Quote:
Originally Posted by 27AllIn
Thanks for typing all that up, and to a large extend I agree with it. If people are fighting each other and refuse to cooperate then no system is going to work. What ACists believe is that for a State to be legitimate, there needs to be a real contract that people actually sign. We believe that it's possible for government to be voluntary, instead of people being born into it and unable to opt-out. We also believe that private law, private security, and private courts can all exist and do a better job than if there's a monopoly on those services, like what we have now. Competition would improve them immensely.
Hey that's great, you have beliefs. But how would these beliefs inform your decisions in the real world? I think ideologies can be pretty irrelevant. OK, so a person has an ideal world in their head, so what? There's a real world out there and there's a million different problems you're going to have to solve without privatized water and air and without DROs.
As far as ACism and the real world, in my opinion, alot of the actions taken under the Trump administration would coincide perfectly with ACist actors. If someone told me Steve Bannon and Donald Trump are ACists, I'd probably believe them. I'm referring mainly to "deconstructing the administrative state."
I think this approach to government is absolutely disastrous, and it's causing irreparable harm to our country and citizens. Just look at the environment. Scott Pruitt wants to dismantle the EPA and hand regulatory authority, responsibility, and burden off to the states. Trump has signed an executive order removing regulations aimed at preventing mining companies from dumping toxic waste into streams and rivers. This is ancap 101: remove government regulations, let the free market make money hand over fist and sort out the consequences afterward through the magical invisible hand.
Do you think removing environmental regulations is a good thing? If so, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 27AllIn
I find it amusing when people bring up Social Contract, because it can justify anything. Why don't we beat up that millionaire and take all his stuff? Social contract! Let's go over to those pot-heads and throw them in a cage. Social Contract! You're going to pay for endless wars overseas whether you like it or not. Again, Social Contract!
Ethical Egoism can justify just about anything. If I'm a pharmacist and I water down drugs to increase my profits, my customers probably aren't going to die cause they're still getting the drugs, though less than they really need, meanwhile I'm making bank. I benefit, so this is ethical, moral, and good. Me me me me.
Social Contract Theory absolutely has cons, but Ethical Egoism has cons as well. Do you not see them?
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 07-11-2017 at 07:15 AM.