David Sklansky is an ACist

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Well sure. But most political preferences eventually expose some bias that is contradictory to what other human beings fundamentally value. I'm yet to see one for AC, other than the bias that human nature is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do human beings fundamentally value? What is the basis for proposed bias that human nature is good, and how do one define good in this expression?

[ALawPoker]

Why do you think morality is subjective?

Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

To address your initial question though, I'm not sure what it means to "be" an ACist. I don't really consider myself one. I'm just some drunk [censored] minding my own business, drinking coffee to try to stay up for a while and get back on a good sleep cycle. Does that count? I figure David is probably the same way. But my point (to whatever extent I have one) in the OP is not merely that David's logic supports AC but that he is actively aware of where his logic leads (even if maybe he doesn't really care enough to label himself). I just think he is a closet anarcho-capitalist, haha.

[Nielsio]

The burden of proof is layed out here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
What does it even mean to be an ACist?

[/ QUOTE ]


An ACist is essentially the same as a voluntaryist. From the voluntaryist (V for Voluntary) facebook group:

[ QUOTE ]
This group is for people who support voluntary human relationships in their ideas and also in their actions.

This group is not for people who are authoritarian either in their ideas or in their actions.


Frequent questions:
Q: If I vote, am I an authoritarian?
A: Most people who vote are authoritarians in their ideas (statists), however writing on a piece of paper is itself not an act of violent aggression. For example: anyone can declare war on a country but it really doesn't matter much. What matters is what you *do*.

Q: I support voluntary interactions in most cases, but I believe there are times when coercive force is justified, outside of direct self-defense. Am I a voluntaryist?
A: Voluntarism is a moral principle. Moral principles are universal statements. Either you support the principle universally or you can not be said to hold it. If you hold that violent aggression is justified in some cases then you are an authoritarian because you think that the moral principle does not exist!

[/ QUOTE ]
(I'd link this, but I'm not sure it's allowed)



Also, the Fundamentals of Voluntaryism
http://www.voluntaryist.com/fundamen...troduction.php

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

[tame_deuces]

Some stuff from the linked website in quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what this means. A government order can't break a leg, but it can give the command to mend a broken leg is just as true.

And you certainly can bestow most accepted definitions of intelligence on someone, it is a training thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political."

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone sure loves their play on words, both historically and logically speaking this statement is highly debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is extremely debatable using what we currently know in psychology, and shows a very simplified view of how humans make decisions. How is AC going to deal with the fact that humans tend to follow - regardless of their own moral stance of their actions (A principle which has shown consistency across all known cultures, genders and personality types)?

[ QUOTE ]
A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic value of the statement also remains exactly the same if you exchange government with 'My neighbour', and again, I don't know what this means, I'm quite certain that the government can influences philosophy of life.

I'm actually fairly certain that some people become voluntaryists because of their governments.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting view and utterly confusing. What is the definition of corruption here?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I happen think your idea of morality is pretty ridiculous, but I tried to be polite. Since you'll eventually realize you have a losing hand, you might want to be polite too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior. The (social and natural) evolutionary ramification ensues. But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
How does that resemble morals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't think it's "morally good" to take you down and steal your chics? I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does all of existence really revolve around human beings? A virus doesn't have to do "good" in the way we interpret "good" to survive if it is equipped to handle our attempts to kill it. If we couple kill the HIV virus, wouldn't we?

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[ QUOTE ]
We design our moral/ethical code.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that bias is the reason.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I happen think your idea of morality is pretty ridiculous, but I tried to be polite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Always good to be polite, if you can manage =)

[ QUOTE ]
Since you'll eventually realize you have a losing hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I doubt it is me with the losing hand here, but if you can show this to me I'd be much grateful.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior. The (social and natural) evolutionary ramification ensues. But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

This being a good thing or not, would depend on your moral position, but in any case, the point is that it's been designed, it didn't come about by a natural process of evolution, but by an artificial one: culture. *1

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does that resemble morals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't think it's "morally good" to take you down and steal your chics? I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely pointing out that your idea that morals today evolve MAINLY by a process of natural selection and thus natural evolution, is wrong. The selection process is mostly artificial, and so is the evolution process.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does all of existence really revolve around human beings? A virus doesn't have to do "good" in the way we interpret "good" to survive if it is equipped to handle our attempts to kill it. If we couple kill the HIV virus, wouldn't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you meant here, but if I got it right, you didn't get me right when I used the term "anybody" to refer only to the hosts, and not to the parasites/viruses/memes themselves. I thought about using another term at the time, but I thought what I said next would clarify what I meant. Maybe it didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you're walking right into my trap! Please don't make it that easy...

Are you aware that the same applies to your particular moral/ethical code? It too could be a burden that would eventually die out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We design our moral/ethical code.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

By thinking about what we want for ourselves and others, and communicating it to others, hearing them out, form new conclusions, etc. Just like we do with any other cultural idea. *1

I don't think I got your point here, if there was one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't understand what you meant here.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Hellooo? That is what I said.





*1 - Here I'm using the word "culture" in the evolutionary sense, to mean the knowledge, thoughts, experiences, and techonology, that we pass on from generation to generation, that is not included in our genes.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
the point is that it's been designed, it didn't come about by a natural process of evolution, but by an artificial one: culture. *1

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is culture not a function of "evolution"? Why (referring to your note thingamajig) do you believe the actions that contribute to "culture" are not "included in our genes." If I grill a steak, bake an apple pie, and wave an American flag, what exactly is driving my action? Why is the desire to pass down knowledge to future generations not "included in our genes"? What exactly are you saying? Do aliens sometimes make decisions for me that I'm not aware of?

In any event, this semantical tangent is sort of irrelevant to the point. Whether you want to call it natural selection or social selection (and I already said it's both) or whatever, my point (stemming back to your first reply in this thread) is that regardless of how we arrive at "morals," we arrive there because the morals have a logically defensible foundation.

It isn't bad to steal because "it just is" or because some dude wrote that it was on a stone. I could logically explain why the action of stealing is detrimental. So, getting back to your original disagreement, I think it's pretty clear that one can examine a person's logical applications of various situations as insight into their moral conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you meant here, but if I got it right, you didn't get me right when I used the term "anybody" to refer only to the hosts, and not to the parasites/viruses/memes themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get why you'd look at it that way. Why is a virus concerned with doing things that its host interprets as "good" if it can survive anyways? All it is concerned is doing what's good *for it*, i.e. surviving.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you're walking right into my trap! Please don't make it that easy...

Are you aware that the same applies to your particular moral/ethical code? It too could be a burden that would eventually die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*, but the whole point is that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending. If it did turn out that my "ethical code" was in fact a burden, then nature would correct the mistake, and it wouldn't be contradictory to what I'm saying here in the least. All it would mean is I (being a human, and not an omniscient force) made a mistake. I don't see why this is a problem, or what point you think you're making.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

By thinking about what we want for ourselves and others, and communicating it to others, hearing them out, form new conclusions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, by logically examining which values are best? Are you willing to concede the point that morals do not exist without underlying logical justification?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't understand what you meant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it. Why do you think it's a problem if people behave differently?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Hellooo? That is what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm... liiike, no you dinnnnnnn't, sistah.

If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share. And the differences between our ethical sets are based on our differing experiences and logical applications. So, you are basically agreeing with me that you can examine a person's logical application of various situations to get some insight into his ethical set.


EDIT: This post is so long that you MUST be a pro by now.