Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[iggymcfly]

(Note: Sorry if this rambles a little bit, I was reading the different things you linked in the middle of responding.)

[ QUOTE ]

We had this. We had a libertarian government that was so small it barely escaped being no government at all. The inevitable happened. Powers were quickly usurped, the government grew like a cancer, and basically every libertarian principle it had been founded on was repudiated within less than a century. This occured because even though the populace was very much individualist, they still believed that government was somehow necessary. No culture where the majority of people believe that it is right and even necessary for a class of people to do things that for everyone else are universally recognized as criminal cannot last.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key paragraph. You believe that the change from a Libertarian government to the semi-socialist government currently in place in the United States was "inevitable under any government system". I disagree with this vehemently. It's only "inevitable" because the populace is stupid enough to encourage it.

In the United States for example, if the voters had a revelation and decided that they didn't want the state controlling their lives, they could easily just vote Libertarian for every office in the next election, and the whole face of the government would be changed. Laws would be rescinded, taxes would be slashed, and the government could become unobtrusive again in no time.

In the current democratic system, all it would take is about 1/4 of the population to be committed to this idea (with voter turnout and competition between the current parties), and it would become so. It's not like people are being tricked by the government in most of these areas. They're actively supporting flawed concepts such as social security and actively want taxes to become even more Socialist for rich Americans.

As for your linked post re: Monarchy vs. Democracy, it's a very interesting idea and I think you got the general idea that the people in power don't have much to gain in promoting the overall long-term health of the country. However, that's merely because the only check on their power is an ignorant, uninformed electorate. The average person simply is not intelligent enough to decide what political course the country should take. That's why simple "take from the rich and give to the poor" rhetoric will succeed on so many voters. If anything, the ability to vote should be restricted some way to those who can pass a test for basic intelligence and knowledge about the government.

Finally, your main contention is that a Libertarian government works in theory, but not in practice since the people will go back to what they know as long as they assign some power to the government. However, I say this is even more true about AC. If you can't even get 25% of the population to check a box to say they want smaller government, then how can you ever overthrow the government i in the first place.

It seems like me that the options are:

1) Live in a socialist state where 50% of all earnings can be given to the government to be apportioned out inefficiently.
2) Educate the electorate.
3) Only allow the educated within the electorate to vote.
4) Destroy all forms of government all over the world and hope that private security firms prevent new ones from forming, even though all evidence throughout human history says such an effort will fail.

I just don't see how (2) or (3) can't be the natural conclusion. If people support property rights in a democratic system, they'll succeed. Basically, I still don't see where a democratic Libertarian system fails. Most of your criticisms are of the current system controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Would the police force really be that inefficient if they weren't constantly preoccupied with chasing down harmless drug users? Would 'pet projects' be diverting government funds if the electorate was committed to only putting people in office that wanted to keep spending to a minimum? It seems like simply voting Libertarian is enough to accomplish all reasonable goals and is infinitely more practical and stable than anarchic capitalism.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
No culture where the majority of people believe that it is right and even necessary for a class of people to do things that for everyone else are universally recognized as criminal cannot last.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DougShrapnel]

Hi Acists. Quick question, It has nothing to do with this thread, but I don't feel it worthty to start a new theard. Hope you don't mind the very brief hijack. And I do hope it to be very brief. Agree or Disagree, desparate, exploitable laborpools mean more profit for capitalism's elites. It really is a throw away question, but I'm kinda curious to see how the paradox is resolved in ACism. As a capitalist you want to get the best talent for the lowest price. Yet you want the general public to have enough disposible income to purchase your product at a high enough markup. Are desperate, exploitable laborpools good for capitalists or not? Please do not respond with the market will decide. I'm interested in the theoritical outcome.

Agian sorry this was just the first AC thread I came across.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?


[/ QUOTE ]

To play the Devil's Advocate, what is to stop a powerful businessman from doing the same when a 'minimal government' is in place?

I was a libertarian for about 14 years before recently converting to ACism a few months ago after reading posts on this forum by Boro, PVN, and others. (before that I was a republican and sat as a state delegate for the republican party in State elections one year)

The straw that broke the camels back so to speak, the post that finally tipped me over the edge, was a post from a 'statist'. Someone was arguing aginst ACism because of 'free riders', in particular about the 'problem' people who lived by a big swamp area would have:

One or more people spray for mosquitos and if everyone did not pay for the spraying 'someone would be getting a free ride'. lol

Maybe I should not agree to go to dinner or drinks with friends anymore because someone might not kick in full share for the tip I think the waitress deserves, I need to protect myself from those damn free riders!

...as if millions of people do not get 'free rides' under government for a whole host of things leading to tons and tons of waste and harm for us in society....

lets worry and object to AC because of the mosquito free rider issue that may arise lol

[ QUOTE ]


Also, I'd like to know what objection if any, the anarchic capitalists on the board would have to an elected Libertarian government where the government's sole goal was to protect the rights of the individual. Laws would still be in place only to prevent violent crime and to protect property. There would still be a military to prevent the government from being usurped internationally, but said military would not be greatly reduced and would not interfere needlessly in the affairs of other nations.

