Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the problems which plague an entirely "free market" political system also plague a "free market" economic system, but that it's not as bad in the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all great OP xorbie. I disagree with a lot of what you usually post but property rights is something I'm interested in as I dont believe the AC homesteading arguement is all that convincing.

As for this quoted bit it seems to me like you are talking about innefficiencies of getting resources into peoples hands. The market isnt 100% efficient and government is much less efficient at fufilling the needs of consumers, obviously I dont need to tell you this. I just believe at some point the idea that we accept a decrease in efficiency for a more equitable distribution of goods breaks down.

The government is just a smoke screen for solving the problems of the distribution of goods because the government is just a representation of the desires of a large number of people. Why do we need a third party to take our goods to give to those that lack those goods? Why cant we just do it ourselves and elimintate the middle man? I think the big secret of government and socialism is that the majority of people actually care about those that lack consumer goods.

I also believe the growth of government eventually prevents the equitable redistribution of goods because violence destroys wealth and the threat of violence disincentivizes producers to produce. So there may be some point of minarchy where government improves the overall quality of life but I dont believe the improvements are greater than the long term risk of government reducing the quality of life in the long run.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to imply that people are avoiding his better arguments intentionally because we don't have a good answer for them?

[/ QUOTE ]
People will always go after the weakest points. I'm not saying that's necesarrily bad. And I'm not really calling the second half of his post "weak" so much as it's kind of fuzzy. I'm just curious to see some AC opinions on "natural rights" and on xorbies point about rights and force. I was disappointed that there has only been one post in response to that.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]


If you're worried that saying too much will get you into trouble, then maybe you ought rethink your position. Looking back to algebra class in high school, I was never worried the teacher was going to tell me things that were less true as it got later in the period.

[/ QUOTE ]
not what I said at all. saying too much will lessen the chance of the most interesting (matter of opinion obv.) points getting addressed.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to imply that people are avoiding his better arguments intentionally because we don't have a good answer for them?

[/ QUOTE ]
People will always go after the weakest points. I'm not saying that's necesarrily bad. And I'm not really calling the second half of his post "weak" so much as it's kind of fuzzy. I'm just curious to see some AC opinions on "natural rights" and on xorbies point about rights and force. I was disappointed that there has only been one post in response to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fair enough. With all the attacks on ACers' "dishonesty" (lol) lately, I just wasn't sure if you meant "this is the way it will naturally be" or that people were being misleading.

I'll probably be away from the internet for a day or so starting soon, otherwise I'd also welcome the conversation.

Maybe I'll respond to the OP when I get back if this thread is still going.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If you're worried that saying too much will get you into trouble, then maybe you ought rethink your position. Looking back to algebra class in high school, I was never worried the teacher was going to tell me things that were less true as it got later in the period.

[/ QUOTE ]
not what I said at all. saying too much will lessen the chance of the most interesting (matter of opinion obv.) points getting addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the more you say, sure, the less likely it is any one particular point will be addressed. I don't really consider this a problem since like you say interest is subjective.

But I see what you mean. You were just personally disappointed.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument it's a fact. You cannot hold nature responsible for its actions in the way you can hold a human being responsible for theirs. Nature has no compunction to be consistent in its moral rules. The fact that nature is violent and arbitrary doesn't mean that humans get to be violent and arbitrary because they are in different moral categories.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say fact, but I can hold people accountable or unaccountable for whatever I damn well please,

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly can but I'd like to see you try it with nature. That's exactly my point. They have a different moral nature.

[ QUOTE ]

On top of that, it's lazy because you haven't explained how this has to do with the topic at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one that brought up nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are still not communicating correctly. I'll try again.

I brought up nature. If you do not occasionally buy things, you will die. This is more true in some societies than others, and there may be conditions under which it is not true at all. However, under most conditions it is true.

You then counter than nature is a different moral category than people. Did I bring up nature? Yes. Does this mean that you saying "nature is beautiful" is relevant? No. Please explain to me what these moral categories actually have to do with the matter at hand, which is that people have to buy things.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Nature isn't a "somebody".

I already mentioned earlier in this thread that the "work or die" strawman was getting wheeled out.

