a quick thought

[ALawPoker]

A made a post a while ago asking about ACists personal preferences. Obviously the study was far from scientific, but still I'm sure the vast majority of self-declared "Libertarians/ACists" are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Duh you're saying.

But it doesn't have to be like that. If I'm understanding AC correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially no more than a belief that government is inefficient. People can still have personal leanings about the right way to live their lives.

If you happen to be pro-choice, pro-drug for example, hey, it's easy to get behind an AC platform. My hunch is there are a lot of people (in the world, not necessarily this forum) who happen to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so they call themselves Libertarians even though they don't necessarily think government is an inherent problem. It just so happens that their goals are met when government is inactive.

I'm critical of AC sometimes on here. I don't post much, but if you read my post history you'd probably think I was bi-polar. Really all I object to is the moral righteousness and some of the arguing tactics of some ACers. If AC was actually sweeping the world, I'd be all for it.

I think anarcho-capitalism needs to be logistically convincing to the guy that, for example, doesn't like drugs, isn't swayed by any moral freedom since it doesn't affect him, and so assumes government is the best way for him to meet his goal.

Not everyone shares your morals. Some people will never recognize government's actions as immoral. But what everyone does want is to meet their goals more efficiently. People who think it's necessary to help the poor will not stop thinking that. People who don't want their neighbors smoking pot will not stop thinking that. People have their values and they're entitled to them. The supporters of AC should find a way to encompass the people whose values make it tough to accept an absence of government as the best approach.

If y'all can bring some socialists or draconian religious righters to support your cause, then I'd have more faith that AC has hope. That should be your goal. You shouldn't dwell on the property rights aspect of drug use (for example) as much as you should dwell on the fact that in the absence of government drugs would simply be restricted more efficiently.

I wrote this very quickly as I am out the door for a while, but wanted to say this. If my general point is clear, please don't nit. I'm sure I worded some stuff bad.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
If y'all can bring some socialists or draconian religious righters to support your cause, then I'd have more faith that AC has hope. That should be your goal. You shouldn't dwell on the property rights aspect of drug use (for example) as much as you should dwell on the fact that in the absence of government drugs would simply be restricted more efficiently.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do religious people like the fact that a majority can prevent them from teaching their children creationism in their schools? Or allow abortions to be provided by their doctors? ACism is all about consumer preference. The difference between Democracy and Capitalism is that Democracy doesnt allow for a minority opinion. Walmart may be one of the biggest distributers of goods in the country but if enough people support the local mom and pop store both can co-exist and service their particular customers. The cops dont show up at the mom and pop store simply because they only have a 5% market share.

[ConstantineX]

Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

I think a better way to examine the moral structure of AC instead of viewing it through the veil of "forced expropriation" or "jack-booted thuggery" is to simplify your moral critique by just thinking through the concepts of negative and positive rights.

Simple thought experiments and discussions with others guided me towards minarchism, if not outright AC. Positive rights require obligations of others - and thus are inherently "asymmetric" and inequal. Negative rights, as they require none of these obligations, are ideally suited to each individual's preferences and are equal. In the realistic setting, enforcing positive rights usually entails arbitrary (actually, political) decisions about the nature and scope of those rights. Thinking about the "right to healthcare" or "the right to minimum wage" in a simple model illustrates how coercive positive rights become at the margins.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem also mathematically proves it is impossible to construct a political system where each individual's preferences are obeyed. And presumably from those preferences his moral system and the methods he will choose to engage in business and pleasure stem.

The reality is that socialists and conservatives feel marginalized in a free system. Their ideologies are based on those very positive rights: the right for you not to be poorer than I, the right for "us" to preserve the traditional status quo. Morality to them is not subjective, but objective, and most people do not recognize others' moral systems. Insofar as their morality supersedes strict utility-maximization, they will reject the libertarian or anarcho-capitalist position.

Cliff Notes: Your point is well taken in arguing more in the utilitarian rather than the moral vein for AC. However, most will never be convinced by this because they view their morality as objective, requiring positive rights, and thus reduce their potential utility (presumably less so than everybody else). It's probably better to use your approach with the more educated however, since they have more nuance in their worldview.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not very compelling only because many ACists use inflammatory language. But when you get right down to it democracy is a majority rule. You arent allowed to disagree or you will be thrown in jail. What arguement can possibly justify the violent enforcement of positive rights? I have yet to hear one.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not very compelling only because many ACists use inflammatory language. But when you get right down to it democracy is a majority rule. You arent allowed to disagree or you will be thrown in jail. What arguement can possibly justify the violent enforcement of positive rights? I have yet to hear one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound a little more awful then it is. Democracy is the same as arbitration, we agree to decide something and then both sides, winners and losers, agree to be bound by the decision. Now obviously the difference is that in our current system not all people agreed at birth to be bound. Not that it's a small difference, but it's not hard to understand.

Cody

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not very compelling only because many ACists use inflammatory language. But when you get right down to it democracy is a majority rule. You arent allowed to disagree or you will be thrown in jail. What arguement can possibly justify the violent enforcement of positive rights? I have yet to hear one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the fact that government enforces positive rights violently initially persuades people. After all, doesn't Robin Hood use some violence to steal from the rich to give to the poor, presumably because the obligation the rich have to take care of the poor isn't being fulfilled? More compelling to me is the arbitrariness of most positive rights - how much in health care costs should that dying grandmother receive? $100,000? $1,000,000? Ideally what one realizes is that the grandmother's preference is paramount, since government policies can't realize those preferences, not even before discounting wastes, inefficiencies, etc. To understand that enforcing positive rights forces what is "fair" to become arbitrary, murky, undefinable, and often prone to abuse is the first step. It doesn't require ad-hoc (and bitingly personal) criticisms of any one particular ideology , just a class of them. Realizing then that everyone is free to pursue their goals within their moral structure constrained by negative rights leads one to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC definitely requires the acceptance of an objective morality, one that values self-ownership and freedom from coercion above other possible values.

As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally what one realizes is that the grandmother's preference is paramount, since government policies can't realize those preferences, not even before discounting wastes, inefficiencies, etc. To understand that enforcing positive rights forces what is "fair" to become arbitrary, murky, undefinable, and often prone to abuse is the first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then you agree that there are no justifications for violently enforcing postive rights?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Now obviously the difference is that in our current system not all people agreed at birth to be bound. Not that it's a small difference, but it's not hard to understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand why people accept it, democracy is at least a step up from monarchy or totalitarianism. The average person is more interested in their daily lives than abstract political philosophy. But im not talking to them, I'm talking to you and others on this board who seem to be interested in this stuff. We should be able to determine what is objectively true and moral even if the majority of people dont understand that there are other alternatives.

Do you think a system of majority rule is a good way to run a country? Why should people be thrown in jail for not helping poor people? How can you justify a system that is controlled by rich special interest groups?