Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no one right answer to that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that this isn't necessarily the case for humanity in general, you're wrong (unless you want to nit over what "best" means). If you are trying to say that it doesn't hold for every human, then sure. Doesn't make a huge difference though, does it?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, your freedom is limited by other people's freedom. However, nobody can force you to buy something, which, in a state, happens all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure nature can force you to buy things, in the sense that you otherwise die.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hermitization canard. Retaining autonomy does not mean you have to live as an individual. People can voluntarily work and live together while retaining full autonomy.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hermitization canard. Retaining autonomy does not mean you have to live as an individual. People can voluntarily work and live together while retaining full autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and if you think that "voluntarily working and living together" is congruous with "retaining full autonomy" I'd say you are living in fantasy land. Unless by "autonomy" you simply mean "makes choices and have to deal with results which may often be quite negative and involve being ostracized by the group".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hermitization canard. Retaining autonomy does not mean you have to live as an individual. People can voluntarily work and live together while retaining full autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and if you think that "voluntarily working and living together" is congruous with "retaining full autonomy" I'd say you are living in fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say it IS congruous. I said it need not be.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless by "autonomy" you simply mean "makes choices and have to deal with results which may often be quite negative and involve being ostracized by the group".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, autonomy doesn't mean you get what you want, and the outcomes you want. That's a uselessly trivial definition of the word. Ostracized people retain autonomy. Autonomy doesn't provide you with an entitlement to interact with OTHER PEOPLE, since they are also presumably autonomous.

[Copernicus]

You start out on the right path, but don't express it quite plainly enough. There is no such thing as "natural rights", including no natural rights of "self ownership".

ALL rights are social constructs and nothing more. The most uccessful societies are those that grant rights in a manner that spurs cooperation and innovation, and allow for enforcement of rights.

Your problems with democracy are well founded, but not solved by your approach. Imo, a representative republic is as close as you can get to a perfect system. The hope is that the non-idiots that vote outnumber the idiots that vote in sufficent quantities to elect representative that are less idiotic than the public as a whole. While you are still surrendering to the will of the majority, hopefully it is a better informed majority than "one man one vote" on every individual issue.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Imo, a representative republic is as close as you can get to a perfect system. The hope is that the non-idiots that vote outnumber the idiots that vote in sufficent quantities to elect representative that are less idiotic than the public as a whole. While you are still surrendering to the will of the majority, hopefully it is a better informed majority than "one man one vote" on every individual issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not possible in our political system, as money puts people in office. That's how Bush got there. You have 5 corporations that own 80% of the media and they see a huge profit in having Bush in office and convince the public thru the media.

So, even the non-idiots really don't have a choice, unless they are ultra-rich non-idiots, or can profit from the actions brought about by the ultra-rich thru the people they put in office.

With the CEO of Citicorp having endorsed Hillary, it's quite obvious who is going into the White House in 2009.

Where were all the "non-idiots" on election day in 2000 when Bush was installed into the White House? Why have the "non-idiots" (if they are so intelligent) allowed our political system to become so corrupt?

[foal]

xorbie,
your point about natural rights and coercion was very good IMO. the rest of your post was a little fuzzier so of course it's what's getting picked on. that's the trouble with saying too much... your post will be combed for its weakest and most irrelevant points, which will then be attacked passionately. I would like to see more discussion about rights, force and coercion.

[zasterguava]

There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
There is one great flaw of free-markets that is ignored here; advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you make a new thread with your thoughts on this because I'd be interested in hearing them but this thread has already had hijack accusations in it.