AC question

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Even informal organizations will often gravitate into authoritarian leadership simply due to the combined result of individual behavior of the people in them. Even trials in controlled settings will show you how people quickly form simple forms of rulership and informal laws - sometimes even quite formal ones. Actually, it will show you how some personalities actually seeks out authorative leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

So creating some elaborate apparatus that concentrates power and "authority", custom made for these people to seek out and take control of, is somehow a good way of dealing with this problem?

[ QUOTE ]
I guess how will AC deal with the personality traits that leads to a desire for accumulation of power, desire for leadership, desire for rules, sociopathic behavior, organizational destrucive behavior (which can be anything from laziness to violence) or cultural clashes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a question?

I have a question for you. How will "evolution" "deal" with an asteroid colliding with the earth? Can you tell me what sort of creatures will emerge from the cataclysm? If you can't, do you feel that you're admitting a flaw in the theory of evolution?
[ QUOTE ]
If we are to use empirical evidence, the social-democratic monarchies of scandinavia who I guess must be on the near opposite end of AC shows an extremely low level of corruption, high degrees of efficiency, competitive economics and the highest living standards in the world and are based on equalitarian principles through-and-through, and all are near the top of the political transparency index. This seems to be some solid empirical evidence of what has (of yet) given the best solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, these results depend heavily on what you consider "corrupt" and "efficient".

Further, your anecdotal evidence is not "solid". For starters, where's your control group?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
"Extortion by the national state is not capitalism, it's rogue/criminal."

A national state is the result of one group gaining a monopoly over other groups. Do you believe that this is preventable in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But not 100%. AC isn't a magical force field. Do you think it's preventable under a state? This is basically the most tired, worn out "argument" against AC; it's exactly what vhawk is talking about when he mentions positions that hold AC to a much higher standard than statism.



A population working under AC would be more difficult to conquer than the same population, with the same resources, working under a state. The French government fell to the blitzkrieg blindingly fast. The dirt-poor guerillas in vietnam and iraq got a LOT more bang for their buck, wouldn't you say?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife is murdered in an AC society. Please explain the process of what will happen after the murder takes place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You call your insurance company, they track down the murderer, and make him pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what happens when he calls his insurance company for murderers who will protect him from my insurance company?

[/ QUOTE ]

"We're dropping your policy."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first step is to stop believing in and supporting criminal organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]
the concept "criminal" only has meaning within a state and it's defined by that state. are you implying laws would exist in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't they?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not discounting that Waco in the final raid did indeed show what can happens when people use poor judgement. But for now, bear with me and let us not look at the final raid but the initial confrontation:

What happens in AC when suspected religious fanatics board themselves up, rumours of them stockpiling weapons and having sex with children surface. and when AC 'law' enforcers show up, a firefight happens?

And it is indeed a fair question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would law enforcers show up? Are they holding people there involuntarily?

Do you think the results could possibly be any *worse* than the "solution" that Janet Reno came up with?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Empiricism>logic

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've beautifully summed up your entire posting history in that one line.

I cut the cards. I drew the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

It can be "empirically shown" that I have always cut to the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw that one coming a mile away since I worded myself badly. By forcefully in my statement I mean absolutely no alternative to working at one specific workplace, except death. Probably the only way you can predict human behavior so bombastically as has been done in some statements in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if there's some "safety net" that provides value to people who don't work (for whatever reason), where does that value come from?

Guess what - someone ELSE has to work to produce it. There is absolutely no alternative to working.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I see democracy as simply the best current solution to uphold equalitarian principles. I am fairly certain that at some point in time, as philosoph yand technology progresses you are going to see major changes to the democratic model, perhaps even at one point the removal of government (I'm not an anarchist mind you, just making a hypothetical).

My goal is that these advances be reached and further mankind down the road to 'something else'. Capitalism is a sound principle, but personally I feel that using it as the sole foundation for a society will effectively block this advance.

I realize that capitalism often leads to more effective and in some cases better solutions, it also can lead to peace and communication better than diplomacy ever can. But yes, I feel capitalism will often make it hard to see a larger picture. I also feel that the chance of the system going corrupt is high, and that such a process would be worse in an AC setting than a statist setting, where people have access to non-profit solutions to such problems (not claiming its perfect, but atleast you have a fighting chance).

[/ QUOTE ]

1) In a voluntary society, nobody would stop you from voluntarily joining some sort of collective democratic group that would provide whatever you and your fellow democrats want. Safety nets, collective defense, dispute arbitration, telephone service, whatever. Have fun!

Now, explain why anyone should be compelled to participate in your scheme just because YOU think it's the "best current solution". In a voluntary society, nobody seeks to deny you choices, but you're anxious to deny others anything except what you like. Why is that?

2) a voluntary society in no way excludes "non-profit" activities. It does not require that everyone constantly maximize their productivity. It does not outlaw leisure or charity. This is a ridiculous position.


[ QUOTE ]
In my view there are also actually times when the best path is not actually the most profitable one, effective one or the most popular one in the market. I fear people seeing such solutions will have a harder time getting heard in a pure capitalist society than a statist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the time, there is not one best path. But statism is nothing more than the selection of one particular path, and the violent suppression of alternatives. You're letting the "capitalism" part of it cloud your view. Democratic statism is EXACTLY the type of system that takes "the most popular" path and IMPOSES it upon EVERYONE. So I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's really it. I don't think the idea sounds horrible, or that ideas proposed would not work at all etc. For me, it is a step in the wrong direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, it is a step in NO direction at all. It is the freedom for you to go in whichever direction YOU think is best for YOU.

As bkholdem said:

"We are simply talking about leaving people alone to be free in simply living their lives and by reading some of these threads it seems as if almost the whole world would be up in arms to stop that."

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife is murdered in an AC society. Please explain the process of what will happen after the murder takes place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You call your insurance company, they track down the murderer, and make him pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what happens when he calls his insurance company for murderers who will protect him from my insurance company?

[/ QUOTE ]

"We're dropping your policy."

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of violent people in the world, would there not be a demand from these psychos for some kind of organization to protect their interests? Some kind of insurance company that protects them physically and financially against their victims. As the organisation itself has no victims, only its members, then there can be no legal challange to its creation under AC, right?

Slightly more to the point, A lot of people don't have insurance, even if they do spousal murder may not be included in the policy (it's got to be pretty low down on anyones list of things to look for). Or there could be a technicality like an unsigned form or a missed payment making the policy void. No insurance = no investigation.

If I knew TheLebowski was uninsured and he did not have the means to hire private detectives. I would be free to commit any crime i wished against him or his wife without fear of a meaningful investigation. Or did I miss something?

P.S. Please note that none of the above is a concern under a state.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife is murdered in an AC society. Please explain the process of what will happen after the murder takes place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You call your insurance company, they track down the murderer, and make him pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what happens when he calls his insurance company for murderers who will protect him from my insurance company?

[/ QUOTE ]

"We're dropping your policy."

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of violent people in the world, would there not be a demand from these psychos for some kind of organization to protect their interests? Some kind of insurance company that protects them physically and financially against their victims. As the organisation itself has no victims, only its members, then there can be no legal challange to its creation under AC, right?

Slightly more to the point, A lot of people don't have insurance, even if they do spousal murder may not be included in the policy (it's got to be pretty low down on anyones list of things to look for). Or there could be a technicality like an unsigned form or a missed payment making the policy void. No insurance = no investigation.

If I knew TheLebowski was uninsured and he did not have the means to hire private detectives. I would be free to commit any crime i wished against him or his wife without fear of a meaningful investigation. Or did I miss something?

P.S. Please note that none of the above is a concern under a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argument from Hobo Killing.