AC and power

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
So now a market is a state? You want to redefine words, then claim that I oppose something under your definition because I said I oppose something using that word, even though I used a different definition. This sort of semantical BS is usually what ACers are accused of engaging in, and this sort of semantical BS is also what is usually accused of making this forum unreadable. And it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a market is not a state. You asked, why couldn't individuals work together to create a state-like entity comprised of voluntary participation to accomplish the tasks typically assigned to a government?

I had previously proposed that exactly such an entity would constitute a legitimate government and you responded by saying that it doesn't count as a real state. We can call it whatever we want: a proto-state, a market entity, a confederacy of dunces, who cares? It's a plan for running things that might work. I just found it curious that you were shooting it down when I proposed it earlier, then suggesting it could work in your version of society.

But in reality, I think the idea of a perfectly legitimate state is an academic exercise at best. So is the idea of an AC society with a 'perfectly legitimate' arrangement of security and services. What we should be interested in is a society that does as well as possible at providing security and facilitating mutual esteem, while reducing illegitimate force and coercion as much as possible.

What you are saying is that anyone who supports, accepts or acknowledges the existence of states in general has a completely illegitimate approach to politics. The reality is that there are degrees to which coercive states enjoy voluntary participation, as well as degrees to which voluntary arrangements include coercive elements. Power and force exist on a spectrum. I think it's entirely possible that we can move closer to the power end of the spectrum using the model of a relatively benign state than we can by relying on markets to empower society. This is because the empowerment one can gain through a market does not flow along geographic boundaries, or evenly among the participants in a market, or in a stable, predictable way that can be cultivated and nurtured into a legitimate political arrangement. It flows with capital, plain and simple. I am not saying that this is inherently right or wrong, but it does not lend itself to the type of empowerment that one needs to form legitimate political communities.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you [censored]. In fact, that's the entire point - you're not entitled to anything from me. What you may or may not have under the status quo is immaterial - you beg the question of what you have being legitimate in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about converting people to a political system. Well, if you want them to convert, they need to be able to do better than they're currently doing. The average person doesn't evaluate his position in society based on its legitimacy; he evaluates it based on whether his needs and wants are met. So regardless of whether the method by which I currently achieve security is legitimate or not, I believe that I am entitled to the security of my person. People are going to seek security for themselves by any means necessary. That's a fact of life. So if you want me to switch to a pure market system, you need to convince me that I can achieve security for myself and my loved ones via your methods.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
You want to redefine words, then claim that I oppose something under your definition because I said I oppose something using that word, even though I used a different definition. This sort of semantical BS is usually what ACers are accused of engaging in, and this sort of semantical BS is also what is usually accused of making this forum unreadable. And it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of "semantical BS" is prevalent in all communication. People spend far little time trying to understand what someone is actually saying and instead jump to conclusions. Sorting out the "semantical BS" is the most important part of communication, although for some reason most people refuse to even try. If this is what makes this form unreadable to people, then those people have a hard time dealing with reality and probably don't really need to be here anyway, cause it's not something that's going to change.

[ConstantineX]

NT, I'm not quite sure I understand you. You seem to be conflating two different positions at the same time. Could you clarify a little bit?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh. So under AC, your worst case scenario is basically the status quo.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I could conceive of things being better or worse. I'm asking what safegaurds are in place to ensure they don't get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. It depends on what the individuals invovled do.

What safeguards are in place in a state to ensure things don't get worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Xorbie only wants to play the 'what if x terrible thing happens' game with respect to AC, not the state.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What we should be interested in is a society that does as well as possible at providing security and facilitating mutual esteem,

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds wonderful.

[ QUOTE ]
while reducing illegitimate force and coercion as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what if they are mutually exclusive? Which one is more important to you?

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is that anyone who supports, accepts or acknowledges the existence of coercive states in general has a completely illegitimate approach to politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, there you go again, using your personal definition of a word I use differently to frame my position incorrectly. And since I've explicitly called you on it, you must be doing it on purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is that there are degrees to which coercive states enjoy voluntary participation,

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? If I go to a movie with you, then stab you at the end, is this somehow better because we did something voluntary first?

[ QUOTE ]
No, a market is not a state. You asked, why couldn't individuals work together to create a state-like entity comprised of voluntary participation to accomplish the tasks typically assigned to a government?

I had previously proposed that exactly such an entity would constitute a legitimate government and you responded by saying that it doesn't count as a real state. We can call it whatever we want: a proto-state, a market entity, a confederacy of dunces, who cares? It's a plan for running things that might work. I just found it curious that you were shooting it down when I proposed it earlier, then suggesting it could work in your version of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it didn't count as a real state. I didn't "shoot it down". Now I'm asking you something that arises soley through market forces is a state. Also, what differentiates this "state-like thing" from, say, north korea?

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

Does a "state", in whatever definition you're using, have exclusive control over a set of geographical points?

In other words, can I, living on one piece of property, freely move my property out of one "state" and into another, in the same way I might change my homeowner's insurnace from one company to another?

