The Problem with Libertarians...

[Berzerker]

Ned -

I think I mentioned something about diminished capacity awhile back.

Not worth a response?

If they violate a contract, they should be held to account, not the millions who didn't violate the contract. I see you are intent on punishing the innocent because of the guilty. Maybe you would change your mind if you were the one being put in a cage because someone else committed a crime.

[Berzerker]

Ted - you ignore my posts, I'll ignore yours, hypocrite.

[Graag]

You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted - you ignore my posts, I'll ignore yours, hypocrite.

I didn't ignore a thing.

Nice attempt to weasel out of the argument though.

[tinyp3nis]

If you chose to push a button, yes.

Oh my, I was under the impression I have to push it.

Why do you only get two choices? Not pushing a button is always a choice...

Wow, I didn't know this, oh man!! Life is so wonderful, I was so worried for a moment, but wow, how wonderfully it turned out! No one has to die!!

So does the hypothetical, but I can see why y'all are having a fit over our answer.

Mainly because you didn't answer the question asked, rather you changed it.

But it's so cool that you did, since, you have given me a excellent idea. An idea that I may be able to use in real life. When I grow old and If I get a bad disease, cancer or whatever, and doctor gives me two(2) options, to die to it naturally or with the help of medicine, which will make it less painless death. Instead of these, I choose to get magically cured.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Graag
You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

There's only so many ways you can call people hypocrites but I'm always impressed by the variety that Hypzerker brings to table.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Look at the amount of litter on any downtown street.

Why? Government deals with litter, not social sanctions.

Libertarian!?!

Are you going to quote the LP platform's endorsement of legalising pollution?

I never said we have a right to pollute, I said it that the prisoner's dilemma shows that it is rational to pollute - i.e. in a voluntary system there is incentive to pollute.

But you said these PD's you are offering prove a contradiction in the libertarian philosophy. So where in the LP platform did you find a right to pollute? Now it seems you are more intent on posting PD's than proving your argument.

Only a coercive state system can remove that incentive by forcing massive penalties onto violators.

And?

One more then...

Geez, how about just one.

OK - you tell me exactly how much Mrs S that lives in Chicago has contributed to my ill health by driving her SUV and not only exactly how much air pollution Phillip Morris is responsible for, but exactly how much that one company has cost you?

Why? Are you willing to be sued for your pollution? As I said, pollution is a matter for regulation because we all pollute. Once those regulations are in place, then we can go after violaters.

The reason that it works in the courts now is that the fines regarding air pollution are primarily meant to deter and they are coercively and somewhat arbitrarily enforced by the state for that reason.

Yes, and?

Now any bleeding idiot that knows anything about Libertarianism knows that the violation of individual rights are the only ground for compensation - not deterrence.

Really? So we would have laws against murder only to compensate the victim who is no longer here to collect?

Deterrence just aims to stop the offending behaviour. The Libertarian system recompenses people for the violation of their rights, the destruction of their property.

We certainly would where possible. If someone knocks down your fence with their car, they get to pay for the damage. Is that any different than what we do now?

It is immoral under a Libertarian system to set up sanctions just as deterrents (imagine the massive violations of liberty that would result if people were fined too much for polluting) although any sanction has some deterrent value.

Why is it immoral to use sanctions as deterrents?

As it stands awards for pollution are fairly arbitrary anyway since it is impossible to sort out whose air pollution has affected whom

That's right, so we focus on the most blatant offenders and fine (or jail) them.

Oh blah blah blah blah.

That's the most rational statement you've made so far in this thread (hope I used your exact words).

I not going to bother with the rest it's just more tired old c*** that misses the point I was making.

Does that mean you are giving up trying to prove that libertarianism is contradictory?

i suggest you read my original posts again.

Will I find the PD you claim proves your proposition that libertarianism is contradictory?

After all Ned got it

He can't figure out the immorality of punishing the innocent because of the guilty, so you'd do better than citing him. But I'd be happy to read his endorsement of your position.

so I can't have been that opaque, but then again he appears to be smarter and better mannered than you.

Hmm...insults in a sentence calling me bad-mannered, lol.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Don't be ridiculous. DinoDoc made that argument in my name. I made a completely different argument. Respond to mine, not the stupid one he made.

One stupid arguement is as good as the next David.

[Berzerker]

Graag -

You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

Thx

[Sava]

I see only one problem with Libertarians: they believe their personal freedoms to be more important than anything else in society... and that's just selfish. I agree with the social aspects of libertarianism (drug legalization, prostitution, etc) because government should not preach morality, especially the morality of a few religious, self-righteous Christians; but their economic policies, in practice, only foster an anarchistic society where the rich, producers, get to exploit workers and extort consumers.

social libertarianism
economic libertarianism

[Berzerker]

Ted -

I didn't ignore a thing.

Yes you did.

Nice attempt to weasel out of the argument though

What argument? That opium can be harmful? I never said otherwise, we were debating the validity of an emperor's motives...Too bad you never responded to my arguments about the drug war.

[Graag]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Graag -

Thx

Hmm, having made that post I feel the need to qualify it somewhat...
I personally am an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Though largely Berz's refutations (is that a word?) apply to my political beliefs... and libertarianism is easier to argue for, as anarchy just confuses people.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

I see only one problem with Libertarians: they believe their personal freedoms to be more important than anything else in society... and that's just selfish.

Would you spend the rest of your life as a slave to better society? These freedoms you apparently consider unimportant are yours too, you know.

I agree with the social aspects of libertarianism (drug legalization, prostitution, etc) because government should not preach morality, especially the morality of a few religious, self-righteous Christians; but their economic policies, in practice, only foster an anarchistic society where the rich, producers, get to exploit workers and extort consumers.

But you want the government to preach your morality by outlawing "selfish" freedoms? Why are the freedoms you want preserved "unselfish" while the freedoms you don't want preserved are "selfish"?

[Berzerker]

Graag -

and libertarianism is easier to argue for, as anarchy just confuses people.

Hehe, are you a Ramo/Boshko type anarchist?

[Berzerker]

Tiny -

Oh my, I was under the impression I have to push it.

Then it isn't a choice now, is it.

Wow, I didn't know this, oh man!! Life is so wonderful, I was so worried for a moment, but wow, how wonderfully it turned out! No one has to die!!

You didn't know a choice to act includes a choice not to act? Well, live and learn... I refer you to a song by Rush called "Freewill".

Mainly because you didn't answer the question asked, rather you changed it.

David and I are smart enough to know the question is flawed. Just how will this killer posing the question force us to "choose" if we don't make a "choice"?

But it's so cool that you did, since, you have given me a excellent idea. An idea that I may be able to use in real life. When I grow old and If I get a bad disease, cancer or whatever, and doctor gives me two(2) options, to die to it naturally or with the help of medicine, which will make it less painless death. Instead of these, I choose to get magically cured.

Why not, the question you want us to answer is also magical, so I suppose a magical cure is possible in your magical world..