AC -> Statism

[AndysDaddy]

I've read through a lot of the AC posts, but definitely not all of them, so I apologize if this is well covered ground.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of AC, and I can understand the allure of such a system. I might even think of it as the Utopian form of self governement, but like all utopia, would never work in practice.

I am reluctant to start an AC thread, but I have several questions as to how an ACist would respond. Hopefully this will be rational discussion (I promise to do my best to keep my end up).

It seems to me that any AC society would eventually become a statist one, given enough time. AC starts with individual rights and responsibilities. A couple of neighbors decide to work together for the betterment of them both and enter into an agreement.

Before long an entire neighborhood has formed a group. Using common legal arbiters, voluntarily choosing to enter into an agreement to pay a certain amount per year for common expenses, and agreeing to sell only to others that continue the agreement.

Groups of neighborhoods form towns for like reasons, then cities, states, and finally a nation. Each step is made in free will and in the belief that the next step up in grouping is beneficial.

At any point anyone that was unhappy with the decisions of those chosen to make decisions for the group were free to either do whatever was allowed by the agreement to change the decision makers, or leave the group and join another, or even go it alone somewhere.

At some point, however, all the available, habitable land comes to be under the control of some group or another, and a persons only out (other than 'voting the bums out') is to leave one group for another.

Isn't this the state we are in now? We are all affiliated with many levels of voluntary grouping. We can all choose to leave one group and join another. Sure - there are costs associated with this choice: moving from one town to another, one nation to another. But choices exists.

(Note that for the purposes of this debate I'm assuming that people can, in fact, freely move from one group to another. I am aware that large portions of the worlds populations do not have this choice, but most Western nations allow nearly free movement within a nation, and movement between nations is not terribly difficult).

So my question above is the question of the thread: are we not already voluntary members of groups that have chosen to live by commonly agreed upon rules?
--
Scott

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question above is the question of the thread: are we not already voluntary members of groups that have chosen to live by commonly agreed upon rules?


[/ QUOTE ]


No,

Thomas DiLorenzo explores these claims:
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.co...voluntary.html


Also:
AC strives for security and arbitration *independent* of location. NOT territorial control by groups (as in statism).

[Tubes]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question above is the question of the thread: are we not already voluntary members of groups that have chosen to live by commonly agreed upon rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question can be answered by asking what are the barriers to exiting these groups?

[ShakeZula06]

unfinished AC faq
Some of that stuff may help with other questions.
[ QUOTE ]
I think I have a pretty good understanding of AC, and I can understand the allure of such a system. I might even think of it as the Utopian form of self governement, but like all utopia, would never work in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Step away from this thinking. AC is not a utopia. It is a (non) system devoid of government accompanied by a culture that recognizes private property rights. It eliminates government coersion which leads to higher quanity and quality of goods that are provided qucker.

However that doesn't mean that violence will be wiped clean of the earth, or that the poor wil become well off, or everyone will be able to beat out the jones and retire to a deluxe apartment in the sky. Just that it is better then the current system because the current system is poisoned by monopolist coersion.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that any AC society would eventually become a statist one, given enough time. AC starts with individual rights and responsibilities. A couple of neighbors decide to work together for the betterment of them both and enter into an agreement.


[/ QUOTE ]
This will happen. The importance though is that it is voluntary. I never agreed to have X% of my wages go towards someone elses social security or else I get to visit some murderers in a cold cell.
[ QUOTE ]
Before long an entire neighborhood has formed a group. Using common legal arbiters, voluntarily choosing to enter into an agreement to pay a certain amount per year for common expenses, and agreeing to sell only to others that continue the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bolded part is where it get's tricky. Business owners are passing up a lot of money with embargos, which is why embargos are made and enforced by the government, not private indistries. Even if businesses did begin to agree to such a thing all it does is free up market share to competitors to provide goods without such an agreement. That's just one of the beautys of the free market, businesses make money by provided products of value to others, not by forcing you to consume them.
[ QUOTE ]
Groups of neighborhoods form towns for like reasons, then cities, states, and finally a nation. Each step is made in free will and in the belief that the next step up in grouping is beneficial.

At any point anyone that was unhappy with the decisions of those chosen to make decisions for the group were free to either do whatever was allowed by the agreement to change the decision makers, or leave the group and join another, or even go it alone somewhere.

At some point, however, all the available, habitable land comes to be under the control of some group or another, and a persons only out (other than 'voting the bums out') is to leave one group for another.

