AC and power

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet at the same time, you are working towards a goal which you clearly do not fully understand. This seems problematic, and calling what are IMO central problems "hypotheticaly details" seems disingenuous at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are your goals as they relate to AC again? What are you trying to gain in engaging in discussion with me in this thread?

[xorbie]

Intellectual masturbation?

I wanted an explanation, I'm not sure there is one, none was given.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Intellectual masturbation?

I wanted an explanation, I'm not sure there is one, none was given.

[/ QUOTE ]

My grandmother used to say "people in hell want ice water"


and come to think of it, maybe this is why I am a pragmatist and not an idealist.

[xorbie]

Epistomologically pragmatist? I doubt it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Epistomologically pragmatist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean or imply?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your personal convictions don't change the immoral nature of using violence against innocents, even if you think the alternative of letting people do what they want is even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal conviction is that violence against innocents is a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're no longer undecided?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that letting people do what they want is even worse. I'm saying that it doesn't make a difference to me if it's individuals 'doing what they want' initiating force, or a state doing it, or a private company in a stateless society. If it's more likely to happen to me in an AC society, or if the severity of force initiated is likely to be significantly worse, then it's not appealing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's going to be violence no matter what. This leaves you with a few dilemmas.

1) Given that you don't like violence, what are you going to do about it?

2) Given that you don't like violence, if you choose a state because you fear the unknown of a stateless society, how are you going to rationalize supporting it?

[ QUOTE ]
Since we are both speculating about what an AC society would look like, of course it matters if I am convinced it could work. It can't work if people aren't convinced of it and invested in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that a state can work. Now what?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If things realy do turn out as bad as you say they will, won't people be *willing* to join some sort of state-like organization? Why do you think that this state-like organization, that arises voluntarily, would be incapable of doing what involuntary states do?

[/ QUOTE ]

You and bk were just telling me that such a purely voluntary state isn't really a state at all, that it doesn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether it "counts" or not is not the issue in this question. If such a voluntary arrangement arose, why would it be incapble of providing whatever security that a state is capable of?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh. So under AC, your worst case scenario is basically the status quo.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I could conceive of things being better or worse. I'm asking what safegaurds are in place to ensure they don't get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. It depends on what the individuals invovled do.

What safeguards are in place in a state to ensure things don't get worse?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're no longer undecided?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being against illegitimate violence doesn't make me an anarchist. You do not hold a monopoly on claims to nonviolence.

What am I going to do about violence? I'm not going to initiate violence against anyone, and to the extent that I'm able, I'm going to discourage others from doing so either. That's what I decided to do a long time ago, and I have.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether it "counts" or not is not the issue in this question. If such a voluntary arrangement arose, why would it be incapble of providing whatever security that a state is capable of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's the issue. We got off on this entire tangent because Borodog claimed that the state is, by definition, an initiator of illegitimate force. When I responded with a definition that did not include force, you and bk responded that such an arrangement is not really a state. And yet now you are asking me why just such an arrangement couldn't provide all the services we typically expect from a government.

Well, if such an arrangement succeeds in providing the services of a state, then it's a state, and your previous objection to my definition doesn't really hold water. To answer your question: do I think it could happen? I think a state operating via voluntary cooperation and assent, high in participation and enfranchisement, has a much better chance of legitimately providing services than one which does not.

You're not convinced that a state can work. Me neither. Now what?

Well, for one, if you think you can do better, you have to give me security that isn't dependent on my ability to pay for it. Because right now, that's what I've got.

[Barfunkel]

[ QUOTE ]


There is only one way to settle this in a civilized fashion: democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is absurd. I don't want to vote, I want to PAY for the best colour.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're no longer undecided?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being against illegitimate violence doesn't make me an anarchist. You do not hold a monopoly on claims to nonviolence.

What am I going to do about violence? I'm not going to initiate violence against anyone, and to the extent that I'm able, I'm going to discourage others from doing so either. That's what I decided to do a long time ago, and I have.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether it "counts" or not is not the issue in this question. If such a voluntary arrangement arose, why would it be incapble of providing whatever security that a state is capable of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's the issue. We got off on this entire tangent because Borodog claimed that the state is, by definition, an initiator of illegitimate force. When I responded with a definition that did not include force, you and bk responded that such an arrangement is not really a state. And yet now you are asking me why just such an arrangement couldn't provide all the services we typically expect from a government.

Well, if such an arrangement succeeds in providing the services of a state, then it's a state, and your previous objection to my definition doesn't really hold water. To answer your question: do I think it could happen? I think a state operating via voluntary cooperation and assent, high in participation and enfranchisement, has a much better chance of legitimately providing services than one which does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now a market is a state? You want to redefine words, then claim that I oppose something under your definition because I said I oppose something using that word, even though I used a different definition. This sort of semantical BS is usually what ACers are accused of engaging in, and this sort of semantical BS is also what is usually accused of making this forum unreadable. And it's true.

Mr. X: I don't like ice cream, but I like hot dogs.
Mr. Y: What if I put hot dogs in an ice cream container? Then you would dislike hot dogs!

If you want to call a fuzzy bunny "the state" and claim I don't like it because it's named that, then go right ahead.

Let me go back to a question you neglected:

Does a "state", in whatever definition you're using, have exclusive control over a set of geographical points?

In other words, can I, living on one piece of property, freely move my property out of one "state" and into another, in the same way I might change my homeowner's insurnace from one company to another?

[ QUOTE ]
You're not convinced that a state can work. Me neither. Now what?

Well, for one, if you think you can do better, you have to give me security that isn't dependent on my ability to pay for it. Because right now, that's what I've got.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you [censored]. In fact, that's the entire point - you're not entitled to anything from me. What you may or may not have under the status quo is immaterial - you beg the question of what you have being legitimate in the first place.