David Sklansky is an ACist

ALawPoker · #1 09-21-2007, 02:54 AM

I'm calling you out, pal.

I don't have any specific evidence really. It's sort of like trying to explain why you called with 10 high and won the pot. But I'm pretty sure it's true, and feeling like posting about it. I've had odd assumptions about 2p2 posters before, and usually ended up being right. So maybe this is one of them.

First of all, he believes in logical truth. The man's life is dedicated to being logical. And to me, AC is the logical destination. So in a way it's almost far-fetched (*to me*) that Sklansky wouldn't agree that government is bad.

I have the vague theory that he is (myopically) only interested in discussing things logically, but ultimately he believes it leads to the conclusion that the state is interference. He just isn't willing to start off with that assumption because he refuses to discredit himself (in some people's eyes) by claiming a broad belief. And also he probably believes he does the broad belief better justice by not claiming it anyways.

Now, Sklansky might not "be" an ACist. I don't think he really cares, or is as passionate about it as someone like Borodog. But I think he would agree that most of the things he talks about are ultimately things that support the AC arguments.

That being said, I fully expect to be laughed at for posting this. I also don't expect David would admit it even if I'm right. So this thread is mostly useless. But I'm so sure that I'm right (and have been for a few days now -- DAYS, I say) that I couldn't help but post it.

Liberty and justice for Sklansky.

Borodog · #2 09-21-2007, 03:02 AM

I'm pretty sure that David doesn't care enough about the topic to research it deeply.

I also believe that he may believe (erroneously) that prisoner's dilemmas present some sort of problem for the market that necessitates a government.

Lastly, I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

Phil153 · #3 09-21-2007, 03:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises? I'd like to discuss this notion, because AC is no more "logical" than other political preferences, IMO.

ALawPoker · #4 09-21-2007, 03:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human nature.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to discuss this notion, because AC is no more "logical" than other political preferences, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well sure. But most political preferences eventually expose some bias that is contradictory to what other human beings fundamentally value. I'm yet to see one for AC, other than the bias that human nature is good.

ALawPoker · #5 09-21-2007, 03:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not think it's bad in the sense that he has confined himself to an ideology that assumes/knows it's bad; but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a Sklansky thread where he conluded that the initiation of force was good.

Borodog · #6 09-21-2007, 03:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not think it's bad in the sense that he has confined himself to an ideology that assumes/knows it's bad; but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a Sklansky thread where he conluded that the initiation of force was good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's stated before that, for example, the starving can steal bread (which I agree with), but I'm not sure he's taken it any further than that. I.e., that just because it's "ok" in some sense to steal bread when you are starving does not mean that you don't owe the owner compensation later (unless he forgives you the debt, which he almost certainly would, but that's beside the point).

There really is a lot to libertarian ethical theory that never even gets discussed around here, even with all of our wrangling.

ALawPoker · #7 09-21-2007, 05:46 AM

Ya, often when people "disagree" with libertarianism, they maybe just haven't considered certain extensions of the libertarian position. Probed thoroughly, it's pretty incredible how many people eventually change their minds.

And that's why I find it pretty interesting that David's musings here seem to support the idea that AC is "right," even though he might not be willing to admit that.

ALawPoker · #8 09-21-2007, 05:59 AM

Also, just to be clear: My bold assumption in this thread is that David is *consciously* aware of the benefits of AC/libertarianism (but just hasn't admitted it, for whatever reasons). I think he knows where his logic is leading. I just think he cares more about the logic (as it relates to his ability to unravel it) than the abstract "cause," so he talks about it differently than people who would admittedly label themselves as libertarians.

soon2bepro · #9 09-21-2007, 07:27 AM

What does it even mean to be an ACist?

To me that means a moral/ethical position. Any such is mainly subjective and therefore I don't see how you can try to predict that from Sklansky's logical arguments. If you want to guess at all you should base yourself more on what you know of David's feelings/position on morality and ethics, than his reasoning or his support for reasonable arguments.

soon2bepro · #10 09-21-2007, 07:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the benefits of AC/libertarianism

[/ QUOTE ]

Benefits for whom?

There is no inherent benefit or negative*1.

Those two concepts only make sense when the facts (that which is to be considered beneficial or negative*1) are being compared to the purpose(s) of purposeful entities. So I ask, benefits for whom?

*1 - "negative", as the opposite of "beneficial", use your own term here if you prefer