Why Im no longer an ACist

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)If you say ACists are in favor of slightly coercing some ppl to reduce the coercion of poor kids then nvm my critique.
2)Here is my biggest disagreement with you all, you say that goverment helps corporations etc,etc. Even if that is [censored] up and could be fixed on a goverment, I still prefer the current situation over what I would think would happen on AC, you are just HOPING things will work out they way you say it will, not everyone has the time to go through a lenghty consumer report( a consumer report thay may not even be that accurate and if the consumer report is any good u bet its going to be quite expensive)
3)The point is that I think that issue will almost certainly be a deal-breaker if it doesnt get down to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is the solution to #2. No one will ever have to read a Consumer Report on anything. No one has to be competent or spend enough time to make any sort of difficult decision: save one. They only need to spend time choosing a Chooser. Someone that they will then trust to make decisions for them.

If you are saying they are incompetent or dont have the time to even do this then I hope you realize how horrible democracy is.

[/ QUOTE ]Why does that lead to ACism? Or say anything about democracy being bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point that I was trying to make is that nothing LEADS to ACism, it seems self-evident to me that people should be able to make their own choices in life. This is my starting point. I am willing to listen to arguments about exceptions to this or problems with this or places where this might not apply. What eventually (inevitably) ends up happening is someone makes a point that we dont have enough time and we are all too stupid (although its usually "they" are all too stupid, obviously everyone here is brilliant) to make all of these choices all day long. No way could I be reasonably expected to choose a restaurant that doesnt serve arsenic. No way could I be reasonably expected to research which drugs I wanted to take to take care of my hypertension. Without regulatory bodies and without elected representatives to make our choices for us, we'd all be overwhelmed intellectually and we'd run out of time.

But the problem is, that isnt any kind of argument. Of COURSE we couldnt make expert decisions on everything. But why would we need to do that? All you need to do is pick a chooser. So the way I usually argue this is to start out subtly. I suggest Consumer Reports or something like that. I get predictable responses. "Well, they cant make all your choices for you" or "Well they cant be trusted to make accurate, unbiased choices" which leads me into selecting a Chooser to choose my Choosers. At some point we have a string of arguments where the statist has just claimed over and over again that people have no chance of ever intelligently selecting ANYONE to represent them about ANYTHING in a way that wont lead to bias and corruption and them consistently being taken advantage of.

So they've just demonstrated how immoral and evil and corrupt democracy is, and most of the statists I talk to are Americans and so love democracy, and they usually get angry and the conversation is over at this point.

It isnt an argument FOR AC. Its a deflection or a refutation of an argument AGAINST AC.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
VHawk,

Are you an ACist? I don't seem to remember that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah sorta I guess. I am to all my "normal" friends, but I dont know how I measure up to the real ACers around here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[Kaj]

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

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are avoiding the issue by playing on this "simple decree" semantics issue. You believe that legitimate ownership can be inferred on one individual for exclusive use of land -- whether that be by staking it out, discovering it, using it, whatever (and irrelevant). Then you use this concept of "legitimate property rights" as if it was an actual thing, some actual objective standard. Well it is not. It is merely an abstract concept that only has subjective meaning if people accept such a notion. Most ACers here refuse to accept that this concept is just a human abstraction and flies in the face of nature. And they have already demonstrated in this thread that they believe in some "morality" regarding property rights once they are established as "legitimate" -- failing to realize that "legitimate" and "morality" are wholly subjective terms which have no meaning whatsoever unless others want to recognize your "morality" or "legitimacy", which they are free to not do. This does not mean that I am against property. I am just against the tired and absurd arguments on this board that go something like: I own my body, thus I can own territory even if in vast quantities beyond necessary for my subsistence, and if others reject this assertion then their values are "immoral" or infringing on your "rights". There are no [censored] rights. None. Period. Get the [censored] over it. You aren't entitled to [censored] on this earth. I don't give a crap how much labor you mix with your land, it will never confer any objective "legitimacy" unless others choose to recognize it as legitimate (or you have enough force then to at least force them to accept your use). Just like the big lion doesn't give a crap if some other lion has mixed his labor with the land by years of hunting, digging, and the like. Stop believing that humans are unique. We aren't. We do indeed have the ability to reason, however. And using this reason we can persuade each other that it is in our best interests to respect property, if we so choose. But we are not using reason if we conclude that our ability to reason somehow confers an objective morality on the issue of property rights. You do a disservice to reason by using the same worn out (and flawed) approaches.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this post mean?

I am a staunch opponent of the status quo and very sympathetic to AC theory but am saying that the mangling of anarchist thought by ACists through their absolutist value system which they believe to be an objective standard hurts the cause of liberty (as well as reason).

