Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 07-11-2007, 09:26 PM
bkholdem bkholdem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,328
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about the rest of them, but if you do a search of my posting history you are not going to find a lot of arguments for natural property rights or what have you.

And if you do a search I think you will come across some fine posts from Borodog and HMK who is able to articulate the benefits of AC over statism without focusing on morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, maybe it's just my perception that those guys focus more on the morality than the practical benefits. Maybe they don't. But even still I'm talking about practicality in a different sense.

I know Boro and others have written some good stuff. But even in explaining practical benefits their stuff still assumes AC's values as the right way to think (it's practical *to them*) and does not recognize conflicting values as worthwhile ends in their own right. The conflicting values, in their minds, are simply values that people shouldn't hold.

If I'm a biggot who doesn't like gay people, it's easy for me to think I'd prefer a state. The state seems to give me some control over their behavior. But hey, wait a minute, in the absence of a state I'm free to discriminate against whoever I want as I see fit. Tough as it is to accept with my primitive mind, but maybe things would be better without the magic wand of government making all the decisions. Even though I hold a value that leads most people to conclude they need a state, you can argue that my interests are best protected without a state.

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the assumption that X is universally good, so everyone is free to conduct their business, oh look more X!

I'd like to hear how AC would be good for the people who happen to value intrusion into their neighbors' lives (I'm not concerned with why intrusion should be regarded as a bad thing). If your answer is that AC could not exist as long as people value intrusion and that you wish they'd realize that if they had different values things would be better, then fine, say it. But most any AC argument I've ever read on here will, either explicity or implicitly, say that a certain value is "right" and will never mean much to someone who unflinchingly holds a different one.

My impression is that ACers believe it is OK to hold any value whatsoever. Does that not extend to valuing nosiness and intrusion? So what happens when someone's value/moral/preference/whatever is to intrude in someone else's business? Is a state a good solution for those people? Or are there good arguments that show why people who want a hand in my life will still be better off without a state?

If the latter (which I suspect is your answer), why then do the vast, vast majority of self-proclaimed ACers seem to hold classically liberal values? If it should be so clear that everyone is better off with no state, then why do only the people who already agree intrusion is wrong seem to buy it?

If a gay bashing drug fearing god loving businessman told me he was an ACist, I guess I'd know he was *really* an ACist, and not just a pothead who's never thought much about the role of the state in our daily affairs. The fact that very few of these people seem to exist makes me wonder if the state is actually bad for the universal spectrum of our society's preferences, or if it's just bad for people who think a certain way to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you raise some good questions and make some good points. I think that most AC posts here do focus on the morality I was just pointing out there are posts that focus on the practical.

People who want to control other people (or think other people shoud be controlled) are not really going to be for ACism I do not think any more than a King or Dictator would be for ACism.

People who value intrusion (getting into others business with the use of coersion or force) are not going to value ACism. People can 'value' whatever they want in AC (as in hold whatever kind of thoughts they want) but if they like to act on such values they are going to not like ACism any more than a slave master is going to like a land with no slaves.

I am far from some expert on influencing others into the virtues of ACism. I'm just a guy who values freedom. People have been conditioned into accepting non freedom and taught to value non freedom. I don't have a magic wand to wave and instantly teach people who think controling others is good and proper that it is not good and proper and that the others freedom should be respected. If they do not think others freedom should be respected we are at an impass. Beliefs held deeply like mine do not change overnight and someone who deeply values controlling others I do not suspect will change that belief overnight either.

Education takes time.

Statism controls the schools, the institutions, the TV and media, almost everything. It is a considerable challenge to change the opinions of hundreds of millions of people and is going to take some time.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-11-2007, 09:27 PM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-11-2007, 09:37 PM
bkholdem bkholdem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,328
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree and here is why:

Put 1 year old with a toy in a room with a 2 year old with no toy (or his own toy for that matter, maybe even a whole pile of his owh toys lol) and see what happens and what THAT implies.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-12-2007, 12:22 AM
Richard Tanner Richard Tanner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Now this is a movement I can sink my teeth into
Posts: 3,187
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree and here is why:

Put 1 year old with a toy in a room with a 2 year old with no toy (or his own toy for that matter, maybe even a whole pile of his owh toys lol) and see what happens and what THAT implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It implies that people are, from the start, self-serving bastards that will step over the rights of another to aquire what they want. That they don't value anyone elses freedom/suffering so long as it doesn't either effect their own happiness or is right in front of them. It says that as long as resources are scarce that people will fight to obtain...oh I see what you did there.

