Why Im no longer an ACist

[valenzuela]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I dont have any leader to follow around, youre confusing quoting a poster on a fraction of my OP with "following" them.

[ QUOTE ]
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).


[/ QUOTE ]

When you said that moorobot and phil were smart but misguided I must admit that I thought that aplied to everybody else who was smart and disagreed with u, btw I love how you assume my misunderstanings of what u are trying to tell me are all my fault, perhaps you are not communicating your message well enough?


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol at extreme capitalism being the most fair system out there.

[ QUOTE ]
So pray tell- what alternative to a free market do you propose that would be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

a free-market but just not that free, I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

Oh and btw you ignored my counter-critique to youre critique of my definition of freedom( a definition of freedom which you made up to mock me btw)

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely a better way of saying what I wanted to, I left out that this whole idea is murky and the norms that govern it are going to change and be determined over long periods of time (centuries of human societies).

And natedogg is right. Why does the solution to this problem have to be involuntary? Like I said in my other post, one of the things that pisses me off the most is that people act like ACists don't care about this probably, and that is flat out 100% untrue.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reaction going to be when I knock on your door and inform you that me and my people have decided you have too much freedom, and we need you to give us something or provide a service. And it's something you wouldn't do if you had the choice to decline it. Also, we have guns.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont redifine coercion, I just come up with a new type of coercion( the coercion I call" coercion caused my non-moral agents")


[ QUOTE ]
He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said Im not redefining anything, Im just coming up with a new concept.

[ QUOTE ]
However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? ACists constantly give more importance to "coercion done by moral agents" over "coercion done by the state of nature" If one type of coercion is constantly undermined you might as well say they dont care about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im implying that some force of natural state problems need a state not that ALL of those problem need a state.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont have the exact amount of freedom required in the market but I think that the amount of freedom proposed by ACists is way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reaction going to be when I knock on your door and inform you that me and my people have decided you have too much freedom, and we need you to give us something or provide a service. And it's something you wouldn't do if you had the choice to decline it. Also, we have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that knocking on my door with big guns and informing me I have too much freedom is not the same as a democratic election in which I have a vote.

edit: and btw I meant freedom market, I forgot that most of you think market freedom = life freedom

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't see how any poster here would ever make a claim to 100,000 acres of land and start sniping trespassers, so how does it violate the golden rule? They would "not" do unto others.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Non-sequitur much? (Strawman much?)

I would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, some here who support property rights have stated the fact that ownership is indeed a black and white issue, so your agreement that the issue is murky is a positive.

My doomsday scenario is hardly as you describe. Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

[valenzuela]

Btw what amount of acres are we talking about before it counts as coercing others? I propose a gradual scale, if you own 1 acre you owe a bit of that acre to the community.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't see how any poster here would ever make a claim to 100,000 acres of land and start sniping trespassers, so how does it violate the golden rule? They would "not" do unto others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I think most every poster here would make that claim (well, you added the sniping bit, not me). Are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that ownership of 100,000 acres can be legitimate? And are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that defending one's property claims is part of self-defense?

I don't understand your reaction to my statement unless you believe that ACists believe in some imaginary cap on property and they are against the use of force to defend their property. And such a belief is obviously absurd.