|
|
#1
04-26-2007, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
How would an ACist suggest I act?
I agree with a lot of the arguments put forward by ACists but find there are some things it doesnt address which I want addressed (in a police force, social safety net kind of way). Given that I want a state with limited powers more than the alternative, is there some reason I shouldnt support it?
What I mean is the limited, violent oppression of others by the state is more desirable to me than what I consider to be injustices which would occur under a totally free market. Given I acknowledge this, would you say we just disagree about what justice is - it's nothing more than opinion and I'm free to fight for a state, you're free to fight it's continued existence? Or do you consider property rights and freedoms to be inalienable rights that I cannot ignore or deprioritise at my whim? *Edit:Jman220// Please Post all further discussion of this topic HERE 
|
|
#2
04-26-2007, 01:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
An ACist would simply ask that you not transform your own moral imperative into violent interference on his or her life.
Although, it really doesnt take an ACist to want to be left alone by people like you.
|
|
#3
04-26-2007, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
An ACist would simply ask that you not transform your own moral imperative into violent interference on his or her life. [/ QUOTE ] I thought it was understood that people would act to "maximise their own utility function" or something similar. If supporting a state-enforced social safety net, police, court system etc etc maximises my happiness isnt that what I do?
|
|
#4
04-26-2007, 02:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
Although, it really doesnt take an ACist to want to be left alone by people like you. [/ QUOTE ] easy, bunny is pretty sympathetic overall. Bunny, if you want to form a committee of displaced Democrats and pool your resources to make things right go right ahead. Just don't force the uninvolved to pool theirs too if they don't want to.
|
|
#5
04-26-2007, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was understood that people would act to "maximise their own utility function" or something similar. If supporting a state-enforced social safety net, police, court system etc etc maximises my happiness isnt that what I do? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, just don't force people that don't agree with you to get involved and you're 100% legit by AC.
|
|
#6
04-26-2007, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
|
|
#7
04-26-2007, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I thought it was understood that people would act to "maximise their own utility function" or something similar. If supporting a state-enforced social safety net, police, court system etc etc maximises my happiness isnt that what I do? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, just don't force people that don't agree with you to get involved and you're 100% legit by AC. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not really advocating a position as I am clearly ignorant/unused to thinking about political theory, but I am puzzled as to how you would argue this. What I am suggesting is that (hypothetically at least) violating property rights and using coercive violence is more desirable to some than letting the market decide everything. How does an ACist argue that they should refrain from doing what maximises their happiness(or utility, forgive me if I use the wrong words)? Isnt AC based on "people do what they want"? It seems to me that investing respect property rights with an inviolable status moves into moral absolutism which seems counter to most of the ACist positions.
|
|
#8
04-26-2007, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity [/ QUOTE ] This seems good to me. Perhaps I should have phrased my question more hypothetically, rather than from my perspective. It has seemed to me that the strongest argument a statist has against AC is to accept most of its claims and just say "I want a state more than anarchy. Therefore, I shall act to maximise my own utility and work to institute and maintain the existence of a state." I was wondering how AC would reply.
|
|
#9
04-26-2007, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
An ACist would simply ask that you not transform your own moral imperative into violent interference on his or her life. Although, it really doesnt take an ACist to want to be left alone by people like you. [/ QUOTE ] When you say "People like me" isnt the position I outlined above just an AC characterisation of any statist? Using your phrase, isnt the difference between a statist and an anarchists just that the former's moral imperative involves violent intervention in other people's lives to a greater degree than the latter?
|
|
#10
04-26-2007, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
It has seemed to me that the strongest argument a statist has against AC is to accept most of its claims and just say "I want a state more than anarchy. Therefore, I shall act to maximise my own utility and work to institute and maintain the existence of a state." I was wondering how AC would reply. [/ QUOTE ] The fundamental "AC claim" is that initiating force is immoral, which you're rejecting as soon as you make that decision. There are some ACists who are strictly utilitarian (whatever that means), but they're a minority.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
