ACism: paralleling the evils of state control?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. The trouble most of us have with the leap to AC is how you get from "people act in their own self-interest" to "the poor will be helped by massively increased charity", "companies will not make faulty products to make a dollar faster" and the other hundred and fifty thousand assumptions that AC makes while simultaneously acknowledging that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some poor people will not be helped. Some companies will make faulty products (just like they do now!). Nobody is making those assumptions except people who talk about things they can't even be bothered to try to understand. Just keep chanting the "ACers are yootopian wackos" and eventually it will become true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't think you were making a utilitarian point, I thought you were making a point about preferences. You think laws should be enacted in all situations in which the long-term best interests of all (by some standard and determined by someone, we'll assume they are smart) are not being efficiently taken care of?

The points I made, that you responded to, this apparent paradox, was about PREFERENCES, not about what was "best long-term." And for good reason.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
You think laws should be enacted in all situations

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop doing this. No, I don't. But anyway:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't think you were making a utilitarian point, I thought you were making a point about preferences. You think laws should be enacted in all situations in which the long-term best interests of all (by some standard and determined by someone, we'll assume they are smart) are not being efficiently taken care of?

The points I made, that you responded to, this apparent paradox, was about PREFERENCES, not about what was "best long-term." And for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If AC-land is not about "what's best long term", why would anyone want to live there? Lots of really, really bad government types are good in the short term; that doesn't help you.

[zasterguava]

you two are confusing me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ]
The more open the market is the more wealth will be produced. The more wealth produced doesn't automatically go to the rich, it also helps out the poor! Just check out the living standards of the poor in highly socialized economies. Or check out democratic socialist Chile with tons of intervention in the economy which has produced the eighth most unequal wealth distribution in the world. Wealth distribution was much more even under the market heavy policies of Pinochet.

Just look at what the government spends money on today. Do you think a bunch of rich opportunists (something like every third memeber of congress is a millionaire) are more likely to spend government taxes on simply giving them away to the poor, or give it away in the form of fat overpriced contracts to their friends in the private sector?

Get rid of the war on drugs, inflation tax, sales tax, and the property tax and you'll see poor people's real wealth improve a lot. This is just another case of the government masquerading as it's own cure.
[ QUOTE ]
The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell is sociopathic about it? Should we also pay off every person not to murder us? $X a week to every non-murderer?
[ QUOTE ]
that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I think it's pretty clear to you that it is when you say this:
[ QUOTE ]
in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyways, last year Americans made the apparently irrational decision to donate $295 billion to charity last year. Your analysis doesn't jive with the facts. There are a lot of people that enjoy helping out others. Those people probably aren't going to be the rich power hungry people elected office disproportionately selects for. In that way the government systematically takes money away from those that are generally concerned with the poor and puts in the hands of those that just pretend to.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act;

[/ QUOTE ]

Human
Being
Action

Define beyond arguement these terms.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act;

[/ QUOTE ]

Human
Being
Action

Define beyond arguement these terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Define beyond argument"

Define beyond argument THAT term.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive voice FTW!

WHO is "allowing" these people to starve?

What would prevent them from acting to stop it?


[ QUOTE ]
The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you figuring out who needs to donate and how much they need to give if you don't have a scoresheet?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act;

[/ QUOTE ]

Human
Being
Action

Define beyond arguement these terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Define beyond argument"

Define beyond argument THAT term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. There is no archimedian starting point.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't think you were making a utilitarian point, I thought you were making a point about preferences. You think laws should be enacted in all situations in which the long-term best interests of all (by some standard and determined by someone, we'll assume they are smart) are not being efficiently taken care of?

The points I made, that you responded to, this apparent paradox, was about PREFERENCES, not about what was "best long-term." And for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If AC-land is not about "what's best long term", why would anyone want to live there? Lots of really, really bad government types are good in the short term; that doesn't help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me he wasn't saying that AC isn't best in the long term, he was just saying that you talking about that had nothing to do with what he was talking about.