Factions within AC

[Skidoo]

Considering the number of posts per day that are in some way related to AC, and the popularity it seems to enjoy, a natural question arises. That is, what are the main factions within AC?

Also, given the strong opinions the subject causes (judging from the volume of posts), what are the main arguments you have among yourselves?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, what are the main factions within AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh... I thought every AC'er was a faction by him/herself?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is, what are the main factions within AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh... I thought every AC'er was a faction by him/herself?

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, see the second question.

[Nielsio]

A forced relation is an evil thing. There is only one class of people; no people should rule over other people. There is freedom and there is slavery. Government is a forced relation of a ruling class over other people.

A voluntary relation on the other hand is a wonderful thing. It's fair, it's extremely productive and useful for everyone; and it doesn't include this heinous covering up of violence, which is what a lot of our culture is all about.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
A forced relation is an evil thing. There is only one class of people; no people should rule over other people. There is freedom and there is slavery. Government is a forced relation of a ruling class over other people.

A voluntary relation on the other hand is a wonderful thing. It's fair, it's extremely productive and useful for everyone; and it doesn't include this heinous covering up of violence, which is what a lot of our culture is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping for something more that a canned lecture.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A forced relation is an evil thing. There is only one class of people; no people should rule over other people. There is freedom and there is slavery. Government is a forced relation of a ruling class over other people.

A voluntary relation on the other hand is a wonderful thing. It's fair, it's extremely productive and useful for everyone; and it doesn't include this heinous covering up of violence, which is what a lot of our culture is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping for something more that a canned lecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a podcast?

[Skidoo]

Like an actual response to my post.

[AWoodside]

As people have already noted, it's difficult to speak with authority about the opinions of other people, especially ACers. That being said, I think if pressed I would divide ACers into two categories, what I'll call pragmatic and absolutist.

Pragmatic ACers believe in all the same things as absolutist ACers at least in terms of an ideal or end goal but are willing to make compromises to bring things closer to AC-land. For example, a pragmatic ACer may be appalled that we have public education at all, but might wrestle himself or herself (ha, right) away from the computer for an hour or so to go vote for a voucher program. Pragmatic ACers realize that AC-land is extremely far away and are willing to participate in the current system because they think participation can at least improve things.

An absolutist ACer believes in roughly the same things as the pragmatist, but is unwilling to compromise. He may not vote at all for anything because he does not believe in supporting a corrupt system. The terms are fairly self-explanatory so I wont type more than I have, but these are the main distinctions I seem to encounter.

[WillMagic]

Some areas of disagreement I've had with other ACers.

Voting - some say it's immoral...I don't really see it as such, mainly just pointless. I would certainly vote if I actually felt it would lead to ends that I desire.

Unions - Nielsio, at least, sees them as an inherently negative force. I don't. I view them in the same light as I do corporations - capable of doing great harm in combination with government, but largely a force for good in their absence.

Consequentialism vs. Natural Law (also known as David Friedman vs. Murray Rothbard) - Probably the most common area of disagreement, and if you were looking for actual "factions" in the AC "camp" this is the one place you would find them. Personally I don't really take a stand...I feel that the natural rights arguments are very strong but not always the best at convincing people, so I borrow from both philosophies.

When trying to convince a conservative, I'm going to appeal to natural rights. They already understand the consequences of policies like the minimum wage, welfare, and what have you. The big gap is really about war and general state violence. When talking to a social liberal, I'm usually coming from a consequentialist point of view. I feel that many social liberals have the same philosophical intuitions that I do...they want to see everyone better off. They don't necessarily understand that the policy proposals they support almost always have effects counter to that which was intended.

But other than that I rarely have major disagreements with ACers. Fundamentally we all agree on what the system should be - no system at all.

[madnak]

Right, the big one is definitely whether it's about morality or about utility.

Religion can be a source of disagreement, but it's usually peripheral.

And "pragmatism" versus "absolutism" has some validity as well.

I think that we ACists frequently disagree on all kinds of issues, but the problem is they really can't be political issues. There aren't different "versions" of AC. Some of us do have different view about how to get from here to there, what the realistic time scale is, etc, but even then it tends to be a minor thing.

I would probably act very differently in a free market from hmk or Borodog, who would probably act very differently in a free market from WillMagic or Nielso, etc. But see, that's not because we have different "positions" about the free market - it's because a free market allows people to do what they want to do. Just as different people have different career goals, different people might choose to influence the market in different ways or support different organizations.

But I don't think a free market system has the polarizing potential of other political forms - obviously some people will rail and rage, but without the assumption that "the government knows best" (as iron stated so eloquently) or that some overarching organization must be responsible for making everything fair, people have much less incentive to go on crusades or try to force others to their point of view.