Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on you to show hard evidence that these issues will be dealt with as well or nearly as well under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. You think the burden of proof flips simply because statism is the status quo? The status quo is justified because it is the status quo?

If I am in the process of stabbing someone, is the burden of proof on the person who wishes me to stop stabbing my victim?

[/ QUOTE ]
A disingenous response. I only claimed that democracy has evidence of its success rate in dealing with social problems. And to answer your question, yes, the status quo is a powerful thing. It's the law of the land in every country on earth, including non government ones. If you want to change it, you need to suck it up and provide compelling arguments. It's the way the world works, I'm afraid.

Regarding stabbing - no, because the status quo is that you can't go around stabbing people...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if they're not, or if there's uncertainty about AC's ability to handle this, that's a strike against your system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh well. The state hasn't eliminated this (empirically!), so the worst case in this aspect is that AC and the state are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's obvious that things can indeed be worse under AC. Your comment is like saying that since the state hasn't eliminated murder, the worst case under any system (including dictatorship, with genocide) is the same.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a proven solution to these problems practiced all over the world, for at least 2 centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solution to *what*??

[/ QUOTE ]
To the problems of stability, common ownership, defence, protection of rights, protection of the innocent and sick, freedom from non-law based tyranny. You may not see these as problems to be managed, but I think most people do. Humans societies without democratic government have generally been rather nasty places, and people don't want to live there. So if you're proposing a different system (or no system), it's up to you to show why we should convert to that system (or no system). "Taxation and monopoly of force are undesirable" is not enough. That's only one consideration. Each problem that AC doesn't solve as well as government is a strike against your system in the minds of most people. We have data on how democracy does each of these things. We have little on AC, hence the discussion. If you had proof that AC worked, you'd just say "look at britain" or "look at france" or "look at somalia" and we'd have more concrete data to discuss.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to deny you your democracy. If that's what you want, have at it. You need to justify your desire to compel other people to participate in your democracy. We await your sales pitch.

[/ QUOTE ]
The system is set up such that people are born into it, and cannot opt out (although they are free to set up communes on private property). Whether that's good, bad or necessary, and what alternatives there are, is a point I'll bring up in another thread.

[Dane S]

Phil, I think perhaps the "status quo" is much closer to anarchy than it is to statism, though most people don't realize this. What percentage of your daily activities are directly regulated by the government? It isn't very high for anyone except prison inmates or active duty military personnel. Anarchy is the basis of our entire economic system, though the state does intervene in some critical areas.

Another point: I don't see how AC could ever be realized unless it provides adequate solutions to society's most pressing problems. If we ignore all rules of economics and imagine the free market truly fails to provide essential services, so what? If a better solution isn't provided, the government won't be replaced. Or if it is replaced, and then the market fails somewhere along the line, the citizens will reinstitute a governing body for the areas where the market wasn't up to snuff.

I don't like calling myself an ACist or an anarchist, or using any label really, because of the unavoidable connotations (in the case of ACism, revolutionary implications). What my life and reading AC theory has convinced me of boils down to one seminal point: the state represents a illegitimate and unnecessary monopoly on force. In other words, tyranny. I'm not FOR anything at all. I'm AGAINST tyranny. I'm a dissident, not an advocate. I don't really have much of a clue how exactly a free society would work or how it will solve problems. Could you have predicted the internet or cell phones or the genome project 75 years ago?

AC HAS been proven. It's been proven because the market has been proven as an efficient, effective distributor of goods and services to where they are needed. The most efficient and effective, actually. The issue is that the market has never been ALLOWED to provide for ALL goods and services because of monopolies maintained by force. The proof is in the pudding really. Markets provide societies goods and services effectively and efficiently, states don't. How much more proof is needed?

[Nielsio]

As a sidenote:

If child-molestation would be prevalent among society, then there would absolutely be a state.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

AC HAS been proven. It's been proven because the market has been proven as an efficient, effective distributor of goods and services to where they are needed. The most efficient and effective, actually. The issue is that the market has never been ALLOWED to provide for ALL goods and services because of monopolies maintained by force. The proof is in the pudding really. Markets provide societies goods and services effectively and efficiently, states don't. How much more proof is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many ACists is this forum up to now?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on you to show hard evidence that these issues will be dealt with as well or nearly as well under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. You think the burden of proof flips simply because statism is the status quo? The status quo is justified because it is the status quo?

If I am in the process of stabbing someone, is the burden of proof on the person who wishes me to stop stabbing my victim?

[/ QUOTE ]
A disingenous response. I only claimed that democracy has evidence of its success rate in dealing with social problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Did I say that you claimed more than that?

