of "In an AC society (where people's minds have changed enough to want freedom, and aren't concerned with conquest, etc)". You said that people today, by virute of conditioning aren't able to handle AC, that the change has to come gradually, yet in the quote above you're right back into that "taxes are stealing, leave my alone" rote position.

It's a shame because for a time there we had a chance to move what you want from AC into it's real world applications.

Cody