Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[xorbie]

(Too long, please read)

After getting off on the wrong foot about a dozen times or so, I figure the easiest way to achieve some sort of peaceful equilibrium is just to try to organize some of my thoughts here.

Rights:

I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:

1. External force: I (or someone else) will physically prevent you from violating my rights, and will physically harm and/or detain you if you do violate them.

2. Internal force: By appealing to some ontological and/or moral system that resonates with you, I attempt to dissuade you from even wanting to violate my rights.

There is a clear gray area, because positing something like "God" or "karma" is a combination of both.

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations (a favorite phrase of mine, use it frequently to wow crowds at sporting events and in crowded bars).

This is one of the places where I disagree fundamentally with much of AC thought. If you believe what I've said above, a declaration of rights inherently comes with a declaration of implied force (to all those who disagree... those who agree already need not be convinced in the first place!). To speak of a society with rights which has no coercion is, in my opinion, a philosophical sleight of hand, and a cheap one at that.

This does not mean I'm against rights. It simply means I'm for necessary coercion. Yes, I get to define necessary. No, this isn't fair. No, I do not expect my definition to fit everyone else's. Yes, I am willing to compromise to some degree.

So what then do we do with rights? There are all sorts of rights. Generally when we refer plainly to "rights" we mean "human rights" which are essentially "rights to (access) basic provisions". Inclusion of the parenthesis varies from person to person. There are also property rights and consumer rights and all sorts of other rights. Like all rights, they are simply a category of legal constructs which detail what actions society will use force to prevent/allow.

One thing I generally agree with ACists on is that there is a very serious downfall to democracy, be it true or representative. This downfall is that we are subject to the (in our opinion) mistaken choices of others. We attempt to bind one another into contracts that protect at least some basic rights, but we are always subject to the idiocy of the masses.

The problem with this is two-fold:

1. People are idiots.

2. Not only are people idiots, but most people don't live under the circumstances or in the location I live in and so the things I need and want may not match up at all with what they need and want.

This is the problem with democracy. I don't think you will all disagree. My solution is to go to great lengths to localize the focal points of government and democracy to the point where we better know our leaders, can better control the money we give in the form of taxes and our needs and wants are more in line with those of others who make decisions that affect us (and our voice is a larger percentage of the mob).

What I'm about to do is commit a philosophical sleight of hand myself, but beware... it may just blow your mind!

Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

How does this relate to free market economics? Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots. Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

Obviously this is a somewhat crude sketch, but these are my main objections to AC/Free Market dogma.

Have at it.