Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's not an issue in Ac. If people don't like something and feel that it is growing too large they just stop paying for it and it shrinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh but it is, any group with guns can demand your money, unless you're immune from bullets, in which case you'll likely destroy us all.

[ QUOTE ]
It's really funny that you say if the tanks rolled up and Asked you for your money. I think it reveals something important in your psychology concerning the state. As if the gov't just politely asks you to do stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, the government takes taxes for some of the most wasteful things with the implied threat of violence all the time, the bastards.

Funny aside, I had "it's funny you mention that 100, that sounds an awful lot like taxes to me" in my last post but I wanted to let you finish your set-up.

[ QUOTE ]
But they don't have any monetary resources.. they take our monetary resources, amirite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they didn't wake up with money, they took our money last year, and they're using it this year (save for their debt spending). If we had a muuuuuuch smaller government, they wouldn't have the monetary base to fund a large home-invasion war.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's important that you claim that the government can only be limited if it limits itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this obvious, I already said people are greedy, if this is true, then it follows that without checks, people will make efforts to collect power. Now there are exceptions (see: George Washingon, a pretty nice guy) but for the most part, people would want more control over peoples lives. Have to have some way to keep that small.

Cody

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh but it is, any group with guns can demand your money, unless you're immune from bullets, in which case you'll likely destroy us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I hired a private insurance company that ensured my safety from such threats?

[ QUOTE ]
Funny aside, I had "it's funny you mention that 100, that sounds an awful lot like taxes to me" but I wanted to let you finish your set-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was supposed to sound like taxes.

[ QUOTE ]

Well they didn't wake up with money, they took our money last year, and they're using it this year (save for their debt spending). If we had a muuuuuuch smaller government, they wouldn't have the monetary base to fund a large home-invasion war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the need to fund a Large home-invasion war? Wouldn't they crush us immediately seeing as how we are so incapable of organizing ourselves as you have stated?

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this obvious, I already said people are greedy, if this is true, then it follows that without checks, people will make efforts to collect power. Now there are exceptions (see: George Washingon, a pretty nice guy) but for the most part, people would want more control over peoples lives. Have to have some way to keep that small.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, people want to collect power and control over eachother's lives. So what we Must do is form an institution that allows for exactly that! We must form a government because people are just so damn power hungry! Am I missing something, Cody? What am I not understanding? I mean fundamentally.. it seems like you recognize the evil of the state and taxation but you make excuses for it.. How come?

[tolbiny]

Yay, i got my own gimmick account.

Dear gimmicky,

[ QUOTE ]

We have indeed been through this. Ideas aren't scarce I agree. My car is blue. Non sequitur that either is not property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you followed through the conversations you might have noticed this

[ QUOTE ]
The same thing that happens when someone independently discovers your farm an hour after you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens every day on this forum, someone posts that IP is just like regular P. The fact that we have to continue to point out that physical objects and ideas are not identical (nor even similar) is a prerequisite to starting the conversation about how or why IP should be protected. Without making it clear that IP falls into a different category than physical P an intelligent conversation cannot happen. Much like having a debate on evolution V ID, if your opponent continues to call evolution a random process you have to correct them and explain how even though random mutations provide the information basis for natural selection, the actual selection process in non random. It is pointless to have a with someone who thinks that there is no difference between a physical thing and a non physical thing. As soon as people stop either asserting (or making the comparison between) that physical property and intellectual property are parallels, I promise to stop replying pointing out that the two are different.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I hired a private insurance company that ensured my safety from such threats?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll hire a bigger one/bribe the one you have to do nothing because I have more money, goodnight nurse. Any number of other awful things and you have no recourse, except your town/commune's arbiter, good luck holding me to your "laws".

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the need to fund a Large home-invasion war? Wouldn't they crush us immediately seeing as how we are so incapable of organizing ourselves as you have stated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait what? If we're talking government, they're going to need the home invasion war, although they probably would go slower. Of course if they kill us, then it's just the army, 535 senators and reps, and assorted aids and officers. Why bbe a tyrant if you have no people to govern.

[ QUOTE ]
So, people want to collect power and control over eachother's lives. So what we Must do is form an institution that allows for exactly that! We must form a government because people are just so damn power hungry!

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a little leap, but uhh...yes? I can't really argue with that if you assume that the only outcome of government is power consolodation. We already discussed that government can be monitored, yet you assume that it's impossbile.

[ QUOTE ]
Cody?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes?

[ QUOTE ]
I mean fundamentally.. it seems like you recognize the evil of the state and taxation

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer-Yes
Long answer-Sorta, I recognize that government CAN be evil (certainly you wouldn't say that a community of willing ACers [which would be a government] would be evil right, I mean they did all agree). Government CAN be evil, but it's not always evil. As for taxation, yeah it's pretty evil, but...

