ACism: paralleling the evils of state control?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. The trouble most of us have with the leap to AC is how you get from "people act in their own self-interest" to "the poor will be helped by massively increased charity", "companies will not make faulty products to make a dollar faster" and the other hundred and fifty thousand assumptions that AC makes while simultaneously acknowledging that point.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. The trouble most of us have with the leap to AC is how you get from "people act in their own self-interest" to "the poor will be helped by massively increased charity", "companies will not make faulty products to make a dollar faster" and the other hundred and fifty thousand assumptions that AC makes while simultaneously acknowledging that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

If we want quality products, then it is in their best interests to make them for us. You'd have to hypothesize some mechanisms whereby it is impossible for us to make it in their best interests to please us. I cannot imagine what this impediment would be. I can imagine some practical issues, where people put quantity and affordability over quality, but nothing that strictly, and absolutely, PREVENTS people from making it in the self-interest of companies to produce quality products.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[zasterguava]

Some interesting repsonses.
[ QUOTE ]
The times where the free interaction hurts you is simply a representation of the ugly side of human nature. But attempting to eliminate the ugly side of human nature by adding centralized restrictions will always make things worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism is not the only theory which proposes the abolishment of centralized power. What about the idea of directly democratic regional assemblies to "oppose and replace the State with a confederation of free municipalities" to achieve "a rational society where its structure becomes the organization of society"?

I'm not a follower of Libertarian municipalism but it is ideas such as these of left-wing libertarianism and anarchism for which I find appealing and to be the ideal (and thus perhaps 'utopian') theories of society.

I find ACism as being even more unrealistic than the above and thus would rather exercise desires for a society that is just and free of centralised power or exploitatary doctrines and instead emphasises community, co-operation and equality.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, that state communism was extremely tyrannical, exploitative, oppressive, etc.--perhaps Marx needs his radar adjusted...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, history serves you correct about the failures and disaster that has been communism in practise. However, Marxist theory has never been tried exclusively:

[ QUOTE ]
What we've had since the Industrial Revolution was one or another form of state capitalism. It's been overwhelmed, certainly in the last century, by big conglomerations of capital corporate structures that are all interlinked with one another and form strategic alliances and administer markets and so on. And are tied up with a very powerful state. So it's some other kind of system -- call it whatever you want. Corporate-administered markets in a powerful state system.

[/ QUOTE ] Chomsky

I dont really see why Marx would "need his radar adjusted" seeing as Marx never lived to see communism come to fruition- nor has anyone since his death.

edit: i am not a closet communist, but, Marx is an invaluable source whatever your objective.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I misunderstand the tragedy of the commons, but I don't see how that applies. When people say they want to help the poor, but then the poor never get helped, this isn't a tragedy of the commons. This is an example of "I want to help the poor but not as much as I want to do other things." How does tragedy of the commons apply here? Anyone who doesn't "pull his weight" is expressing his preference with his wallet, not his voice. A much more reliable method, IMO.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
How does tragedy of the commons apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example is pretty much the classic tragedy of the commons scenario - it's in the best interest of the rich as a whole to help the poor, but not in the best interest of any given individual to do so.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really see why Marx would "need his radar adjusted" seeing as Marx never lived to see communism come to fruition- nor has anyone since his death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something very similar to state communism has come to pass, and I think it is fair to attribute something like this position to Marx since it is very difficult to read him as favoring non-state communism (I realize he said stuff about the dictatorship of the proletariat 'withering away', but the vast majority of his writings puts him squarely in the 'statist' camp--unlike, say, Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
edit: i am not a closet communist, but, Marx is an invaluable source whatever your objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not trying to say that Marx isn't a good resource (though I certainly think he's 'less good' than lots of others I can think of). My (half-joking) point was that Marx may not be the best judge of what types of systems will lead to exploitation and oppression, since he himself favored a system (not only the system that resulted in practice, but also what he favored in theory) that was oppressive. I'm not dismissing what he says out of hand though, which is why I also wrote a lengthy reply.

(btw, good Chomsky quote, I totally agree)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those things all follow. If we want to help the poor, it is in our best interest to help the poor. If we don't, then how can we possibly pass laws demanding that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the paradox you think it is. It's just another tragedy of the commons scenario that AC completely misses.

Look at the poor vs. rich divide from a utilitarian standpoint (not the only explanation, but one of the easier ones): for obvious reasons, a society where poor people are allowed to starve to death, or one where the gap between the rich and the poor is too large, tends to produce more crime than one that is comparatively egalitarian. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the upper class to subsidize the poor so that they don't mug the rich. However, it's just as clearly not in the best interest of any one particular wealthy individual to do so, nor can any one person's wealth usually even make a dent.

The AC solution seems to be to bypass this entirely and say "well, redistribution of income is theft, and if it turns out it's cheaper for the rich to all hire security guards, the market will do that, instead", which is an almost sociopathic answer that only makes sense if every human being on the planet is literally engaged in a game with money as a scoresheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an ACist and I don't really care about money.

[zasterguava]

Yeah, he did see communism as the last stage in a transitional period towards a stateless and classless society. I obvously disagree with this and do not see how imense state power could/would "wither" away by its own accord.