Why Im no longer an ACist

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's nothing holy about property rights, it's logically consistent to violate them

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even make sense to me. They either exist or they don't (once again, not as an objective truth, but in practice). Even if I were to concede that some other positive rights existed (which I never would) who decides the hierarchy of rights? What you are describing (positive rights) is a matter of personal values masquerading as objective truth, which Kaj accused me of.

[natedogg]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont redifine coercion, I just come up with a new type of coercion( the coercion I call" coercion caused my non-moral agents")


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now you're redefining "redefine" and changing it into "came up with a new category of the same thing" or "came up with a new concept". That's just another way of saying "redefine".

The fact remains, you are redefining the terms by trying to define "lack of coercion" as a form of coercion.

I have not critiqued the merits of your position, which I understand to be that it is morally preferable to use state coercion to mitigate the effects of natural states, rather than to not do so. It may be a valid position but not because "lack of coercion" is the same thing as "coercion".



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? ACists constantly give more importance to "coercion done by moral agents" over "coercion done by the state of nature" If one type of coercion is constantly undermined you might as well say they dont care about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ranking the preference of one kind of good or bad over another does not mean that there is no concern for the the other one.

You are creating a strawman by saying that since libertarians abhor using coercion more than they are horrified by natural states, they therefore care nothing about the problem of natural states. This is false.

Again, your position is the opposite and is a valid one, but not because libertarians care nothing for the unfortunate poor, which is both untrue and irrelevant to your position.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im implying that some force of natural state problems need a state not that ALL of those problem need a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still the same thing. You're creating a false dilemma where the natural state of being born into poverty can only be solved by the state. And thus anyone who does not approve using state coercion to (attempt to) resolve poverty legacy is obviously opposed to solving that problem. This is a classic false dilemma.


Are you familiar with the most common logical fallacies? It may help to study up on them in order to fine tune your arguments, because you have employed several of them.

To be clear, I have not criticized your position, I'm merely pointing out that your arguments in support of your position are poor. In fact, I have validated some of your positions by stating that both yours, and the libertarian couterposition, are purely normative. In other words, equally valid.


natedogg

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Without regulatory bodies and without elected representatives to make our choices for us, we'd all be overwhelmed intellectually and we'd run out of time.


[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure we need regulatory bodies to make our choices, just to record our choices. Elected officials worked out very well when travel times and communication times were slow. They are no longer needed in the information age. The type of bodies that I'm an advocate of are similar to ICANN. It's the only regulatory body on the net, and it pretty much just keeps track of who owns what domain name. Having competing domain name registrars adds little to the effeintcy, yet might create multiple claims of ownership of the same property. This monopoly on record keeping regarding domains is a good thing in my eyes, and is the type of service that governments should provide with regard to property.



[ QUOTE ]

So they've just demonstrated how immoral and evil and corrupt democracy is, and most of the statists I talk to are Americans and so love democracy, and they usually get angry and the conversation is over at this point.

It isnt an argument FOR AC. Its a deflection or a refutation of an argument AGAINST AC.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, if I understand you are saying that the nature of people makes democracy and ACism bad societies. Provided it's true about information.

There are a number of people that think that democracies purpose is to elect people that make better decisions then the general populace. People that make worse decision shouldn't often get elected. So by that logic the decisions made in democracy would be better ones then the effects of the individual decisions in ACland.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
People that make worse decision shouldn't often get elected.


[/ QUOTE ]

How's that working out for you?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)If you say ACists are in favor of slightly coercing some ppl to reduce the coercion of poor kids then nvm my critique.
2)Here is my biggest disagreement with you all, you say that goverment helps corporations etc,etc. Even if that is [censored] up and could be fixed on a goverment, I still prefer the current situation over what I would think would happen on AC, you are just HOPING things will work out they way you say it will, not everyone has the time to go through a lenghty consumer report( a consumer report thay may not even be that accurate and if the consumer report is any good u bet its going to be quite expensive)
3)The point is that I think that issue will almost certainly be a deal-breaker if it doesnt get down to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is the solution to #2. No one will ever have to read a Consumer Report on anything. No one has to be competent or spend enough time to make any sort of difficult decision: save one. They only need to spend time choosing a Chooser. Someone that they will then trust to make decisions for them.

If you are saying they are incompetent or dont have the time to even do this then I hope you realize how horrible democracy is.

