Why Im no longer an ACist

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You agree that claim is subjective and then agree that it is a black and white issue once such claim is "legitimized" whatever that means. So thank you for illustrating my point regarding ACists to a tee.

If a polar bear has some claim over an area of ice, the only thing that makes it "legitimate" is his ability to defend it. Sure he can convince the other polar bears to respect his notion of "property rights" (and all power to him), but if he then claims legitimate sovereignty over such land, that doesn't make such a claim absolute. Another polar bear may disagree with his notion of property rights and say to hell with his claim. Such a polar bear is not acting immorally, as you apparently believe, just because he doesn't believe that another polar bear should control such a fine area. This is reality. Humans are no different. We can convince each other to respect our notion of property rights (and more power to those of us who try), but that will never make our notion of property rights an absolute truth and it will never make those who disagree with us "immoral".

Edit: And as a former raving capitalist cheerleader, I can say that most on this board who fail to see this point remind me of myself at 25. It wouldn't help you much to argue this point with me then as I was set in my views and would argue the same tired cliches like "tragedy of the commons" as pvn and others roll out in lieu of more rigorous thought. Now in my late 30s I see that my beliefs then were built on a house of cards. That doesn't mean that libertarian beliefs on property are bad goals -- they are excellent goals. They just are not absolutely true (no more "true" than socialist thought) and are only "legitimate" in the sense that you convince others to accept them or you defend them with force if necessary.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

[tomdemaine]

Polar bears are in morally different categories to human beings. They cannot reason to anywhere near the same extent and have no understanding of morality. Even a 6 month old child has notions of morality and quite clearly defined ideas about right and wrong inbuilt. It takes a lot of conditioning and abuse before a person can become confused about moralities "grey" areas.

[Bill Haywood]

Val, here's another fundamental reason to forgo the koolaid:

You can't get rid of the state. Even if smashed, a new one will quickly reconstitute itself.

The only way to get rid of a state is with powerful insurgent organizations, which then become the new state. They won't dissolve once the state is smashed because there are so many advantages to remaining.

Re: the "education" counter argument. ACists like to believe that their education efforts will magically take hold and everyone will simply stop enabling the state. But information does not dissolve interests. The state has enormous dependent constituencies that will not become ACists no matter how pretty the speeches. It only takes a small minority of support to maintain a state. So the state has to be smashed, then you are back to previous paragraph.

[tolbiny]

[ 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 ]

I haven't read all of PVN's posts, but I doubt that he has ever stated (or at least no believes) that staking out a territory = ownership. If you really are familiar with libertarian thought this is going to come across as really condescending, but what the hey.

Axiom: individuals own their bodies
logical deduction: individuals own their labor

Axiom: unclaimed land has no owner
logical deduction: every individual has equal claim to land

situation: individual mixes labor with land
result: individual now has higher claim to end result than any other individual

The implication of building a fence around an area is that person owns the fence and the land the fence i built on, it implies (from a libertarian perspective) nothing about ownership of the land within the fenced area.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
VHawk,

Are you an ACist? I don't seem to remember that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be an ACist to support deregulation.

natedogg

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The enomourous amount of luck in the distribution of scarce resources is the primary cause of poverty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a shadow of a doubt, like it is the primary cause of success!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Consider how many lottery winners end up broke.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/bad-...ars-316502.php

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Sav...ons.aspx?page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Wh...ottery_winner)

http://www.pestiside.hu/archives/tragic_...broke001824.php

Lots more if you google a little bit.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill you are preety much screwed , its basically work on something you hate or die, yes I know youre not dying because a moral agent is stabbing you but ure still dying, the problems are not going to go away because theyre not made by a moral agent. Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”, I cant really show my calculations but I can intuitively recognize that perhaps the ideal amount of coercion isnt 0, its called common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very well made and interestingly put point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No ACists here are advocating any actions to prevent people from helping other people. This is an emotional argument. People are in crappy situations, they need help. Government is (supposedly) a method to help them.

Well, some people don't agree with the method. This doesn't imply that they think the *goal* is bad. It's the same "put ponies in a cannon and fire them into a mountain to end world hunger" debate. Someone will propose it, and if you say this is a stupid idea, someone will *instantly* accuse you of "hating starving kids".

[foal]

Not that my opinion will be taken seriously, but I strongly agree with Kaj. ACers (here at least) hurt their own position by dogma, refusal to concede points and absolutist thinking. I've seen people make ridiculous claims like akin to "no business could ever want to rip off customers in the abscence of a government" on the one hand and then on they'll accuse statists of "holding ACism to a higher standard than statism". You hold it to a higher standard yourselves when you defend unreasonable claims. I'm not saying all ACists here do that, just some. The absolute morality and legitimacy things are hard sells too. These attitudes would be off putting to me if I was a strong supporter of libertarian principles (should be your target audience). I'm not though so I'd be unsympathetic to AC either way.