[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question, yes, the status quo is a powerful thing. It's the law of the land in every country on earth, including non government ones. If you want to change it, you need to suck it up and provide compelling arguments. It's the way the world works, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, who am I obligated to make these arguments to?

And why didn't anyone make these arguments to me before imposing what is now the status quo?

Democracy has not been the status quo forever. Does a claim become exempt from fufilling the burden of proof once it becomes violently imposed?

Basically, the claim that the status quo is a "more favored" moral position (and hence less ecumbered by some burden of proof) by virtue of being the status quo is nothing more than shorthand for might makes right.

Example:

Mr. X: Everyone should be free to smoke pot.
Mr. Y: But DRUGS are ILLEGAL!!!

Thank you, captain obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding stabbing - no, because the status quo is that you can't go around stabbing people...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you misread my hypothetical. I'm ALREADY stabbing someone, so obviously I CAN stab people. Now, like you said, the status quo is a powerful thing. The status quo is that I am stabbing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if they're not, or if there's uncertainty about AC's ability to handle this, that's a strike against your system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh well. The state hasn't eliminated this (empirically!), so the worst case in this aspect is that AC and the state are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's obvious that things can indeed be worse under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they could be worse under a state. Last time I checked, murder rates vary from year to year.

Are you claiming that under AC things would *necessarily* be worse than under a state? If so, I'm awaiting your argument. I'll even ignore the fact that "worse" is subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
Your comment is like saying that since the state hasn't eliminated murder, the worst case under any system (including dictatorship, with genocide) is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment is YOUR comment. It's even quoted right there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a proven solution to these problems practiced all over the world, for at least 2 centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solution to *what*??

[/ QUOTE ]
To the problems of stability, common ownership, defence, protection of rights, protection of the innocent and sick, freedom from non-law based tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Are you sure? These problems have been solved? I'll give you another chance to think about that.

[ QUOTE ]
You may not see these as problems to be managed, but I think most people do. Humans societies without democratic government have generally been rather nasty places, and people don't want to live there. So if you're proposing a different system (or no system), it's up to you to show why we should convert to that system (or no system).

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said earlier - I *don't care* if you convert or not. That's the whole point - I have zero interest in telling you what to do.

[ QUOTE ]
"Taxation and monopoly of force are undesirable" is not enough. That's only one consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, subject yourself to taxation and monopoly of force. Fine with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Each problem that AC doesn't solve as well as government is a strike against your system in the minds of most people. We have data on how democracy does each of these things. We have little on AC, hence the discussion. If you had proof that AC worked, you'd just say "look at britain" or "look at france" or "look at somalia" and we'd have more concrete data to discuss.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to deny you your democracy. If that's what you want, have at it. You need to justify your desire to compel other people to participate in your democracy. We await your sales pitch.

[/ QUOTE ]
The system is set up such that people are born into it, and cannot opt out (although they are free to set up communes on private property). Whether that's good, bad or necessary, and what alternatives there are, is a point I'll bring up in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually need to discuss whether forcibly subjecting people to the decisions of others is good or bad?

You seriously need another post to "discuss alternatives"? Let me tell you a secret: the alternative is quite simple.

[Phil153]

You don't appear to be interested in engaging my points directly, as I have tried to do with you. For example, the stabbing comment you made is just being obtuse -

[ QUOTE ]
No, you misread my hypothetical. I'm ALREADY stabbing someone, so obviously I CAN stab people. Now, like you said, the status quo is a powerful thing. The status quo is that I am stabbing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo isn't established in 10 seconds or by one person. To even enter that analogy into the debate is silly.

If you don't wish to engage my comments reasonably then we're wasting both our time. Good luck to you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't appear to be interested in engaging my points directly, as I have tried to do with you. For example, the stabbing comment you made is just being obtuse -

[ QUOTE ]
No, you misread my hypothetical. I'm ALREADY stabbing someone, so obviously I CAN stab people. Now, like you said, the status quo is a powerful thing. The status quo is that I am stabbing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo isn't established in 10 seconds or by one person. To even enter that analogy into the debate is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm the one avoiding the point.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't wish to engage my comments reasonably then we're wasting both our time. Good luck to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What comments? All you did was ignore my point that I don't seek to impose anything on you, and ignore my question of how you justify imposing anything upon me.

"engage my comments reasonably" = "make a bunch of assumptions that I want you to make, without which I have no points"

[2OuterJitsu]

What happens to the child molester in ACLand?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens to the child molester in ACLand?

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens currently? Usually nothing.

[Nielsio]

I can think of a whole bunch of scenarios where there indeed does happen something. But I don't think it's particularly valuable to philosophize about it. It's all part of the never ending unanswerable future-telling questions that we get.