AC in the US: Respect for property rights

[lehighguy]

Government can only bring "equality" by dragging people at the top down, not by lifting people up. Do you really think this does any good?

Also, the last sentence in your post makes you look like a flaming moron. The high price of gas is called supply and demand. If you want government to fix it I heard they tried these price cap thigns in the 70s.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Government can only bring "equality" by dragging people at the top down, not by lifting people up. Do you really think this does any good?

Also, the last sentence in your post makes you look like a flaming moron. The high price of gas is called supply and demand. If you want government to fix it I heard they tried these price cap thigns in the 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm constantly weaving subtle illusions like this to keep my opponents off-balance. Or maybe I really am a flaming moron. You'll never know.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
bobman,

Your entire thesis seems to be that we need the state to accede to the demands of the mob to prevent the mob from enacting its demands.

I find this argument less than convincing, to say the least.

But I will post a point by point rebuttal when I have the energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost right. I'd say we need to accede to some demands to keep the mob from enacting all of them. (Or, more sinisterly, make the mob think we're acceding to lots of demands but not really do so at all.) You could interpret some of the provisions in the constitution as setting the basic for the mob-accession debate/negotiation.

Anyways, I think we understand each other's position pretty well, so don't waste too much energy on me. Actually, I got started on this line of thought by considering what would be the moral position of a freedom-loving person who somehow found himself in a position of power in the pre-anarchy Somali government. On the one hand, coercive government is bad, but on the other hand, anarchy is unlikely to be good for Somalia either. If you have any thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bobman,

Your entire thesis seems to be that we need the state to accede to the demands of the mob to prevent the mob from enacting its demands. True AC is all about prevention rather than cure. Bad things, are selected against and won't be done by forward looking people who are the ones favoured to flourish.

I find this argument less than convincing, to say the least.

But I will post a point by point rebuttal when I have the energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost right. I'd say we need to accede to some demands to keep the mob from enacting all of them. (Or, more sinisterly, make the mob think we're acceding to lots of demands but not really do so at all.) You could interpret some of the provisions in the constitution as setting the basic for the mob-accession debate/negotiation.

Anyways, I think we understand each other's position pretty well, so don't waste too much energy on me. Actually, I got started on this line of thought by considering what would be the moral position of a freedom-loving person who somehow found himself in a position of power in the pre-anarchy Somali government. On the one hand, coercive government is bad, but on the other hand, anarchy is unlikely to be good for Somalia either. If you have any thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no morality in a state of nature. We don't judge a lion for hunting an antelope, similarly if someone puts a gun to your head and says kill or be killed the decision you make isn't of a moral nature. You can judge the person holding the gun but not the person at the business end.