Isn't this the state we are in now? We are all affiliated with many levels of voluntary grouping. We can all choose to leave one group and join another. Sure - there are costs associated with this choice: moving from one town to another, one nation to another. But choices exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
What you seem to be describing are home owners associations. A good thread on the topic can be found here
[ QUOTE ]
(Note that for the purposes of this debate I'm assuming that people can, in fact, freely move from one group to another. I am aware that large portions of the worlds populations do not have this choice, but most Western nations allow nearly free movement within a nation, and movement between nations is not terribly difficult).


[/ QUOTE ]
This presupposes the premise that the government has any claim to my land that I own. Why just because the government exerts a monopoly on force ( amonopoly that my tax dollars were forcibly attributed to) over the land I voluntarily paid for does it justify it's existance?

The government tells me to GTFO? it should be the other way around.

[AndysDaddy]

Sorry, I don't have access to sound where I spend 90% of my online time (what is this the 80's? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]

AC strives for security and arbitration *independent* of location. NOT territorial control by groups (as in statism).

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't what I proposed in the OP a fairly likely outcome? If a bunch of people in a neighborhood form a group to own collective property and set ownership standards, wouldn't it be prudent for each of them individually to agree that they would only sell to someone that commits to continuing the agreement. And in this way, doesn't the agreement become tied to the land and not the people?

Of course its the people that want to feel secure. The only way to do this is to agree to the continue the security after an individual chooses to leave the group.

If your video described why this thinking is wrong, please include some textual description.
--
Scott

[valenzuela]

Well perhaps I got this wrong, but there is ONE HUGE difference between youre prediction of the AC world and statism today.
In statism we have something like this.
Germany: 30 guys want sausages, 10 guys want pasta. Everyone gets sausages.
Italy: 30 guys want pasta, 10 guys want sausages. Everyone gets pasta.

So youre basically saying why cant the 10 germans who want pasta move to Italy and the 10 italians who want sausages to Germany?
Well what happens if I want Ice cream? Im stuck between sausages and pasta.
What if there isnt a single nation that gives me ice cream?( ok there is this one african nation who is supposed to give ice cream, but in reality that ice cream stinks and anyone who eats get sick).

[Tubes]

Not to mention sausage ice cream.

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I have a pretty good understanding of AC, and I can understand the allure of such a system. I might even think of it as the Utopian form of self governement, but like all utopia, would never work in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Step away from this thinking. AC is not a utopia. It is a (non) system devoid of government accompanied by a culture that recognizes private property rights. It eliminates government coersion which leads to higher quanity and quality of goods that are provided qucker.

However that doesn't mean that violence will be wiped clean of the earth, or that the poor wil become well off, or everyone will be able to beat out the jones and retire to a deluxe apartment in the sky. Just that it is better then the current system because the current system is poisoned by monopolist coersion.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps my use of the word utopia was chosen poorly. I didn't mean to lean down the 'If AC is supposed to be a panacea, what about X' road. I just meant that like other examples of 'pure, distilled, <ism>s' it strikes me as unlikely to work in practice with flawed human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that any AC society would eventually become a statist one, given enough time. AC starts with individual rights and responsibilities. A couple of neighbors decide to work together for the betterment of them both and enter into an agreement.


[/ QUOTE ]
This will happen. The importance though is that it is voluntary. I never agreed to have X% of my wages go towards someone elses social security or else I get to visit some murderers in a cold cell.


[/ QUOTE ]
I understand from reading other threads that this seems to be the primary knock on statism. Can we please try to debate the issue with resorting to hyperbole? Yes, I concede that if you don't follow the rules of the state that eventually you will be visited by Jack Booted Thugs(tm).

Besides, Under AC, it is entirely possible that you would be forced to part with X% of your income under pain of incarceration or death. You may have entered into an agreement other members of some group to do so out of a common desire to help others. I argue that this is what is happening now under statism. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, you are free to do what is allowed under the agreement in an attempt to change those rules, or leave the group.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Before long an entire neighborhood has formed a group. Using common legal arbiters, voluntarily choosing to enter into an agreement to pay a certain amount per year for common expenses, and agreeing to sell only to others that continue the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bolded part is where it get's tricky. Business owners are passing up a lot of money with embargos, which is why embargos are made and enforced by the government, not private indistries. Even if businesses did begin to agree to such a thing all it does is free up market share to competitors to provide goods without such an agreement. That's just one of the beautys of the free market, businesses make money by provided products of value to others, not by forcing you to consume them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem too tricky to me. I agree to voluntarily trade the right of free sale in exchange for a certain security in knowing that my neighbors won't sell to someone that causes my safety, or land value, or some other desirable value to decline. Of course I am limiting my pot of potential buyers, but I feel I am being fairly compensated. In fact, I may believe that the total value of my holding may increase due to such an agreement.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Groups of neighborhoods form towns for like reasons, then cities, states, and finally a nation. Each step is made in free will and in the belief that the next step up in grouping is beneficial.

