AC and power

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do the people in government pay their own salaries? This is what Boro meant, I think. At the very least the costs of the beauracracies are externalized to the tax payers, regardless of what policies the government inacts.

AFAIK none of the G8 countries have governments that dont engage in some sort of externalization of costs to the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government operates by definition by externalizing its costs, so no, it couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess we have to take your word on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. You can rationalize your way to it yourself. It takes about 3 lines:

1. The costs associated with the actions of those in government are not borne by those in government.
2. Rather, they compel others by violence and threat of violence to carry those costs.
3. Hence government operates by externalizing its costs.

[NT!]

pvn,

as usual, way to look for ways to drop a snide one-liner on someone instead of addressing the content of their post. yeah, 'i've got my hammer.' every time i try to suggest something that might appeal to you, your response is to ignore it completely and look for something petty to take potshots about. it is getting extremely old.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

as usual, way to look for ways to drop a snide one-liner on someone instead of addressing the content of their post. yeah, 'i've got my hammer.' every time i try to suggest something that might appeal to you, your response is to ignore it completely and look for something petty to take potshots about. it is getting extremely old.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fine, I'll give you the long version.

When you say:

[ QUOTE ]
So to answer the OPs question, a stateless society could potentially exist if force was widely and overwhelmingly perceived as an illegitimate and apolitical tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you follow it up with:

[ QUOTE ]
I do not hope for or envision a stateless America.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conclusion is that you do not perceive (and do not want to perceive) force as an illegitimate and apolitical tool.

In other words, you have your hammer.

[NT!]

pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said you don't want a stateless America. You did not say that you were hoping against a set of circumstances that could lead to either a stateless america *or* some other stateful outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not hope for or envision a stateless America.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you hope for and envision a state in America.

How do you see this without violence against innocents?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point that you and other statists repeatedly fail to understand. States by their very definition employ violence against innocents. Now, if your position is that violence against innocents is sometimes justified, for example in the name of a greater good that you perceive, then that's a different argument. But don't pretend that supporting of a state does not carry with it the support of violence against innocents, because it does by definition. And don't act like someone who points this out is just using some rhetorical device to smear you. If you feel your beliefs smeared by the facts, perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs, and not attempt to redefine the facts away.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
States by their very definition employ violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. States, in practice throughout history, have employed violence against innocents.

I think creating a society where power (in the Arendtian sense) is the primary organizing factor (rather than force) would be extremely difficult whether one used a state to do it, used markets, or used some other communal/syndicalist structure.

Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.

When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man. Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, it's binary, it's one or the other. The lightbulb is either on or off. If you destroy the lightbulb, it's off. There's no way around it.

So, which do you prefer?


[ QUOTE ]
When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man. Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, this still is an endorsement of violence against others.

The fact that you think it's legitimate doesn't change what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few honest thugs.

[NT!]

pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?