[ QUOTE ]
as well as degrees to which voluntary arrangements include coercive elements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this another "you have to eat or die" thing? Because that [censored] is getting really old. Even if I come to you for protection because some third party is coercing me, the transaction between yourself and me is totally voluntary.

Don't conflate independent coercive elements.

[ QUOTE ]
Power and force exist on a spectrum. I think it's entirely possible that we can move closer to the power end of the spectrum using the model of a relatively benign state than we can by relying on markets to empower society. This is because the empowerment one can gain through a market does not flow along geographic boundaries, or evenly among the participants in a market, or in a stable, predictable way that can be cultivated and nurtured into a legitimate political arrangement. It flows with capital, plain and simple. I am not saying that this is inherently right or wrong, but it does not lend itself to the type of empowerment that one needs to form legitimate political communities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds wonderful, but it's all emotion. You're either for aggressive action or you are not. Your "fantasyland" involuntary state sounds great, but I would bet not everyone will agree.

I'm wondering what you're going to do with the dissenters.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you [censored]. In fact, that's the entire point - you're not entitled to anything from me. What you may or may not have under the status quo is immaterial - you beg the question of what you have being legitimate in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about converting people to a political system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. You can have whatever political system you want. I do not seek to limit anyone's choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you want them to convert, they need to be able to do better than they're currently doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not my goal. Again, if you want to live in a democracy, that's fine. If you want a totalitarian thug to tell you what to do, that's fine with me too.

YOU have to convince ME to participate in your scheme. I'm not advocating any particular such scheme. You're the one saying that people should try to construct such and such scheme, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
The average person doesn't evaluate his position in society based on its legitimacy; he evaluates it based on whether his needs and wants are met.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

[ QUOTE ]
So regardless of whether the method by which I currently achieve security is legitimate or not, I believe that I am entitled to the security of my person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe you have that security now? If so, you're kidding yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
People are going to seek security for themselves by any means necessary. That's a fact of life. So if you want me to switch to a pure market system, you need to convince me that I can achieve security for myself and my loved ones via your methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what you do, honestly - as long as you leave me alone while doing it.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I had previously proposed that exactly such an entity would constitute a legitimate government and you responded by saying that it doesn't count as a real state. We can call it whatever we want: a proto-state, a market entity, a confederacy of dunces, who cares? It's a plan for running things that might work. I just found it curious that you were shooting it down when I proposed it earlier, then suggesting it could work in your version of society.


[/ QUOTE ]

PVN just touched on this above. The difference between a 'free market government' and our current forms of government is that our current governments are territorial monopolists. There is a high cost to switching governments. The reason governments are so inefficient is because they do not have to compete for tax payers. "love it or leave it" is a common arguement used against ACists and Id love it if governments actually had to face this pressure.

Nobody really knows what AC is going to look like. If no territorial barriers is something that bothers you, you can form city states, gated communities, communes, whatever. In a real world sense we would be taking a huge step toward AC by splitting up the American union. If North America was made up of 50+ competing governments the costs of switching governments would be drastically reduced, which would create competition between the governments for taxpayers. I really dont understand how anyone can argue for freedom or democracy and at the same time argue against the reduction of monopolistic control of territory that our curent governments represent.

[NT!]

I just lost a really long and detailed response to pvn's issues about geographic permeability in states / political arrangements, as well as his other objections to my last post... [censored] GOD DAMMIT. Like an hour's worth of stuff down the drain.

I'm going out to eat with the lady friend, but let me just say, I think this habit of responding to posts line by line really inhibits a good discussion. Sometimes you give a snappy objection to a thought that is elaborated further on in the post, or you ask why something is relevant when I'm getting to it in just a few lines. Responding to someone's thoughts in their entirety, rather than line by line, shows that you're making an effort to understand them and address their overall intent and meaning. I don't think this line-for-line, tit-for-tat method is good at all, and I think people should avoid it. It turns the conversation into a series of one-liners rather than a dialogue.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I just lost a really long and detailed response to pvn's issues about geographic permeability in states / political arrangements, as well as his other objections to my last post... [censored] GOD DAMMIT. Like an hour's worth of stuff down the drain.

I'm going out to eat with the lady friend, but let me just say, I think this habit of responding to posts line by line really inhibits a good discussion. Sometimes you give a snappy objection to a thought that is elaborated further on in the post, or you ask why something is relevant when I'm getting to it in just a few lines. Responding to someone's thoughts in their entirety, rather than line by line, shows that you're making an effort to understand them and address their overall intent and meaning. I don't think this line-for-line, tit-for-tat method is good at all, and I think people should avoid it. It turns the conversation into a series of one-liners rather than a dialogue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just tacking a huge reply to a huge post is a pain in the ass, because the reader (and writer) has to constantly flip up and refer back to the original post to see what points are being addressed. Plus the all-at-once-replyer often uses this tactic to avoid certain direct questions (sometimes they use the "dog ate my homework" tactic for that too). But complaining about style rather than content is a good way to get a couple of ad hominems in while looking civil and sophisticated.

Have fun at dinner.