a quick thought

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nick is not saying "Other rights might sometimes be more important than property rights" like you are. He is saying "What if person X doesn't believe in property rights (at all)?"

[/ QUOTE ]

ACists are always saying, "If I don't believe in your morality, you have no right to force it upon me." I'm just saying that AC itself forces a morality upon everyone living under it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain the fantasy world u envision in which a moral conflict never arises. Otherwise it seems to me that your arguement amounts to "AC isn't perfect"

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Are we comparing AC to the present system and other possible realities or are we comparing AC to a fantasy utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]

The second comparison is really more fair, isn't it?...since AC itself only exists as a fantasy utopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is a possible reality. There are other possible realities and they would all have conflicts all the time, just like todays reality does.

Compaing it to communism, whatever, is fair and reasonable. To suggest a scenario in which one individual would be unhappy as an objection to any of these possible realities and use that to claim that the system is therefore invalid is assinine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I want to know where the heck people are getting this "AC'ism =utopia" thing from. I'm quite sure no Ac'ist has claimed that an AC'ist society would be anything like that.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nick do you recognize that if no one can enforce a property claim over a piece of land, no one would be willing to make a permanent improvement to the land, such as any kind of agriculture or standing structure? After all, if you leave it for a minute anyone else can come along and claim it ("I have the right to be where I am now") right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I recognize this.

And in the interest of the things you mention, we (currently the state) coercively force a particular conception of property rights onto people, whether they agree with this belief or not. And this is a very good thing.

ACists, however, claim that they would not force any set of beliefs onto unwilling people. I'm just trying to point out that AC society would require the same coercive acceptance of property rights that statism does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would also require the same coercive acceptance of not raping 2 year olds in the town square and chopping it's head off and playing soccer with it afterwards.

There can be no real world existance I can envision in which everyone gets their needs met at all times and no one has to forgo a satiation of their desires.

If you can enlighten me as to how such as world could exist and there would never be a conflict please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that so many ACists come here and argue not that AC is a better society that adopts a better moral code than our existing society, but that ACist is the only possible correct way of organizing society because it: (take your pick of any or all)
- Is somehow "inherent"
- Can be logically deduced
- is the only society that is completely free of coercion

You can't argue against this sort of argument by comparing AC to the real world. The only way to do so it to point out the logical inconsistencies in the abstract.

For example, if you are going to claim that AC is the only correct society because it categorically doesn't coerce, you had better be prepared to defend that principle against some pretty absurd examples.

[bkholdem]

I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nick do you recognize that if no one can enforce a property claim over a piece of land, no one would be willing to make a permanent improvement to the land, such as any kind of agriculture or standing structure? After all, if you leave it for a minute anyone else can come along and claim it ("I have the right to be where I am now") right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I recognize this.

And in the interest of the things you mention, we (currently the state) coercively force a particular conception of property rights onto people, whether they agree with this belief or not. And this is a very good thing.

ACists, however, claim that they would not force any set of beliefs onto unwilling people. I'm just trying to point out that AC society would require the same coercive acceptance of property rights that statism does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would also require the same coercive acceptance of not raping 2 year olds in the town square and chopping it's head off and playing soccer with it afterwards.

There can be no real world existance I can envision in which everyone gets their needs met at all times and no one has to forgo a satiation of their desires.

If you can enlighten me as to how such as world could exist and there would never be a conflict please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that so many ACists come here and argue not that AC is a better society that adopts a better moral code than our existing society, but that ACist is the only possible correct way of organizing society because it: (take your pick of any or all)
- Is somehow "inherent"
- Can be logically deduced
- is the only society that is completely free of coercion

You can't argue against this sort of argument by comparing AC to the real world. The only way to do so it to point out the logical inconsistencies in the abstract.

For example, if you are going to claim that AC is the only correct society because it categorically doesn't coerce, you had better be prepared to defend that principle against some pretty absurd examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well I don't agree that land ownership is magically inherent. I 'accept' that using property rights is a useful way to interact but do not see it as morally superior to a communal property society.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I am somewhat more clear on your position of property but still far from crystal clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to fend off all the "taxes are theft"-arguments before stating my view. I think that current property is owned by the current juridical owners, it isn't really fair, at least not in Europe, but it is the only realistic practical way. Then I believe that the one owning the property is most entitled to it and also whoever creates new value is most entitled to it (or whoever he has handed those rights). And I believed you need a good reason to restrict people's right to control/use/keep their own property.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...ACists want to impose their AC morality on me, just like I want the state to impose my statist morality on them. How do we decide which morality to impose? In my view, that's why we have democracy.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...ACists want to impose their AC morality on me, just like I want the state to impose my statist morality on them. How do we decide which morality to impose? In my view, that's why we have democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that statists want to impose a whole heck of a lot more on me than ACists, hense my utilitarian ass chooses ACism.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...ACists want to impose their AC morality on me, just like I want the state to impose my statist morality on them. How do we decide which morality to impose? In my view, that's why we have democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But democracy is ONE of the many competing moralities. It's not some external fair arbitrator between them.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Societies have existed for centuries that acknowledge the right to be free from violence but don't acknowledge the permanent ownership of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, extremely primitive societies have done this... and remained primitive because of it.