Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 11-28-2007, 06:53 PM
foal foal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,019
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ 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 ]
Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with saying libertarians or ACists don't care. I just thought the rest of his point was a good one. I don't see anything wrong with expanding the definition of coercion. And the point works just as well IMO whether or not you call it "coercion". The point is that there are freedom-limiting factors that have nothing to do with coercion by moral agents. I like the argument, because I have socialist leanings, but I wouldn't expect minarchist or libertarian statists to like it much.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:02 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 6,508
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:05 PM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ 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
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:13 PM
bills217 bills217 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: taking DVaut\'s money
Posts: 3,294
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, the right to food and water is easily demonstrable to be inseparable from the right to life

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the "right to life?" Where does it come from? (This is not the same as self-ownership.)

(Edit: In our abortion discussion, you will note I never argued for any sort of "right to life." Mainly because it doesn't matter what I think when such a large number of people clearly disagree. It's really just my personal preference, anyway.)

I am asking you to substantiate your assertions. Right to health care, right to sustenance, etc., are observably not supported by a very large number of people. Not nearly large enough to qualify as axiomatic. I suspect a poll of people on this message board would be 60/40 against a right to even basic sustenance. While I realize this message board is a highly skewed populace, the point is, you cannot pull those things out of the blue without a VERY large percentage of people who agree. I guess you can make the case that those things SHOULD be axiomatic (basically arguing that everyone should agree with you), but we aren't there yet. (And hopefully we'll never be.)

When I talked about ACism being the only logical belief system, I was referring to as opposed to modern US party politics, and I conceded that pure socialism may come close (I am admittedly not an expert on the matter, I was a chemical engineering major and am now in finance), but that it stems from what many, many people consider to be a very undesirable set of first principles, consisting of all these various "rights" you keep mentioning that are totally subjective and even general positive-rights supporters disagree on (after all, it's just a personal preference, really). You cannot compare even a right to basic sustenance as axiomatic versus self-ownership as axiomatic. There is no comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as it requires (vast amounts of!) outside enforcement to make it work, it's a positive right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then who is obligated to do what? (Hint: No one is obligated to do anything.) What do you mean by "outside?"
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:24 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 6,508
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

Nate, consider the following hypothetical discussion

A: How about goverment programs for hot meals for children on school?
B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
C: No, because if you fund that program you will have to tax people and that will result in market inneffeciencies and in the long run those kids will be worse off.
D: Wah, wah why cant I be free? Its not my fault poor people have sex.
E: I think a voluntary solution to the problem its better, the community will be aware those children need help and since they will care they will feed the kids themselves, if you put a goverment porgram those people that were going to help wont help and the children will be worse off.

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem
Person C is overestimating the effect a slight tax will have on the incentives and is underestimating the irreversible damage that is produced because the kids wont get proper nutrition when theyre still kids.
Person D is being a douchebag
Person E is being extremely naive and is just HOPING the community will care enough to take the time to do voluntary solution.

I hope that clarifies my position.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 11-28-2007, 08:41 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 11-28-2007, 08:44 PM
owsley owsley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: thank you
Posts: 774
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, how can you actually oppose schoolchildren getting hot meals? You are a terrible person obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 11-28-2007, 09:30 PM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, how can you actually oppose schoolchildren getting hot meals? You are a terrible person obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks guys, I knew I could count on you.

natedogg
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 11-28-2007, 09:31 PM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,759
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, how can you actually oppose schoolchildren getting hot meals? You are a terrible person obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
AlexM wants children to die cold and hungry, obv.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 11-28-2007, 09:32 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 6,508
Default Re: Why Im no longer an ACist

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that giving a small percentage of youre wealth is not the same as being a slave! Do you really consider yourself a slave?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.