Why I couldn’t accept ACism - Page 4

pvn · #31 09-26-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police & courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. That's true. But at the same time lack of control/applicable laws breed corruption even more. This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.
Nothing wrong with your example. Same would work for shops/medical institutions/insurance companies. But i doubt it would work with repressive institutions. I'd always rather live in a society where basic human rights are equal for all no matter how wealthy people are (not perfect situation today, but they are at least to some degree now).

[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I'd always stand that under law everybody should be treated equally no matter how wealthy he is/skin color/religion beliefs/etc. You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of government i'd like to live in.

[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital. So what would (should) happen in Darfur under ACism? Who cares, it's their problem? Or would it be; ok, our military will destroy your enemies, but you will have to pay for it by giving us your land and work for us next 30 years (= become our slaves)?

[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.I couldn't find it: would workers exploitation be at the similar degree or even worse than during the first or second industrial revolution? 

[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!). Dependable how much democratic (human / avoiding double standards) state is - it is usually protecting well those companies / individuals / groups. I can easily see large societies evaporating in ACism, if something valuable would be found around. 

[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?Causes and consequences. For most animals you're talking about consequences - you should find reasons. Whales/pandas/koalas/tigers/gorillas are not endangered because government forbid people from owning, it's because people are killing them.

Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?
There's a good reason i guess. So, you're saying who cares if thousands of species would extinct every year - the reason is they are not profitable, so who cares anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.Same as above

[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute. 'You pollute my land, you're liable for damages' is working now isn't it? In addition we have (or should have) some regulations about polluting. You're saying first is enough, when we all see both is not nearly enough for saving environment. Not to say again how (and who would be able of course) would someone provide facts about global warming by one factory. Mission impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?Would you say it wouldn't increase it? 

[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.
I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.
Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.
It's true, i can imagine it under state as well, but hopefully it's not happening. But i imagine it very easily under anarchy. 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine. True. Still, i'd much rather live or visit places where those wouldn't be around. I'm maybe strange, but guys with guns around doesn't make me feel safer, but rather otherwise. 

[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?
I'd say regulations are need unless we want more bad people around and more crime. Moreover, every time when there are leaks in any law, that law is abused. Why would i think it could be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop replying like this. I can't read it.

boracay · #32 09-28-2007, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police & courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. That's true. But at the same time lack of control/applicable laws breed corruption even more. This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with your example. Same would work for shops/medical institutions/insurance companies. But i doubt it would work with repressive institutions. I'd always rather live in a society where basic human rights are equal for all no matter how wealthy people are (not perfect situation today, but they are at least to some degree now).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd always stand that under law everybody should be treated equally no matter how wealthy he is/skin color/religion beliefs/etc. You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of system i'd like to live in.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what would (should) happen in Darfur under ACism? Who cares, it's their problem? Or would it be; ok, our military will destroy your enemies, but you will have to pay for it by giving us your land and work for us next 30 years (= become our slaves)?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't find it: would workers exploitation be at the similar degree or even worse than during the first or second industrial revolution?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dependable how much democratic (human / avoiding double standards) state is - it is usually protecting well those companies / individuals / groups. I can easily see large societies evaporating in ACism, if something valuable would be found around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Causes and consequences. For most animals you're talking about consequences - you should find reasons. Whales/pandas/koalas/tigers/gorillas are not endangered because government forbid people from owning, it's because people are killing them.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good reason i guess. So, you're saying who cares if thousands of species would extinct every year - the reason is they are not profitable, so who cares anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same as above

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute.

[/ QUOTE ]

'You pollute my land, you're liable for damages' is working now isn't it? In addition we have (or should have) some regulations about polluting. You're saying first is enough, when we all see both is not nearly enough for saving environment. Not to say again how (and who would be able of course) would someone provide facts about global warming by one factory. Mission impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say it wouldn't be increased?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.
I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.
Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true, i can imagine it under state as well, but hopefully it's not happening. But i imagine it very easily under anarchy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Still, i'd much rather live or visit places where those wouldn't be around. I'm maybe strange, but guys with guns around doesn't make me feel safer, but rather otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say regulations are need unless we want more bad people around and more crime. Moreover, every time when there are leaks in any law, that law is abused. Why would i think it could be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for posting in red color. Will avoid it next time cause it really is difficult to read. I’ve put some extreme situations although I believe it wouldn’t be that bad. There’s one thing I could never accept in my perfect system – humanity/rights/moral superiority based on the wealth/power. Thx for your answers and helping me to understand ACism more.