Why Im no longer an ACist

[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

[valenzuela]

You know what nate all ure doing is discussing semantics, you are nitpicking my statements( which may be worded sub-optimally because english isnt my first language and on top of that I have never been a good writer) and you are failing to see the bigger picture, my opinion is basically that a democratic state with a regulated free-market leads to more practical freedom( u know the one that actaully matters not the one rothbard cares about) for it citiznes than AC.
Nate you havent read enough AC threads aparently because whenever a thread like milk for poor kids comes up, libertarians usually come up with statements like:
- goverment should not be subsidizing the stupidty of single mothers.
- Nobody is opposed to somebody giving their money to the kid, but nobody should be forced to give their money to poor children.
- Its not my fault the parents of the kids are irresponsible. etc

usually once their douchebaggery gets pointed out THEN they play the " competing charity companies" card.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what nate all ure doing is discussing semantics, you are nitpicking my statements( which may be worded sub-optimally because english isnt my first language and on top of that I have never been a good writer) and you are failing to see the bigger picture, my opinion is basically that a democratic state with a regulated free-market leads to more practical freedom( u know the one that actaully matters not the one rothbard cares about) for it citiznes than AC.
Nate you havent read enough AC threads aparently because whenever a thread like milk for poor kids comes up, libertarians usually come up with statements like:
- goverment should not be subsidizing the stupidty of single mothers.
- Nobody is opposed to somebody giving their money to the kid, but nobody should be forced to give their money to poor children.
- Its not my fault the parents of the kids are irresponsible. etc

usually once their douchebaggery gets pointed out THEN they play the " competing charity companies" card.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you disagree with valenzeula- you are committing douchebaggery. Glad to know. Nate is also not nitpicking your statements, he is nitpicking your LOGIC. We all understand you are not a good writer. The problem is you are also an extremely poor debater.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

So if you disagree with valenzeula- you are committing douchebaggery. Glad to know. Nate is also not nitpicking your statements, he is nitpicking your LOGIC. We all understand you are not a good writer. The problem is you are also an extremely poor debater.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what he said and when it comes to AC debates everybody is generally nitpicking everybody's statements. I've done it and people have done it to my statements also.

As for the earlier poster who said ACists are not very critical of eachother, the same thing often holds true for the other side in these debates. You see a lot of people polarizing politically which is probably a bad thing. That post was my favorite in this thread btw, kudos to the one who wrote it.

[valenzuela]

Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just not terribly interested in debating the issue with you. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just not terribly interested in debating the issue with you. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Its OK, it was going to degenerate in to you calling me names anyway.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate I did as you told me, I already found a fallcy !!
I said that I thought that some ACists have douchebags attitued on some posts that tend to lack empathy and Tomcollins amplified my position to anybody who disagrees with me is a douchbag and then he mocked a position that he made up.
edit:

Tom, I see a lot of insults to my person but you are still ignoring my counter-critique to the definition of freedom you mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, your reference to douche-baggery is an ad hominem which rests on the same false dilemma I have pointed out for you.

Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?

natedogg

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]


Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?



[/ QUOTE ]

I understand, however I disagree with that point of view.
I know what you mean, an unregulated free-market its better because more wealth will be created and eventually the poor will improved their quality of life, etc,etc.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?



[/ QUOTE ]

I understand, however I disagree with that point of view.
I know what you mean, an unregulated free-market its better because more wealth will be created and eventually the poor will improved their quality of life, etc,etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one argument against the necessity for state coercion, but my main point is just that being opposed to state coercion doesn't mean you oppose all efforts to solve the problem, or that you are indifferent to the problem, but I got the impression that was your main point at first.

I myself don't support using state coercion because I believe there are many other ways to solve the problem of people being born into poor circumstances, while at the same time there is no (reasonable) way to solve the problem of bad parenting.

natedogg