Somali Freedom Fighters

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Buried in there seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) an assumption that a sufficiently "advanced" society the US won't have a significant number of people "poor enough" to estimate the benefit of violent crime to exceed the risk/cost. I think there's plenty of poor people around, even in geographic areas that are rich in capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone believes that AC will bring the end of violent crime or the end of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I said. But my interpretation of the early post was that when too many people are poor then AC "doesn't work" or AC-like conditions "don't count as AC". Consequently, supporters of the emergence of AC in North America would need to believe that we have "not too many" poor people and that "not too many" will emerge in the future. That seems highly subjective to me.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Troll post deleted by jman220. One Day Ban Issued.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boo!

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
This only makes sense if you move all the ACists from one side of the street to the other and vice versa and put a wall between them. Then the majority on the AC side have what they want and the majority on the non-AC side have what they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason to build a wall is to stop the statists from trying to conquer the AC side. States and AC are not just different systems. It's not relativistic. It's not, "I like apples" vs. "I like bananas." It's "I like bananas" vs. "I like apples and will kill anyone who doesn't." AC is the rather critical absence of this killing part.

[ QUOTE ]
A minority of scattered statists want a state, but they can't just make one without the consent of the others. Do they get to cry "tyranny of the majority"? Can any minority that's not getting what it wants make that claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't they make one without the consent of the others? If they want to form a state, they can form a freakin' state. They can pool their resources and elect legislators to make laws for them and do their statey things. There's no one stopping them. Are you're saying that they don't feel they can have a state without subjecting everyone else to their wishes by force? If that's the case, they can go [censored] themselves. You seem to think that the people who like the state have as much of a right to have one as any other person does to his freedom. Do you think that some people have the inherent right to rule over other people? That's what a state is: some people ruling over other people; without consent and by force.



[ QUOTE ]

Dismantling it is the end of one imposition and the start of another. There will always be a minority that wants things differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. Those who wish to rule criminally and tyrannically do not get my sympathy for having their "right" to do so violated. I do not believe in such a "right". And freedom is not an imposed system, it is the lack thereof, by definition. If some new system is imposed, it's not anarchy, and therefore not ACism.

[ QUOTE ]
They can always complain, and if they have a good case their complaints will turn into majority opinion which will induce change in a democratic society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true, and it still wouldn't be satisfactory even if it were.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is capitalism in Somalia, as this article clearly indicates. Moreover, even if there were not capitalism and respect for property rights in Somalia, that would also be an argument against anarchocapitalism. Repsect for property cannot just arise out of thin air in an anarchist society. Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have capitalism without the "idea of property rights"?

There's no professional hockey in Somalia. Professional hockey only exists where there is government. Therefore, government is necessary to cultivate and protect the idea of professional hockey. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the strained analogies are out in full force - OP must be onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although Vagos's personal attack was deleted, he was asking why I think this is a strained analogy. As the utopians would say, I don't really see why the burden is incumbent upon me to demonstrate why an analogy comparing Somalia and a knife stabbing is valid. If pvn will expound upon his analogy I will be more than happy to reply.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 25% of the population is ACist and they are willing to stop paying taxes and supporting the state, that might be sufficient to end the state's reign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is being tyrannized? What tyranny are they suffering?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 25% percent aren't imposing anything on the 75%, they are removing an imposition supported by the 75%.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are basing their opposition on their value system and exporting the consequences of their value system to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares what their opposition is "based" on?

What is being exported? If someone walks his dog by my house, and his dog poops in my yard every day, and I build a fence that keeps him out, what am I "exporting" to him? I'm merely halting the "importation" that he initiated without my consent.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that when AC-man claims "My vision of human rights is such and such and that gives me the moral authority to act on that" it implicity grants the same authority to the "other side" to act on their vision of human rights which just boils down to an armed conflict where might-makes-right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I build a fence, this gives the dog-walker an "implict grant" of authority to knock my fence down?

It's not might-makes-right - even if the dog-walker previals in an armed conflict, he's still an unjustified aggressor.

[ QUOTE ]
ACism is supposed to counter the might-makes-right mentality, but it doesn't work if the people around you aren't voluntarily choosing to be in an AC society as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean. First, what does "work" mean? Because right now, I'd say western-style representative republic "democracy" isotope *isn't working*. Any system that allows a small number of people to flush $5Billion of other people's money down the toilet *per month* terrorizing people on the other side of the world while 70% of people paying for it oppose it is "not working" IMHO.

Do you consider people who form voluntary collectives (socialist, democratic, whatever) to be "choosing to be in AC"?