[/ QUOTE ]Why does that lead to ACism? Or say anything about democracy being bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point that I was trying to make is that nothing LEADS to ACism, it seems self-evident to me that people should be able to make their own choices in life. This is my starting point. I am willing to listen to arguments about exceptions to this or problems with this or places where this might not apply. What eventually (inevitably) ends up happening is someone makes a point that we dont have enough time and we are all too stupid (although its usually "they" are all too stupid, obviously everyone here is brilliant) to make all of these choices all day long. No way could I be reasonably expected to choose a restaurant that doesnt serve arsenic. No way could I be reasonably expected to research which drugs I wanted to take to take care of my hypertension. Without regulatory bodies and without elected representatives to make our choices for us, we'd all be overwhelmed intellectually and we'd run out of time.

But the problem is, that isnt any kind of argument. Of COURSE we couldnt make expert decisions on everything. But why would we need to do that? All you need to do is pick a chooser. So the way I usually argue this is to start out subtly. I suggest Consumer Reports or something like that. I get predictable responses. "Well, they cant make all your choices for you" or "Well they cant be trusted to make accurate, unbiased choices" which leads me into selecting a Chooser to choose my Choosers. At some point we have a string of arguments where the statist has just claimed over and over again that people have no chance of ever intelligently selecting ANYONE to represent them about ANYTHING in a way that wont lead to bias and corruption and them consistently being taken advantage of.

So they've just demonstrated how immoral and evil and corrupt democracy is, and most of the statists I talk to are Americans and so love democracy, and they usually get angry and the conversation is over at this point.

It isnt an argument FOR AC. Its a deflection or a refutation of an argument AGAINST AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you propone a free society you can oppose AC because in its foundation is a principle for division of absolute authority in the form of property rights. This begs a few practical questions, two of which comes immediately to mind:

1. How do you divide up (if at all) existing property between free citizens in an transition period? The currently divided property is at least partially a result of mechanisms ACists claim to vehemently oppose.

2. I don't think capitalism is evil, I think its good. However I have some experience working within corporations and capitalism is fairly pyramidical. I just have to say this seems to be at odds with the free society. If property rights are next to absolute and can be traded, how do you stop the gathering of unhealthy amounts of authorative power in corporate entities with sharp pyramids gathering the power on the hands of a few? And the only checks&balance is supposedly by the marke - is that really enough?

I have to admit that the ideas that put more emphasis on fluid cooperation, less stringent terms and where authority can't be legitimately bought&sold (but trade&property can still exist) seems much more like the 'ideal' way to build a free society to me.

[pricklypete]

This thread is a riot.

[ianlippert]

[ 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".



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have this backwards. You are saying governments are good because they help people. Which is interesting but all im asking is some evidence supporting your theory. The point I was trying to make was that there is no correlation between 'government' and how that government treats its society. So there has to be some other variable. IMO governments are a reflection of the values of the people that put that government into power, how could it be otherwise? Government is the gun, and its the people that are responsible for how that it gets used.

If people are uneducated and violent where is this education and non-violence going to come from? 1st world governments have education and protection for property rights specifically because the majority of the population have these values. Get rid of government and these people still have these values.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

No, the point is that people feel like they are helping the poor but they think there job ends once the issue is not their responsibility. The government is the worst possible solution for poverty because not only is the government not helping poor people (and in many cases its destroying the few opportunities the poor have) the people that would help the poor now think the problem is being dealt with. So the poor are now trapped in this situation where they get no help and nobody knows about it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Sorry it was probably a convoluted way of explaining it. If there is no government people are faced with the fact that they arent doing anything to help the poor. If there is no government solution to help the poor they are going to have to face up to their guilt and actually help the poor themselves. And I dont think that everyone that helps the poor does it simply for selfish reasons but a lot of people do.

The reference of clicks was to the idea that you can donate money online.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the majority are satisfied with feeling like they are helping the poor, the people that really care are forced to fund the same institution. I think once the government stops the negative things it does to the poor, poverty is a very small problem. Theres more than enough people who truly care about the poor that will take care of them.

[ianlippert]

[ 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 ]

ACtually I almost posted a 'thank you for this post' post but got caught up in other discussions. I'm exactly the same way. I used to be a canadian socialist, kind of indifferent but still spouted the usual rhetoric. Once I understood how bad government legislation actually hurts the poor in most cases I became an ACist.

Socialists really just have to answer one question. If the main purpose of governments is to help the poor, why dont they eliminate poverty. The American government could eliminate poverty tomorrow. I dont really understand how you can be a proponent for a charity that doesnt accomplish its stated goals and then argue also that everyone should be forced to support your terrible charity. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Socialists really just have to answer one question. If the main purpose of governments is to help the poor, ........

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that ISN'T the main purpose of govt so the rest of your "analysis" is meaningless.