Why Im no longer an ACist

[foal]

yeah the main purpose of government is to enforce law and order and protect the country militarily. the American government is certainly not socialist.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning issues like #1 and poverty, I think it is worth noting that in my mid teens I was a pretty vocal socialist who cared a lot about inequality and the disadvantages that so many people are born with. Over the couple years it took to transform me to an ACist, I never stopped caring about those issues, but I saw just how much the government hurts poor people and creates poverty by interfering with the free market. I would say there were two main things that made me a voluntaryist/ACist, one would be valuing people's freedom and opposing state coercion and the other was believing how much economic suffering our government creates. I would love to believe that some universal entity could provide healthcare and food and education and clean water to everyone, but I can't.

I am not saying that ACists are universally correct but I think a lot of people would be well served by taking a step back and realizing, "Hey, the ACists I am arguing used to be statists/socialists like me who started out thinking about politics because they were sickened by the poverty they saw on an everyday basis, they used to strongly hold the positions I hold now but then were exposed to a different theory of human government and became convinced by that, and no where along the line did they start hating poor people or want to abolish the government so the rich could continue raping people." Just something people should consider.

I just turned 20, I was raised in a very politically conscious academic family and have holding strong views about political issues since I was 11. Since then I am probably on my 3rd political worldview, I have abandoned beliefs I was %100 confident were true multiple times, and I have zero reason to believe that in as short as 2 years from now I will look back on my posts today and thinking "Wow, what the [censored] was I thinking?" Over thanksgiving break I saw some old friends who I used to talk about politics with, they have hardly changed their views one bit in their years and college and I certainly have. One of them said to me, "So are you admitting your arguments you used when we were 17 we wrong?" That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things in my opinion. I am proud that my views have been able to evolve and I think it reflects negatively on them that theirs have not. I consider myself a very intelligent person and have the academic credentials as proof to back that statement up (imo), but the more I think about things the more I am still pretty young and stupid. Less young and stupid as when I was 16, but if I am not less young and stupid by the time I am 25 I will be pretty [censored] pissed off. I think that in the format and clientele of internet messageboards almost directly blocks the concept I am talking about, and while it is a useful tool and a lot can be learned here, I think the majority of posters here have fallen into a rut of sorts. I find this fault in many people I agree with 90% of the time. Just an idea that I think is wildly underrepresented here and too often forgotten due to people just being eager to tell the other side how much of an imbecile they are.

[/ 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 ]

Please, someone pay attention to me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "requiring an interaction" will get us nowhere. If people want to live on, use, or protect the land you have fenced off for your exclusive use, then there already is an interaction. We can debate what kind of value system we'd *like* to see adopted regarding use and ownership of the land, but I think the point you're making actually says nothing.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me like those kinds of arguments assume that someone who does not own any land in a society with property rights is somehow being disenfranchised, and the implication seems to be that even staying alive under this arrangement should be difficult, since you will always be trespassing on someone else's property and of course they are going to be shooting at you for these indiscretions.


[/ QUOTE ]

To elaborate the point a bit. The only people being 'disenfranchised' under this scenario are those that voluntarily sold their land to the monopolist. The other poor people who didnt own any of the land before still dont own any of the land now. They are no better and no worse than before.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "requiring an interaction" will get us nowhere. If people want to live on, use, or protect the land you have fenced off for your exclusive use, then there already is an interaction. We can debate what kind of value system we'd *like* to see adopted regarding use and ownership of the land, but I think the point you're making actually says nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Desire is not an interACTION.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok thats fine, but I wish people would stop saying that we need the government to help the poor. If you support the war in Iraq or any number of other programs we 'need' the government for, then just understand that this comes at the cost of helping the poor.

The ability of governments to massively defer payments for decades gives people this false belief that the government can solve all our problems. But the government is just pushing the costs on to future generations. Its easy to want all this stuff when you dont have to pay for any of it. And when the bill finally comes due the poor and middle classes are going to be the ones that pay for it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "requiring an interaction" will get us nowhere. If people want to live on, use, or protect the land you have fenced off for your exclusive use, then there already is an interaction. We can debate what kind of value system we'd *like* to see adopted regarding use and ownership of the land, but I think the point you're making actually says nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Desire is not an interACTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case A. You "own" 10 acres. No interaction is required between us so long as I stay off "your" land.

Case B. You "own" 10 acres. I don't agree with your definition of land ownership and set up a small living space on the back acre that you don't need or rarely if ever use. No interaction is required between us so long as you stay off "my" land.

Same degree of "interaction" in both cases. So your use of "level of interaction" as a metric does not justify A while invalidate B.

And as you just pointed out, your desire to have me off your property is not an interACTION.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "requiring an interaction" will get us nowhere. If people want to live on, use, or protect the land you have fenced off for your exclusive use, then there already is an interaction. We can debate what kind of value system we'd *like* to see adopted regarding use and ownership of the land, but I think the point you're making actually says nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Desire is not an interACTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case A. You "own" 10 acres. No interaction is required between us so long as I stay off "your" land.

Case B. You "own" 10 acres. I don't agree with your definition of land ownership and set up a small living space on the back acre that you don't need or rarely if ever use. No interaction is required between us so long as you stay off "my" land.

Same degree of "interaction" in both cases. So your use of "level of interaction" as a metric does not justify A while invalidate B.

And as you just pointed out, your desire to have me off your property is not an interACTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making some assumptions about what I consider "ownership" of land.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long and storied history of the human race, of our ascent (if you will) from apes to whatever it is that walk this earth today, is not so easily broken down into "this caused that". You can't just say that "people put the government into power" because that has never, ever been how things went down. The government, the culture, the economy and every other facet of society are all part of a complex, dynamic network of cause and effect. People change the government, the government changes the people. This is how it has always been.

What property rights do we really have in this, or other, countries? Every first world country was established by the brutal slaughter of some tribe or peoples that previously held these properties. The governments you see around you today have evolved from the ones that existed in those days, and it is only through their blatant disregard for the property of others that we have come to be here today. Some instititutions, some philosophies and some ideals still linger, while others have been outgrown or discarded. But to act as though we simply had a group of people who cared strongly for something, and that these people are not the direct result of the societies that came before them, that is lunacy.

I support, as I said, a governing institution. I support a cohesive social unit that extends beyond a man, and beyond merely his family. This means social goals, social planning, social problem solving. We need institutions that mediate between people, that work on behalf of the people, that secure the rights of people to self-determination in the face of external pressure. Is it possible that the market could provide the services of policing, education, mediating property disputes and so forth? Certainly it is conceivable. It is simply that I have little desire to live in such a "cold" society. I prefer my institutions to have history, to have character, to have stories behind them. This is not possible or even desirable in every arena, but the world that ACists paint is simply unappealing to me in it's entirety. To each his own.

What we do agree on, however, is what is needed. Much as you said that we currently have property rights and education because this is what is valued, we currently have lost our freedom because this is not was is valued. It is a shame that the principles which are those that are country was supposedly built on have been left by the way side, and it is our duty, if we are to take seriously our political beliefs, to be vigilent on behalf of these principles.