Note that if there's a small number of criminals, AC still works. If there's a large number, it doesn't. But then again, with a sufficient number of criminals, *nothing* works.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one has to voluntarily choose to live in an AC society for it to work, they just have to not force whatever their ideal society is on others with violence. If a bunch of people want to form a collective that doesn't believe in property rights, bully for them. People don't have to AGREE with ACism, they just have to respect a short list of individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only makes sense if you move all the ACists from one side of the street to the other and vice versa and put a wall between them. Then the majority on the AC side have what they want and the majority on the non-AC side have what they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does geography matter? I go to church X, my neighbor goes to church Y. We are at peace with each other.

I shop at grocery store X, he shops at grocery store Y. Sometimes I go to Y, and sometimes he goes to X!!!

I use insurance company X, he uses insurance company Y.

I have security firm X, he has security firm Y. Our agents have never shot at each other.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose AC-land emerges through general enlightenment and the collapse of the state that is considered evil. A minority of scattered statists want a state, but they can't just make one without the consent of the others. Do they get to cry "tyranny of the majority"? Can any minority that's not getting what it wants make that claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's stopping them?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have this very backwards. You are saying that a majority/minority of a population using its influence to dismantle the state is imposing the will of that majority/minority on others? The state already imposes its will on EVERYONE! Dismantling it is ending that imposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dismantling it is the end of one imposition and the start of another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's being imposed?

[ QUOTE ]
There will always be a minority that wants things differently. They can always complain, and if they have a good case their complaints will turn into majority opinion which will induce change in a democratic society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want a pony (lucky for you I pledged not to post any more pony pictures) and a voltron and an X-wing. Are people who don't give these things to me "imposing" upon me? Who is obligated to supply these things?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is capitalism in Somalia, as this article clearly indicates. Moreover, even if there were not capitalism and respect for property rights in Somalia, that would also be an argument against anarchocapitalism. Repsect for property cannot just arise out of thin air in an anarchist society. Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have capitalism without the "idea of property rights"?

There's no professional hockey in Somalia. Professional hockey only exists where there is government. Therefore, government is necessary to cultivate and protect the idea of professional hockey. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the strained analogies are out in full force - OP must be onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although Vagos's personal attack was deleted, he was asking why I think this is a strained analogy. As the utopians would say, I don't really see why the burden is incumbent upon me to demonstrate why an analogy comparing Somalia and a knife stabbing is valid. If pvn will expound upon his analogy I will be more than happy to reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

What knife stabbing? Did you read what you quoted?

Bickford's argument was as follows:

1) (implied) there is no respect for property rights in Somalia
2) (implied) the places that currently exhibit significant respect for property rights all have governments
3) (conclusion) therefore, government is necessary for property rights

Now just substitue "professional hockey" for "respect for property rights".

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't they make one without the consent of the others? If they want to form a state, they can form a freakin' state. They can pool their resources and elect legislators to make laws for them and do their statey things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a lot of good points but I want to focus on this one for a moment.

States R Us members band together to acquire a lot of property and make a state out it and agree to appoint democratically elected agents to "run" the state with periodic elections. Since the property belongs to the individuals in State R Us, I don't think ACists will object to this arrangement. The state calls itseld Mosdefland, with a snazzy flag and a catchy hip-hop style national anthem.

25, 50, 75 years later or whatever a group of people living in Mosdefland decide that they don't like it. They're parents made the place, but they aren't satisfied with their vote only. What is their play? Violent uprisings? Do they have to just leave? Do they have to build a fence around their property and defend it with force?

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is capitalism in Somalia, as this article clearly indicates. Moreover, even if there were not capitalism and respect for property rights in Somalia, that would also be an argument against anarchocapitalism. Repsect for property cannot just arise out of thin air in an anarchist society. Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have capitalism without the "idea of property rights"?

There's no professional hockey in Somalia. Professional hockey only exists where there is government. Therefore, government is necessary to cultivate and protect the idea of professional hockey. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the strained analogies are out in full force - OP must be onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although Vagos's personal attack was deleted, he was asking why I think this is a strained analogy. As the utopians would say, I don't really see why the burden is incumbent upon me to demonstrate why an analogy comparing Somalia and a knife stabbing is valid. If pvn will expound upon his analogy I will be more than happy to reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

What knife stabbing? Did you read what you quoted?

Bickford's argument was as follows:

1) (implied) there is no respect for property rights in Somalia
2) (implied) the places that currently exhibit significant respect for property rights all have governments
3) (conclusion) therefore, government is necessary for property rights

Now just substitue "professional hockey" for "respect for property rights".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I can't keep track of all the bad analogies. The problem with this one is that it misstates OP's position.