I only have two options? They both seem kinda strawmenish.

You already know that I believe AC can never come about. However I don’t believe that there’s zero value in posting about it, so perhaps moot is the wrong word. You are obviously deriving value regardless of it's plausibility. I’m sure it makes for an excellent release valve after a long day’s worth of violent coercion.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t help anyone, in fact I admitted that it would likely benefit property owners. I hate to even say that though, because it really wouldn’t help anyone because it’s very existence defies reality.

Neither of us do those things. Well, when pressed for specifics of how removing all state invention will improve any specific thing, I'm pretty sure you tell me to put my faith in the market. That particular trope gets rolled out about twice a day, but sometimes you guys do try to articulate what specific solution the market would produce if you changed all the people into saints, so I'll give you a pass.

Just as an aside, do you guys simply reject the concept of a market failure? I'm not sure I've ever seen one of you address that. IIRC, the concept didn't get serious play until like the 50s, so it is pretty advanced stuff for you guys.

Well thats just the way the world is! You guys are so unrealistic! "Dorm room bull****" is your version of "Goddidit"
Are we doing the serious thing? I'm like a battered wife at this point. I dont WANT to respond to you with anything besides sarcasm and mockery, because you've made it abundantly clear why you are posting here, and yet I cant help myself.

Of course I absolutely believe in market failures, in the way I assume you mean it. I've said several times, although perhaps not in any thread you've posted in or read, that I dont believe in AC for any sort of magical, written in the stars reasons. Very smart computers or aliens or God or whatever could certainly run a society better than freedom could. But human beings absolutely cannot, and its so far from being close.

And why should I try?

Again, it was posed to me that there must be things that I (as in me personally desiring) think should be changed.

Just because things can change, and obviously will change, does not mean that I personally feel that things should change. That was my only point, although I admit it was unclear, and unnecessary to make.

Of course change is constant and necessary, but that doesn't mean that I don't also foresee negative consequences with every seemingly positive tweak. It also doesn't matter what I believe.

I really wish I hadn't said anything, as it was totally unnecessary and has completely muddled this thread.

Yes, that is the definition of "not a utopia."

???

No, it's not. I just think that discussions about how the market might solve a hypothetical problem if human nature was dramatically changed by some mystery future event qualify as navel gazing. Because they are. The truly tremendous thing is that even given the utopic assumptions you guys still end up with insurance agency death squads, universal toll roads, child slavery markets, etc. Even given the assumption that people will try very hard and forego their self-interest to make your society work you guys still can't describe a place I'd want to live.

Yeah, I have no idea how to respond to this, because I'm unclear at what stage you are talking about reality and what stage you're talking about "AC is possible" fictionland.

are you saying you want us to start killing people, fly? wtf does this post mean if not "resort to terrorism!"

I should not have brought that up. I can not explain my belief very clearly so I won't even attempt to. It just seems intuitive in the way that AC feels intuitive to you. You also have no empirical evidence that your belief system is plausible.

I will however concede that I don't believe it can be proven to be perfectly, mathematically zero-sum through any measurable means.

It's certainly... interesting... that you went that direction.


Given that a bunch of you guys like to brag about how you are too smart to vote, I don't think you need to go all the way to bomb-throwing right yet.

But think a little more about what I said before doing anything rash. crzylgs' post may prove helpful.

which crzylgs post? the one where he criticizes the practice of comparing government to mafia without explaining how its any different? not sure what this has to do with libertarians being 'cowards'.


what would you "have the balls to do" (or at least pretend to) if you lived under a "terribly" oppressive regime?

Win and then you'd be remembered as freedom fighters.

come on now, there are is a wide gulf between 'doing nothing' and 'terrorism'. See, e.g., Ghandi, MLK.

Also, some of the rhetoric ITT is a little overheated. Let's try to be reasonably respectful, please.

You already know the difference between the US government and the mafia. I always hate having to ruin a joke by explaining it like this, but I can tell you know the difference because of how you are responding to the "extortion".

There are a number of options a citizen of an oppressive regime has at his disposal. While you can certainly go Che it up with the violent revolution, you could also go for various levels of public disorder(ranging from sit ins to protest marches), private civil disobedience a la Thoreau, donating money to organizations that advance your cause, voting for candidates who espouse your views if your oppressive regime holds elections...

I'm pretty sure I don't stop at "posting on the internet."