Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-01-2006, 03:39 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: Tyranny in AC land

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, what would happen under statism if someone amasses 51% of the known wealth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's a good thing no matter what. I just think it'd be easier to amass that much wealth under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it would be much, much harder. You wouldn't have the government protecting you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government protects my wealth now? Lol at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you rich? Cause that's who they protect.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-01-2006, 03:40 PM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,347
Default Re: Tyranny in AC land

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Suppose I am lost in the woods and starving. I stumble upon your locked cabin, break in, and use the telephone to summon help. Being both grateful and responsible, I leave you an envelope containing enough money to pay for the damage several times over. The exchange is not voluntary; you did not give me permission to break into your cabin. But, just as with a voluntary transaction, we have both ended up better off (assuming my calculation of how much to leave was correct), so there was a net improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can only be right if you assume that you can assign the correct value of the apple to the cabin owner. If he is also starving and relying upon that apple for enough sustinence to walk into town to get food then no amount of money will make up for the fact that he is no condemmed to death by your actions. The author makes the ASSUMPTION that he can correctly assign how another person value's a product, time or service. On the other hand a person in a voluntary trade makes the assumption only for himself not for another, and so the analogy fails. (the analogy also fails because AC is anarco- CAPITILISM and assumes that there is enough basic nessecities met to allow for the accumulation of capital. No system can make 3 apples feed 4 people if each person needs 1 apple to live).

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't look at me, this is your guy, David Friedman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because he supports a similar system doesn't make him "my guy". I disagree with his example

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, I thought the consequentialist arguments were given by David Friedman. Friedman is a special kind of irony, because in The Machinery of Freedom he utterly demolishes most of the deontological justifications for anarchocapitalism

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why i disagree that he effectively demolishes deongological arguments for AC.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-01-2006, 03:41 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: Tyranny in AC land

[ QUOTE ]
There is really not much point in arguing what-ifs when it comes to anarchocapitalism. AC is justified by its proponents philosophically. If we adopted AC and our technological society collapsed back to a pre-industrial agrarian society, it wouldn't matter to its proponents. If an asteroid were discovered on the way and the market couldn't solve the situation and humanity perished as a result, it simply wouldn't matter.

ACers don't really care what happens to society as a result of adopting AC--that's not why they support AC. They support AC because they believe that government is immoral, and that the free market is the only logical arbiter of human interaction. Period, the end. Of course, the typical ACer thinks that society will be better off, but that is not the motivation behind the ACer.

As a result, it's pointless to discuss AC from the standpoint of "what if". It's not like anyone freaking knows what would happen anyway. The only way to argue it is to argue it from the standpoint of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an ACer, I pretty much have to agree with this.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-01-2006, 06:14 PM
TomCollins TomCollins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Approving of Iron\'s Moderation
Posts: 7,517
Default Re: Tyranny in AC land

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, what would happen under statism if someone amasses 51% of the known wealth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's a good thing no matter what. I just think it'd be easier to amass that much wealth under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it would be much, much harder. You wouldn't have the government protecting you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government protects my wealth now? Lol at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you rich? Cause that's who they protect.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the protection of stealing half your income!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-01-2006, 07:34 PM
Propertarian Propertarian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: FOOD It puts me in a good mood
Posts: 1,867
Default Re: Tyranny in AC land

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is really not much point in arguing what-ifs when it comes to anarchocapitalism. AC is justified by its proponents philosophically. If we adopted AC and our technological society collapsed back to a pre-industrial agrarian society, it wouldn't matter to its proponents. If an asteroid were discovered on the way and the market couldn't solve the situation and humanity perished as a result, it simply wouldn't matter.

ACers don't really care what happens to society as a result of adopting AC--that's not why they support AC. They support AC because they believe that government is immoral, and that the free market is the only logical arbiter of human interaction. Period, the end. Of course, the typical ACer thinks that society will be better off, but that is not the motivation behind the ACer.

As a result, it's pointless to discuss AC from the standpoint of "what if". It's not like anyone freaking knows what would happen anyway. The only way to argue it is to argue it from the standpoint of philosophy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As an ACer, I pretty much have to agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ] Scary.
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 06:14 PM.


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