Hi

[Vagos]

From other thread, you told me to reply here,

[ QUOTE ]
All,

deleted a few posts in this thread. one thing I would like to see is for arguments on the AC/non AC type when the OP is about a specific area is for replies to stick to that subject instead of going to a general state vs. no state line which I see happen. there will be plenty of broad philosophy type discussions for that so I want specific area threads to be more focused and unique.


this will of course be a judgment call on the part of myself and the mods and there will be times you disagree but please keep that out of the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems kind of unreasonable to me. Let's look at the OP of the charity thread.

[ QUOTE ]
In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts made in an AC society, I haven't seen ACists address the following consideration:

It would seem to me that there is a sizeable portion of the population who, with respect to a large range of the chartable/welfare programs x, would agree with both of the following statements:

1.) I would prefer not to give $z to support x.
2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.
In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society , or what would replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, he is telling us force is alright for the purpose of the welfare of the poor. He doesn't want to hear that force is wrong. Hell, he even tells us the answer before he even asks question(see bolded parts). How can an AC honestly debate this topic without getting into a state vs no-state morality debate? We don't have any charts or graphs about AC so OF COURSE we can't show you how much charity will exist in AC. Our position(well most of us anyways, excluding utilitarian ACists) is one of morality. Restricting us from debating on the "general state vs no state" line is unreasonable I think. I realize a lot of threads get bogged down by the same old argument, but I say if that's where the momentum of the argument is going, so be it. I don't want to see content over-modded in politics. I respect your desire for keeping the debate civilized and keeping offensive material out of the matter but don't mod debating tactics too. Consider this my plea to be lenient on modding the direction of where threads go. It's politics, discussions should be allowed to go wherever they are going.