Why Im no longer an ACist

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Its not governments that create anything, its the people. Throughout history we have had some good governments some bad governments and some purely evil governments. There is no correlation between government and positive social contract. Its an educated and non-violent populace that produces great societies not the governmental structure running society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying guns are bad because they kill people. Government has it's uses, that's what I'm saying. You seem to imply that "educated and non-violent populace" is some sort of exogenous variable that we can just plug into the equation. The entire point of my argument is that some sort of governing institution is necessary to create this "educated and non-violent populace".

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
So people are either lazy or totally crazy. In which case I dont see why I should be forced to help poor people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because otherwise society sucks.

[ QUOTE ]

I've got a better explanation. People feel like they are evil if they arent helping the poor so they offload the responsibility to a third party to deal with their anxiety, they dont actually care if the poor get helped. Much like the fatties who buy extra light food products but eat a million calories a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sound like government is doing it's job perfectly then!

[ QUOTE ]

If people are forced to live everyday with the fact that they are immoral people for not helping the poor they will take the time to send money to some causes. Nowadays all it takes is a couple of clicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this last sentence is even a reference to. Spending money takes no time, and can easily be accomplished with just a couple of clicks. Spending money in the right way can go a long way to solving poverty.

Unsurprisingly, the first sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous sentence that you posted. If all people care about is ridding themselves of their anxiety, they wouldn't take any time to do anything. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]

The tragedy is when people reach for the charity light without dealing with the fundamental issues of poverty. People think they are helping the poor, but the government is not actually helping the poor to the extent that it could be. In this situation the poor are simply exploited on all sides and never get helped. A truly sick situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, which is why in addition to yapping about theoretical positions on government on the interwebs, I try to spread information about productive charities and about how much OUR government is no good.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[xorbie]

owsley,

Was a good post indeed.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is probably my favorite post out of all I've written, no responses at all? I think it might make a good OP if I changed it a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, very good post. Very similar to my story really.

I was Democrat then Republican then Libertarian now ACist. Parents were and still are heavily involved in Democrat politics. I also do not anticipate looking back at any point in my life and saying, "What was I thinking with all that AC crap?"

All ACism is is a consistent, ACTUAL opposition to violence (as opposed to a stated opposition). If being against violence makes me a loony, sign me up. I can't ever imagine looking back and regretting opposing all violence/coercion or supporting the Golden Rule.

ACism is also the only thing I have seen that approaches a logically consistent belief system. Pure socialism may come close, but it relies on what I consider to be a very undesirable set of first principles. Any belief system that allows a gov't mandates a belief in different moral classes of people, as pvn has shown many times.

Dem/Repub cheerleading is absolutely no different than Yanks/Sox cheerleading and has absolutely zero basis in any sort of logically coherent arguments stemming from any set of first principles. At the end of the day you are cheering for letters, colors, and caricatures of animals. Period. (Note: This is different than specific issue cheerleading - I am talking about straight party-line cheerleading, which we see plenty of on this forum.)

[bills217]

Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Non-sequitur much? (Strawman much?)

I would never dispute that developing a system for legitimate claims of ownership is very murky. Fortunately, it is a lot less murky in practice than your doomsday Bill-Gates-hoards-lots-of-unowned-land-and-kills-trespassing-hobos scenario.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[natedogg]

Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.

and

[ QUOTE ]
Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”

[/ QUOTE ]

He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.

His argument, that some people have circumstances beyond their control and it's ok to use coercion to address that, is perfectly valid, although merely normative. But the libertarian argument against coercion is also merely normative.

However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done. Thus opposing the state's coercion in this matter means you are indifferent to the problem. Not so.

natedogg