The fact that nature imposes some requirements on you isn't really relevant, because there's no moral choice made to impose those - it's just the result of the laws of physics. Further, these requirements are imposed upon everyone. We all have to eat.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, you're doing the same thing. "Different moral category". So the god damn what? If I don't eat and die, you can't blame anyone morally. Am I less dead? Not really.

In many threads, statists argue that "if you don't like it, leave". ACists argue that this is unfair, that leaving a large area that a state covers because you don't like the imposition of force that the state represents is an unreasonable request.

Well, you can't have it both ways. When I am born into an ACist society (with strong property rights), there is a really, really good chance that perfect autonomy is impossible without - guess what - my leaving the area. If I don't own a lot of fertile land or have a lot of money (i.e. most people) I need to enter into the wage economy. You can say this is nature's fault, but it is no less a result of the society that people have set up.

This isn't an issue of blame. It is an issue of people being forced, by the fundamental set up of society and nature that they are born into, to do something that involves following rules that are external to their "pure survival" if you will allow some vague phrasing.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hermitization canard. Retaining autonomy does not mean you have to live as an individual. People can voluntarily work and live together while retaining full autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and if you think that "voluntarily working and living together" is congruous with "retaining full autonomy" I'd say you are living in fantasy land. Unless by "autonomy" you simply mean "makes choices and have to deal with results which may often be quite negative and involve being ostracized by the group".

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the problems which plague an entirely "free market" political system also plague a "free market" economic system, but that it's not as bad in the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all great OP xorbie. I disagree with a lot of what you usually post but property rights is something I'm interested in as I dont believe the AC homesteading arguement is all that convincing.

As for this quoted bit it seems to me like you are talking about innefficiencies of getting resources into peoples hands. The market isnt 100% efficient and government is much less efficient at fufilling the needs of consumers, obviously I dont need to tell you this. I just believe at some point the idea that we accept a decrease in efficiency for a more equitable distribution of goods breaks down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the market is generally (overwhelming majority), but not always, more efficient at delivering goods to people.

[ QUOTE ]
The government is just a smoke screen for solving the problems of the distribution of goods because the government is just a representation of the desires of a large number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The crux of my argument is that the market is just a representation of the desires of a large number of dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we need a third party to take our goods to give to those that lack those goods? Why cant we just do it ourselves and elimintate the middle man? I think the big secret of government and socialism is that the majority of people actually care about those that lack consumer goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem is that you can consider the health of the poor a public good. People want the poor to be better off (our brain is hardwired this way, so it's more or less true in some than others but is a somewhat universal trait), but that doesn't mean they want to be the one to do anything about.

Does this mean the government should be the one providing the services? Not necessarily, I think charities are often more efficient. However, I think some interesting studies have shown that people are often more effective when they force themselves to be locked into making a decision like donating to charity. So one could imagine in Xorbieland, there would simply be a law that on "Tax Day" you had to donate X% of your money to one of a few charities.

I think it is a huge myth that "state" involves "government" to be honest. A very minimal government can still lead to a fairly unified, strong, fairly independent state that has some measure of independence.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe the growth of government eventually prevents the equitable redistribution of goods because violence destroys wealth and the threat of violence disincentivizes producers to produce. So there may be some point of minarchy where government improves the overall quality of life but I dont believe the improvements are greater than the long term risk of government reducing the quality of life in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess you agree, and the question is just where those points are. I'm certainly no proponent of "big government" and particularly not "big federal government". I think that, along with just the problems of scale (more and more bureaucracy becomes more and more costly and inefficient and corrupt), there is a problem of distance. Physical distance, but also abstract distance - chain of command.

Similarly, the problems with the "free market" get worse (or become apparent) with increased scale. The further and further away from me the "market decisions" that affect me and how my money are spent, the more detrimental an affect on my quality of life.

With large government, the "one rule to rule all" decisions are made at a level which I cannot directly appeal to and which is made with the needs and wants of too many people who live too differently from me in mind. In a large market, the prices and types of goods that are available for me are going to be the prices and types of goods that people who aren't me need.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have any legitimate authority to delegate for ME, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are in my society, yes I do.