Overall, the government interference in day-to-day life would be greatly reduced and the only taxes that would be collected would be those absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the individual. What objections would you have to living under such a system and in what way do you think AC would be superior?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also a pragmatist, so any movement towards reduced government, I am for. I think a good place to start would be the war on drugs, which is a war on people:

Here is an interesting group for ending the drug war that I learned about recently, one that I think carries a lot of clout in convincing average citizens..

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

www.leap.cc

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
(Note: Sorry if this rambles a little bit, I was reading the different things you linked in the middle of responding.)

[ QUOTE ]


...
The average person simply is not intelligent enough to decide what political course the country should take.
...


1) Live in a socialist state where 50% of all earnings can be given to the government to be apportioned out inefficiently.
2) Educate the electorate.
3) Only allow the educated within the electorate to vote.
4) Destroy all forms of government all over the world and hope that private security firms prevent new ones from forming, even though all evidence throughout human history says such an effort will fail.

I just don't see how (2) or (3) can't be the natural conclusion. If people support property rights in a democratic system, they'll succeed. Basically, I still don't see where a democratic Libertarian system fails.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm a recent convert to AC, FWIW. The bolded is the motive of every statist IMO. You cannot be both for liberty and an elite group (however selected) making decisions for others. If you aren't intelligent enough to make beneficial decisions for yourself, you are still entitled to make decisions for yourself (and suffer/collect the consequences/profits). Tell me what entitles someone’s inability (liberty), to infringe on someone else’s ability (liberty). Don’t mistake freedom for the freedom to be right/succeed; it’s also the freedom to be wrong/fail. That is one of many reasons why any government is illegitimate, however small.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the key paragraph. You believe that the change from a Libertarian government to the semi-socialist government currently in place in the United States was "inevitable under any government system". I disagree with this vehemently. It's only "inevitable" because the populace is stupid enough to encourage it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that if the populace is smart enough, they can prevent a super-limited government from growing out of control, but you don't think that a populace which values individual freedom enough to dismantle the state in the first place can stop itself from just rolling over the first time some tinpot dictator rolls around and tries to form a state?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The average person simply is not intelligent enough to decide what political course the country should take.

[/ QUOTE ]

The smartest person in the world isn't, either.

[LinusKS]

Here’s the central problem for ACists: when it comes to defending the defenseless, ACists must either:

A.) Admit that it won’t happen, or
B.) Describe how it’ll be prevented.

Admitting it won’t happen isn’t desirable, because ACists want to argue ACism will be better, rather than worse than democracy.

Describing how it’ll be prevented is worse, because when it comes to addressing practical, real-world problems, ACism always fares poorly. They’d much rather focus on the ways they think democracy fails, or on their “right” not to have to do what they don’t want to do, such as pay taxes.

So they reach into their bag of tricks – shifting the burden of proof, stating conclusions as facts, making invalid comparisons, and appeals to authority, among others.

Some examples:

2Outer: What happens to the child molester in ACLand?

Pvn: What happens currently? Usually nothing.


UA: How are cases of animal cruelty and child molestation handled in AC land?

Hmk: Do you honestly believe that the state does anything significant to prevent this? If I want to torture an animal, believe me, I can do it in the privacy of my own home, legal or not. This is also kind of a pathological question, because seriously, who actually does this?

It’s hard to say which is sillier, that nobody tortures animals or abuses children, or that the state does nothing to prevent it. It’s as if ACists are unaware of the existence of prosecutors, courthouses, police, and judges – except, of course, when it comes to the OJ Simpson case.

Either way, ACists avoid answering the question.

Except for Borodog, who at least takes a stab:

3rd parties would intervene to stop the abuse and/or physically remove the children/animals. If the abuser filed for damages against them, he would lose, since nobody is going to side with kiddie rapers and kitty torturers, especially not arbitrators who want their decisions to retain market value in the community. Who would use an arbitrator who sides with child molesters?

Let’s look at some of the problems with this answer, starting with the practical ones.

1.) Who pays for taking care of abused children after they’re taken from their homes? I know, of course, what the AC answer is: volunteers. But putting aside the question, for the moment, of whether it’s fair, or reasonable, to put the entire burden of caring for these kids on shoulders of people who are compassionate, and who care about social justice, without requiring any kind of contribution from the selfish bastards who only care about themselves, what happens when the Good Samaritans run out of money? Or get sick? Or die? Or just decide to stop volunteering?
2.) Borodog asks, “Who would use an arbitrator who sides with child molesters?” The answer, of course, is “a child molester.”
3.) What happens to the molesters after they’re “convicted?” Are they taken to jail? If so, who pays for it?
4.) Perhaps most importantly, Borodog assumes whether someone is a child molester is somehow determined in advance. He asks, “Who would use an arbitrator who sides with child molesters?” And states, “nobody is going to side with kiddie rapers.” I don’t know how to respond to this assumption (although I know it’s one shared by many people who don’t understand how the justice system works), except to say that guilt is not known before the trial, and that sometimes it’s not known even then.

[LinusKS]

The big picture (for the tldr-ers) is that ACists must either describe some half-assed system of justice, which winds up looking like a very poorly- and arbitrarily-run state; or they must admit pedophiles and sadists would be given free reign.

Since they prefer to do neither, they post head-shots of OJ, instead.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?


[/ QUOTE ]

To play the Devil's Advocate, what is to stop a powerful businessman from doing the same when a 'minimal government' is in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawful government of the people acting as a check on the power of private of wealth.