At any point anyone that was unhappy with the decisions of those chosen to make decisions for the group were free to either do whatever was allowed by the agreement to change the decision makers, or leave the group and join another, or even go it alone somewhere.

At some point, however, all the available, habitable land comes to be under the control of some group or another, and a persons only out (other than 'voting the bums out') is to leave one group for another.

Isn't this the state we are in now? We are all affiliated with many levels of voluntary grouping. We can all choose to leave one group and join another. Sure - there are costs associated with this choice: moving from one town to another, one nation to another. But choices exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
What you seem to be describing are home owners associations.

[/ QUOTE ]
At the lowest levels, yes, but the concept easily carries through to towns, cities, states and nations.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Note that for the purposes of this debate I'm assuming that people can, in fact, freely move from one group to another. I am aware that large portions of the worlds populations do not have this choice, but most Western nations allow nearly free movement within a nation, and movement between nations is not terribly difficult).


[/ QUOTE ]
This presupposes the premise that the government has any claim to my land that I own. Why just because the government exerts a monopoly on force ( a monopoly that my tax dollars were forcibly attributed to) over the land I voluntarily paid for does it justify it's existence?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not presupposing any such thing. I'm saying that for the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the choice to leave one group for another exists. You're free to think that my assumption is baseless, and therefor invalidates my entire line of thought, but that is a matter for another debate.
--
Scott

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
You may have entered into an agreement other members of some group to do so out of a common desire to help others. I argue that this is what is happening now under statism.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I enter the superdude pact in which the goverment tells me what kinda sex can I have, what drugs can i do, what part of my income to give them, etc.?


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like the rules you agreed to, you are free to do what is allowed under the agreement in an attempt to change those rules, or leave the group.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is weird, I dont recall agreeing to any rules with the state. They just basically put me in jail if I dont as Im told. But hey every 4 years I get a vote, however other 8 millions persons get that vote as well...well at least this time I have a sweet old lady telling me what to do instead of an ugly old man.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand from reading other threads that this seems to be the primary knock on statism. Can we please try to debate the issue with resorting to hyperbole? Yes, I concede that if you don't follow the rules of the state that eventually you will be visited by Jack Booted Thugs(tm).


[/ QUOTE ]
Where's the hyperbole? Here's what I said-
[ QUOTE ]
This will happen. The importance though is that it is voluntary. I never agreed to have X% of my wages go towards someone elses social security or else I get to visit some murderers in a cold cell.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, Under AC, it is entirely possible that you would be forced to part with X% of your income under pain of incarceration or death. You may have entered into an agreement other members of some group to do so out of a common desire to help others. I argue that this is what is happening now under statism. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, you are free to do what is allowed under the agreement in an attempt to change those rules, or leave the group.


[/ QUOTE ]
I say again-
[ QUOTE ]
I never agreed to have X% of my wages go towards someone elses social security or else

[/ QUOTE ]
In the situation you describe the actions are agreed to. I never consented to the rules I have to abide by presently.
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem too tricky to me. I agree to voluntarily trade the right of free sale in exchange for a certain security in knowing that my neighbors won't sell to someone that causes my safety, or land value, or some other desirable value to decline. Of course I am limiting my pot of potential buyers, but I feel I am being fairly compensated. In fact, I may believe that the total value of my holding may increase due to such an agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck, instead of using your service I'm going to the one that doesn't ask me to enter into a contract with him on wealth redistribution.
[ QUOTE ]
At the lowest levels, yes, but the concept easily carries through to towns, cities, states and nations.


[/ QUOTE ]
I refer you again to the linked thread. HOAs claim to land is valid, a state takes land by force so by defintion is invalid. Also you seem to be trying to describe a place where I'd love to live, Valenzuela town.