Cody
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-12-2007, 04:30 AM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took your advice to heart and tried this experiment. The kid said "That's a violation of my natural property rights. I am a slave to no one. Give me my toy back."

I said, "Son, I know better how you should be having fun."

The kid said "No you don't! I make my own decisions!"

Then the 3 year old's Mom came over to see what all the fuss was about. "Boys, what's going on?"

"That man took my toy. That's immoral."

"Ma'am, I know better how your son should be having fun. It would be immoral of me to let him keep that toy."

"Hmm," she thought.

His mom was really hot, so I forgot which AC experiment I was covering and just instinctively grabbed her tit and yelled "MINE!"

She was like, "No it's not."

I said, "Prove it."

Then she told me she was Borodog's wife so I ran, dropped the kid's toy, reluctantly let go of her breast, and didn't really prove much of anything cause all I'm really sure of is that Borodog probably owns guns.


OK, this isn't funny (it's late). But I agree with bk, your example simply conflates moral/immoral with pleasing/displeasing. Man universally wants to be pleased, yes I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-12-2007, 06:47 AM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default Re: a quick thought

No,


The child will scream bloody murder.

What does that imply?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-12-2007, 03:11 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
No,


The child will scream bloody murder.

What does that imply?

[/ QUOTE ]

?

It implies that he wants the toy and is pleased when he has it. What more are you suggesting it implies other than humans are fundamentally self-interested?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-12-2007, 03:26 PM
bkholdem bkholdem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,328
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree and here is why:

Put 1 year old with a toy in a room with a 2 year old with no toy (or his own toy for that matter, maybe even a whole pile of his owh toys lol) and see what happens and what THAT implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It implies that people are, from the start, self-serving bastards that will step over the rights of another to aquire what they want. That they don't value anyone elses freedom/suffering so long as it doesn't either effect their own happiness or is right in front of them.
Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like government to me. If this is truely human nature, why on earth would I want to grant someone (or a group of someone's) to be in charge of my toys? They already want to take them and I am supposed to want them to be in control of my toys and believe it's good for me?

The government is the Devil. lol
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-12-2007, 04:45 PM
Richard Tanner Richard Tanner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Now this is a movement I can sink my teeth into
Posts: 3,187
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
No,


The child will scream bloody murder.

What does that imply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two different responses came in showing why this doesn't show what you want it to show. Don't pull a Michael Moore here.

Cody
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-12-2007, 05:13 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: a quick thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man naturally believes in universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I'm not really sure what it's based on or what exactly you're implying though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Short answer:

Try to take the toy of a 3-year-old away and find out what the kid does and what it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree and here is why:

Put 1 year old with a toy in a room with a 2 year old with no toy (or his own toy for that matter, maybe even a whole pile of his owh toys lol) and see what happens and what THAT implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It implies that people are, from the start, self-serving bastards that will step over the rights of another to aquire what they want. That they don't value anyone elses freedom/suffering so long as it doesn't either effect their own happiness or is right in front of them.
Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like government to me. If this is truely human nature, why on earth would I want to grant someone (or a group of someone's) to be in charge of my toys? They already want to take them and I am supposed to want them to be in control of my toys and believe it's good for me?

The government is the Devil. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to literally play "Devil's" advocate...

You might decide you want someone to be in charge of your toys because you think it is the best way to protect them. My mom might not let me play with my toys if I don't eat my vegetables. But gee, that seems better than the threat of my neighbor taking my whole collection.

I don't think you can really disagree with that. Everyone trusts people to respect their assets (read: banks) when the other party is either benevolently or logistically trustworthy. So the only question here is whether or not government meets this criteria.

Certainly your answer is no. And I agree they don't meet it *as well* as the private market would. But let's be honest that it's just a matter of degree. Government's interest is to stay in business; or on an individual level, to be re-elected. So they have some built in constraints that make it tough for them to take our toys with no regard. In the absence of government I'll still inevitably trust my toys with other people.

Whether or not a government has anything to do with this is just a matter of degree. Trusting other people to respect your toys is not a stretch of the imagination. The only issue is that government doesn't do this quite as well as the free market.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.