Why Im no longer an ACist

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just not terribly interested in debating the issue with you. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? What separates the widely held value judgment of "children need a minimal amount of skills to have a chance to succeed" from "people own their own labor", and why should I put more weight on one than the other?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of having this child succeed when they aren't going to own their own labour anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Ian. And since you pay taxes and don't truly own your own labor, you should kill yourself. After all, what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, what? I never said I dont own my own labour. Im just trying to understand how someone can say that a child has a right to an education to increase the fruits of his labour that he wont own.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not that rights are objectively determined, its that rights have to be consistant among all members of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I have a right to sustenance, but I don't have anything to eat, while you do. When I ask you for some food, you laugh in my face. Therefore:

Approach 1: if it's inconsistent, it can't be a right by definition, and therefore "there is no right to sustenance".

Approach 2: the right to property can, and does, conflict with the right to sustenance. Therefore, I have some sort of right to eat some part of your food. I'll probably have to pay you back for it, but you can't hoard it and laugh in my face.

You might prefer approach 1, but at which point is approach 2 logically inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot approach 3: there is no right to sustenance.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do u guys think that the move from minarchist to anarchist is an incremental change or a monumental leap in thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends if you're a moralist, utilitarian, or both. I'm mostly a utilitarian, and just need to be convinced government < free market for quality of life purposes. I think moralists have a bigger leap from coercion to no coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean you need to be convinced government < free market for you personally, or that you need to be convinced that government < free market for everyone in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone in general. Actually defining what that means is pretty hard. I guess a stab at it would be that if I were randomly reborn as someone else, which system has a higher EV for me. Obv there are wealth/happiness disparities that can skew that, but you get the idea. I don't really believe in "rights". In a perfect world, I think limited government > free market. I guess that's why I am a minarchist. In reality, where limited government is kind of a farsical thought, I don't know what to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does everyone else need your approval?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? No one needs anyone's approval to do anything. There are just actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier you said:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mostly a utilitarian, and just need to be convinced government < free market for quality of life purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Approach 1: if it's inconsistent, it can't be a right by definition, and therefore "there is no right to sustenance".


[/ QUOTE ]

I think before we continue I'm going to have to get a definition of what you believe a right is. Do you see them as some sort of moral perscription or is there another definition that I am not aware of? Could we simplify it by saying its immoral to not help poor people?

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just not terribly interested in debating the issue with you. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Its OK, it was going to degenerate in to you calling me names anyway.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, your reference to douche-baggery is an ad hominem which rests on the same false dilemma I have pointed out for you.

Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?

natedogg

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? What separates the widely held value judgment of "children need a minimal amount of skills to have a chance to succeed" from "people own their own labor", and why should I put more weight on one than the other?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of having this child succeed when they aren't going to own their own labour anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Ian. And since you pay taxes and don't truly own your own labor, you should kill yourself. After all, what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, what? I never said I dont own my own labour. Im just trying to understand how someone can say that a child has a right to an education to increase the fruits of his labour that he wont own.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wrote: "Whats the point of having this child succeed when they aren't going to own their own labour anyway?" and now you are again writing that children won't own *any* of the fruits of their labor.

The fact is you don't own all your own labor if you pay taxes. So by drawing a black and white line around the "fruits of your labor" you have just made a case for giving up on your own life. But wait, maybe there is a shade of gray after all, eh? Maybe people can value helping children succeed without advocating that ALL your property be stripped from you? No that can't be. Because we're only allowed to spew absolutist dogma when it comes to property rights --all or nothing, baby.

I guess the "death star objection" defense only applies in defending absolute property rights.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So in AC land, if you aren't working on your land or using it in some way, then you believe that others can move in and take it from you against your will?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You obviously haven't read the AC FAQ since this is mentioned in there.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]


Earlier you said:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mostly a utilitarian, and just need to be convinced government < free market for quality of life purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If two groups, anarchists and minarchists are warring to either set up a gov or not, and I'll somehow tip the scales... I care about what will maximize average/median/whatever happiness. Either way, I'll be making a decision that effects the well-being of everyone else. Yes, one decision means preventing coercion, one means becoming an active part of it. I don't really care about that part, every decision you make has unconsented effects on others... and I don't believe in natural rights.