Why Im no longer an ACist

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

How about this angle: Humans are selfish by nature (not completely, but mostly). In that sense, an organized body with the right authority is needed to help distribute resources, reduce separation between classes, etc. Obviously not to the extreme (communism) but enough to give the poor decent conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans' selfish nature works in favor of capitalism as trades usually benefit both parties. A lumberjack cuts down trees, but there is no sense in hoarding cut trees so he trades some of them to a guy who makes furniture, but it doesn't make sense for the guy to hoard furniture so he trades them for food, ect, ect. Henry Ford is a classic example of this, he organized an auto plant in such a way that he was able to produce cars cheap enough for the majority to afford them. At the same time that he did this his workers were getting paid some of the highest wages in the country, and at the same time as this Henry Ford got rich as [censored].

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are selfish by nature (not completely, but mostly). In that sense, an organized body with the right authority is needed to help distribute resources, reduce separation between classes, etc. Obviously not to the extreme (communism) but enough to give the poor decent conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dont you see how contradictory this statement is? Humans are selfish so we need a representative democracy to make sure people stay in line. wtf?

People arent selfish, people actually care a lot about others in their communities and abroad. We know this because they vote in leaders who claim to take care of the poor!

The sad thing is, is that people lack complete information (oh wait dont we need government to solve this too?) of how little the government helps the poor and so people arent going to go above and beyond what they pay in taxes. Hence, you get this impression that people dont give to charity. But everyone is already giving to charity, even if they dont want to.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just add really quick, I am no longer an advocate of democracy. It's time and age is gone. There was a time when it became needed, in order to increase effeciency to elect representatives. This is no longer the case. Anyone can choose to rep himself of ask anyone to represent him. Democracy was fantastic for the era of the recent past.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes you a fan of democracy, just not a fan of representative democracy.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scarce resources are the primary cause of poverty.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a view. I think that unequal, unbalanced, unfair, distribution and withholding, and waste, of scarce resources are the primary cause of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

unequal, unbalanced- this logically has nothing to do with poverty unless you measure it in only relative terms. For example, a millionaire in Beverly Hills is poor compared to his billionaire neighbor. I don't think you are concerned about this case. If it is the case, you are assuming there is only a fixed number of resources and that fixed number is very close to what we currently have. This isn't the case. In fact, by making things more "equal", there is also a great deal of loss in total resources. If you are an egalitarian who pities the millionaire in Beverly Hills due to his relative poverty, and would rather be a pauper in a society of paupers, this argument won't help much, and I don't think most people would agree with you.

unfair- This is entirely subjective. If someone redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the poor, this may be considered just as unfair as someone who is poor. Also, many resources cannot be transfered. For example, take hmk and his enormously small penis. He can never match up to Borodog and his enormous dong and therefore cannot have as hot of a wife. Do you intend to provide him a UBV (Universal Basic Vagina)?

distribution and withholding- you'll have to describe how this creates poverty. This just seems like a form of scarcity.

waste- agree that waste causes poverty. This is one of the reasons that I am against redistribution and unaccountable government agencies trying to "fix" these problems.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Humans are selfish but they are going to vote for a caring compassionate government to have power over them.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually not the contradiction you make it out to be. Part of the reason that governments work is that they create a social contract, whereby everyone is forced to provide their own share of the public good. We all may want to end poverty, but left on our own we may be willing to let others take care of it. Reasons for this may be that we like the idea of giving money to charity but don't really ever feel like doing it at any given moment, we may feel (as many do) that "what can I do" feeling, etc.

Taxation/forced volunteer work/similar programs give everyone a structure within which they can feel they are doing their part, the problem is being solved and society is a cohesive unit.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Failure to find a shade of grey to their absolute property-rights

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is impossible to have any meaningful debate on this point without someone legitimizing the exclusive ownership thousands of acres of land (which was here millions of years before them and will be here millions of years after them) with an argument like: "of course this is the case because you aren't sharing your apple with the whole world" or some other stark contrast that is irrelevant in the debate. They are almost evangelical on this point and just as blind to their irrationality. You could ask them: What makes humans so different from every other species in that humans can stake out a territory and just by staking that territory out they automatically assume exclusive rights to it for the rest of their lives and every other member of their species should respect that? But it wouldn't matter, they would fail to see the point.

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit. Rather than name who falls into this group (would be a long list), I'll just name the only two I can think of off the top of my head that do not: AlexM and hmkpoker.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[TomCollins]

valenzeula-

It was pretty clear from the beginning that you never really understood ACism. Your arguments for it were always incredibly weak. I am not the least bit surprised that you have fallen for the arguments of people like moorobot and Phil153, who while are misguided, are fairly intelligent. I have my doubts that keep me from being a true ACist, but your arguments against it are among the weakest I have ever seen.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.