Why I couldn’t accept ACism

[boracay]

At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[Barretboy]

[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you've just supported the conservative (Republican) ideology.

EDIT: I'm new to the Politics forum and I'm wondering if I totally discredit myself from the start by quoting Rush Limbaugh?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[tomdemaine]

Even if everything you say is true. Why does your fear that certain things won't get done under AC give you or others the right to take money from people against their will? Stealing is wrong except when people are stealing to provide the things I want.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you've just supported the conservative (Republican) ideology.

EDIT: I'm new to the Politics forum and I'm wondering if I totally discredit myself from the start by quoting Rush Limbaugh?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what a lot of republicans say they support. Their actions speak louder than their words.

[Barretboy]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what a lot of republicans say they support. Their actions speak louder than their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

I grudgingly have to agree with you.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After controlling for legally relevant factors, socioeconomic factors, and legal contextual factors, it was found that blacks convicted of cocaine offenses and Hispanics convicted of cocaine and marijuana offenses were sentenced more harshly than white offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

abstract

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population).

[/ QUOTE ]

I will pick at this one thing, which I think exposed the problem with your line of thinking.

There is no such thing as a universal measure of "quality of life". There is no objective formula you can apply to measure the quality of each individual's life, nor can you impose universally applied restrictions and limitations on the parameters of peoples' lives to "maximize" the hypothetical aggregate quality of life formula. The quality of a person's life can be measured only by the subjective evaluation of that life from the unique subjective evaluation "formula" of each individual. The question should not be "Are the lives or others sufficiently "good" based on my subjective analysis of their lives", the question should be "Who should evaluate an individual life, and what avenues do they have a right to pursue if they don't like the evaluation." The ACist will say that the only person with a right to perform the evaluation of a life is the individual himself, and the only legitimate avenues they have a right to pursue to change that evaluation are those involving mutually voluntary interactions with others.

Arguing about the relative outcomes of individual voluntary societies versus coercive collective societies is not the ultimate argument. The ultimate argument is whether or not you think your life should be evaluated by others and whether or not others can force you to change based on their valuations. The observation that many programs of forced change imposed on individuals are poorly conceived and have undesirable outcomes is a mark against coercive states, but it is not the blackest of marks. Before you even consider whether or not the outcome of a coercive state justifies it's existence, you have to engage the question of whether or not the coercion is a blatant act of evil in the first place. If you accept that it is evil, your refusal to accept the outcome is irrelevant.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, which is why many ACists on this board painstakingly and patiently provide detailed and logically sound arguments for why the free market would provide certain services better than the state on a case by case basis.