Convert me.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it alarming that people could have such flawed ethics to hold the principles of ACism to be the ideal mode of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a problem with not initiating violence on people? Weird.

[DrunkHamster]

AS&U is a good book, but as others have said I don't think it will push you over the edge towards full on AC (if nothing else because Nozick argues for an ultra minimal state). You might also find the style a bit too much - it is very philosophically flashy, which I know some people find very irritating. However, there are some great arguments in there, in particular the demolition of the whole Rawlsian original position and the "liberty upsets patterns" Wilt Chamberlain argument.

The Machinery of Freedom is also great. It's essentially a defence of AC from entirely utilitarian grounds (without any Austrian economics to boot) - and you get the impression Friedman doesn't care much for the whole natural rights approach either. So if you're all in favour of AC in principle, but have some doubts about its practicality, this is the book to read.

[Nielsio]

OP,

I made this a while back in order to respond to questions such as yours:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

My suggestion would be to thoroughly go through that (including reading/listening to all the references).


If that doesn't do it for you then I'm pretty sure that it's not far away in the abstract ideas of the state that you should looking into but things much closer to home. (check out this to follow up on that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCAT4oob9hs )


Good luck!

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarcho-capitalism is rather abhorrent. I find it alarming that people could have such flawed ethics to hold the principles of ACism to be the ideal mode of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to elaborate? I find this confusing because no political system constitutes an entire ethical code or an 'ideal mode of life'.

I'm also not sure what 'ethics' you're referring to, since on a 'thin' conception of ACism the only ethic is the idea of self-ownership (not aggressing against others is good, no?), and 'thick' conceptions can vary widely so I don't think it would be fair to group them together w/o specifying exactly what it is you object to.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Conversion to an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist?

Anarcho-capitalism is rather abhorrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-capitalism is not a thing and therefore has no properties. Anarcho-capitalism is defined as the lack of violent territorial monopolies.

If the lack of violent territorial monopolies is 'abhorrent' then you must support the state and be a statist.

[TomCollins]

Please define what it means to be a territorial violent monopoly.

As long as there are two oppressing entities, its AC since its no longer a monopoly!

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define what it means to be a territorial violent monopoly.

As long as there are two oppressing entities, its AC since its no longer a monopoly!

[/ QUOTE ]

territorial monopoly.

[DrunkHamster]

Nielsio,

Of course ACers believe in territorial violent monopolies - under AC, everyone is the territorial monopolist on their own land and their own property, and they are justified in using violence in order to protect this.

What you really have to argue is that property is the *only* legitimate type of violent territorial monopoly, which is hard enough to convince people of without you purposefully mischaracterising your own position.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you make me an anarchist?

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Cute, but I really expected more from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're asking the question, you're already over the biggest hurdle; you're open to the idea; now it's just a matter of whether you're going to go with it or not. I don't think you need any more help.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

Of course ACers believe in territorial violent monopolies - under AC, everyone is the territorial monopolist on their own land and their own property, and they are justified in using violence in order to protect this.

[/ QUOTE ]


You've already said it but you don't see it. There is a difference between a territory and property. For example you own your body. And you have also acquired the rest of your property through voluntary means (or else it is not your property). A territory is acquired through physical violence (all states). This is immediately recognizable in how people deal with it. When you own something you care for it, and you take responsibility for it. When you violently acquire something, you pillage it and take no responsibility for it (or anything, for that matter).