[ QUOTE ]
but you make excuses for it.. How come?

[/ QUOTE ]

...sometimes we need it. I promise I'm not trying to drag my feet here. The reason I agree to some (limited) government is because of those things that the free market can't handle. I, and Jog, have given some examples here that PVN refuses to address. You've been polite thus far, so I'm gonna ask for a favor, go look at those questions (my pharm example, scarcity of land for roads, etc) and give me some answers. I'm looking for an ACer's take on these. I'm not going to decry AC simply because you (or anyone that attempts) can answer the questions (though I do believe it's flawed, though that should be obvious),I would really just like to get an ACer's opinion. Help a brotha out.

Cody

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
No, beyond question it inhibits cloning. Whether some of the clones might improve the original is a question we could debate, but that the inability to profit from one's ideas does in fact diminish progress is an economic axiom. The only RESULT that is true beyond doubt, precisely as I mentioned above, is that IP protection incents progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Innovations are sequential and complimentary. Humans aren't inventing wheels and clubs anymore. IP protection does not axiomatically drive progress one way or the other.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that most people have no trouble seeing that government control over the press is a very bad idea while they push for more government control over the schools (public education)?

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't. The largest labor union in America does. Gee, a special interest group swaying the elected leadership for their own personal gain at the expense of everyone else, what a shocker!

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 40,000 people die every year on government roads. That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads
[ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -> Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source -> logical reasoning.

Rampant speeders, drunk drivers, narrow lanes, dangerous curves, all on private property? Think about the contributory negligence verdicts that would occur before private owners took measures to fix each of these death dealers.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll hire a bigger one/bribe the one you have to do nothing because I have more money, goodnight nurse. Any number of other awful things and you have no recourse, except your town/commune's arbiter, good luck holding me to your "laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you hire a bigger one? Insurance companies don't provide protection when you attack someone and they defend. My car insurance doesn't pay out if I take a hammer to it. You would only bribe my company if the amount that it would take to bribe them is less than the amount that you could take from me. It would take a lot to bribe the insurance company because the force of the negative reputation would cost them profit. I'd get on the horn to my friends and family and say "hey, spread the word about that god damn insurance company being evil crooks".
As far as laws go.. jesus christ that's complicated but if cell phone providers can find a way to make it work so that they can call eachother then we could find a way to make laws work. Though exactly how it would work is far beyond my mental capacity.

[ QUOTE ]
You made a little leap, but uhh...yes? I can't really argue with that if you assume that the only outcome of government is power consolodation. We already discussed that government can be monitored, yet you assume that it's impossbile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not assuming it's impossible. I'm saying that it has never worked. The entire history of the state is about its expansion. It only stops expanding when it collapses. Am I incorrect here? I could be.. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about all this as I'd like to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer-Yes
Long answer-Sorta, I recognize that government CAN be evil (certainly you wouldn't say that a community of willing ACers [which would be a government] would be evil right, I mean they did all agree). Government CAN be evil, but it's not always evil. As for taxation, yeah it's not so good, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

If they consent then that is not government. Government is about no consent. It's like if I agree to rape then it's not rape. Part of the definition is that I don't want to be raped.

As for the pharmacies and ro-ads.. roods.. roeds.. (Chris Farley obviously): I haven't researched Ip enough to give you an answer as to how it would work. Roads are easy though. If people are willing to pay to use a road then some capitalist pig will find a way to slim their wallets.

p.s. I linked to some podcasts on roads earlier if you care to listen to them.

p.p.s. Your entire outlook concerning utilitarianism is about your family. la famiglia. "Help a brotha out" Ok brother. Here it is. You believe that people must be Forced to do what you think they should do. And if they refuse your force then they are evil and deserve punishment.. Mom and Dad. I'm sure I sound like a hippy but seriously I'm utterly convinced that the problem we are having is caused by how you view your parents.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 40,000 people die every year on government roads. That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads
[ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -> Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source -> logical reasoning.

Rampant speeders, drunk drivers, narrow lanes, dangerous curves, all on private property? Think about the contributory negligence verdicts that would occur before private owners took measures to fix each of these death dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Also, the safest roads would attract all of the business and the most dangerous roads would be abandoned. Thus constantly moving the market to safer and safer roads.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
The myth that government has monopoly control, territorial or otherwise, in these areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know what myth you are referring to. Governments have a territorial monopoly on violence. Thats it.

Now of course it can use that monopoly on force to do whatever the [censored] it wants, like monopolize justice, mintage, postal services, or anything not currently under its preferred level of control. Or it can demonopolize any of those, as it has with certain things.

The only constant, defining monopoly is violent force though. Without a monopoly on violence, I and millions like me stop paying taxes, and then it all crumbles.

This isn't an AC myth. Im pretty sure its in my Intro to Econ textbook, somewhere in the back.