Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[tame_deuces]

I think you can dismantle the argument into saying that 'something' that coerces will most likely come about even in AC land, and that this view isn't based on an economical model but a social model.

I think you could probably find some examples of near AC societies economically speaking, but socially speaking I doubt they would even be close. You would most likely find norms, ethics, cultural structures and authority/power so strong, and social/cultural repercussions so severe, that it in effect it has laws/regulations just like a state has.

I'll make a big claim and say these are easily observable effects and completely natural behavior in any human society that we know of.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a one-word definition so forgive me if I didn't get anything from it. Explain what you mean if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it's a burden of force. Since 'legitimacy' is largely subjective.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's a burden of force. Since 'legitimacy' is largely subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're off! Another race to the bottom.

Might makes right - agree or disagree?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's a burden of force. Since 'legitimacy' is largely subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're off! Another race to the bottom.

Might makes right - agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you asking? You yourself just stated that sufficient might does always make right, even on issues as arbitrary as peanut butter.

So what are you asking?

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's a burden of force. Since 'legitimacy' is largely subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're off! Another race to the bottom.

Might makes right - agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
In a manner of speaking. If no one can agree on what "legitimacy" is then force is what counts. You say there is a "burden of proof" on legitimacy, but legitimacy can't be "proven" since it's a subjective concept.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You say there is a "burden of proof" on legitimacy, but legitimacy can't be "proven" since it's a subjective concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can subjectively select a set of objective standards. Once you've done that, you can prove.

[foal]

But they might not agree with your set of objective standards.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Q to Joe Statist: Joe, please define "legitimate authority"?
Joe: Democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


I haven't said that at all, and I think my post (and every post I've made) has been pretty clear about not opposing "government" (where rights are determined) and "market" (where prices for goods are determined).


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't separate the two as the decisions on rights will alter the market for goods and services. From how to word, enforce and interpret laws, to simply funding the system all choices on laws are economic choices. There is no objective way to draw a line and say market on the left and government on the right, and eventually you end up with the same thing that happens every where. A growing government because government actors gain from growth, and a massively distorted market. Just for example, how many people think that health care ought to be a "right"?

[xorbie]

pvn,

Might makes reality. This is a normative fact, arguing about it is pointless. That has been my point from the beggining, you have yet to acknowledge this for some reason.

Whether you want to argue that this is "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean much until you explain why "right" and "wrong" matter.