So why should we give those who have a blind spot to their own theory which causes us to go round and round the same worn out circle some "leeway"? This board would be 10 times better and we could really have some interesting debate if those ACists in question just recognized that their absolutist "morality" is just... not.

Edit: This forum sucks because ACists give each other too much leeway. And other groups give too much leeway to those with their own beliefs. You are all divided up into little camps. People like pvn and Boro and the like all come running out to jump on statists but rarely if ever challenge each others views because that would be "attacking" each other and we must stand united for the cause, right. Well bull [censored]. If the cause is reason and meaningful debate, we need to stop giving those with like-minded views so much "leeway" and start challenging our own biases. That is why I respect AlexM and hmkpoker above all other posters here.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how incredibly difficult it is to argue against the status quo? Especially one so firmly entrenched? Its the ultimate crutch. Just look at what people think would happen if the state went away. You can get them to list hundreds or thousands of atrocities or inefficiencies or problems with statism but then they just immediately default back again to "well I'm alive and breathing, and I live in a statist society, so everything is basically great and BIG SCARY CHANGE!!" Its a ridiculously unfair playing field. I think it might be legitimate for the ACers to be granted a little leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that addresses my post. My point was about ACers making ridiculously bold claims juxtaposed with complaints about being held to a higher standard when those claims are questioned.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]

TomCollins: I like how you automatically assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or “misguided” perhaps you are the one who is misguided! .
You are only putting emphasis on negative freedom while ignoring positive freedom, that point of view may look fine to wave your e-penis on internet message board discussions but if you apply them in the real world it doesn’t work quite as well, you simply choose to ignore all the bad effects of a total free-market , this is noted by the fact that you laugh at the idea of “not starving” as a definition of freedom. I think that not starving is a more reasonable definition of freedom than the right to not be coerced on your dubious absolute property-rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought you have done a terrible disservice to ACists, Libertarians, and Minarchists by your complete lack of understanding of these concepts. I'm pretty glad you are having the wool pulled over your eyes again. I'm sure in another year you will find some other leader to follow around to a new idea too.

I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me are stupid or misguided, but a lot of them are. Perhaps I am wrong, and I have been in the past (see a few previous debates with Borodog I've had in the past) and have changed my opinions accordingly. You think it comes down to an e-penis, but it really is just an intolerance of stupid people (especially stupid people who want to steal my sh*t). You misunderstood every thing I said (once again).

You honestly think that I don't look at the "bad" effects of a free market? Not everyone on here is as naive as you so quit making that assumption. As Borodog once said, a free market is the triple coincidence- the most logical, the best results, and most fair system out there.

So pray tell- what alternative to a free market do you propose that would be better? Your entire post seems to be an entire "wah wah, life is unfair" tirade.

[foal]

this thread reminds me of those papa johns commercials where the pizza hut guy defects and says "sorry guys, I found a better pizza." bitterness abounds.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread reminds me of those papa johns commercials where the pizza hut guy defects and says "sorry guys, I found a better pizza." bitterness abounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anyone bitter. Personally, I'm glad. With him and Nielsio removed, the two worst ACist posters on here are taken care of.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually not the contradiction you make it out to be. Part of the reason that governments work is that they create a social contract, whereby everyone is forced to provide their own share of the public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not governments that create anything, its the people. Throughout history we have had some good governments some bad governments and some purely evil governments. There is no correlation between government and positive social contract. Its an educated and non-violent populace that produces great societies not the governmental structure running society.

[ QUOTE ]
We all may want to end poverty, but left on our own we may be willing to let others take care of it. Reasons for this may be that we like the idea of giving money to charity but don't really ever feel like doing it at any given moment, we may feel (as many do) that "what can I do" feeling, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

So people are either lazy or totally crazy. In which case I dont see why I should be forced to help poor people.

I've got a better explanation. People feel like they are evil if they arent helping the poor so they offload the responsibility to a third party to deal with their anxiety, they dont actually care if the poor get helped. Much like the fatties who buy extra light food products but eat a million calories a day.

If people are forced to live everyday with the fact that they are immoral people for not helping the poor they will take the time to send money to some causes. Nowadays all it takes is a couple of clicks.

The tragedy is when people reach for the charity light without dealing with the fundamental issues of poverty. People think they are helping the poor, but the government is not actually helping the poor to the extent that it could be. In this situation the poor are simply exploited on all sides and never get helped. A truly sick situation.

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation/forced volunteer work/similar programs give everyone a structure within which they can feel they are doing their part, the problem is being solved and society is a cohesive unit.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is not being solved. We've had social programs for over 50 years. We still have much poverty in both America and Canada. I think its time to re-evaluate our solutions.