The Problem with Libertarians...

[Agathon]

Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less - less liberty than more - and more property crimes than less. Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it? He still seems to think that his own moral purity counts more than the deaths of many times those he would have to kill. One murder to prevent a holocaust is one murder too many for him.

And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you. I'm getting tired of this - you don't seem to understand the point of the thought experiments - silly empirical objections or changing the example is missing the point. It's as if someone complained that Schrodinger's cat was a pointless thought experiment because no one would be cruel enough to do that to a cat.

As for the comments about the war situation being unrealistic. What you seem to be claiming is that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, they would never do anything bad to us - are you mad? What world do you live in?

Anyway, you don't have to bother with that if you don't want to. I'm more intrigued by this comment.

Certainly you are morally responsible - you had the means at hand to prevent his death in a moral way. You wouldn't have had to drown someone to save your infant son. This scenario has nothing to do with the hypothetical.

So I should be punished if I let him die? Is that what you are saying?

Try this one:

Say my neighbour's kid falls hits his head at the public baths just as I walk in and I am, by accident rather than design the only adult there. Am I responsible, culpable and punishable if I stand by and enjoy watching the child drown (I might be a sadist). In other words do I have a moral obligation to save him and should I be had up for manslaughter if I don't?

Answer this and I won't bother you about any of the rest any more.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less

No, he is "settling" for not committing murder as opposed to committing murder.

Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it?

It's not about doing something to stop it, it's about murdering to stop it.

He still seems to think that his own moral purity counts more than the deaths of many times those he would have to kill.

Those he would have to murder.

One murder to prevent a holocaust is one murder too many for him.

Would you murder 100 people to save 101 people from being murdered?

And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you. I'm getting tired of this - you don't seem to understand the point of the thought experiments - silly empirical objections or changing the example is missing the point.

Your failure to cite a PD proving your proposal that libertarianism is contradictory is hardly impressive.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

I can, I just won't.

Or because you can't.

Nope, you won't provide links when asked, I won't either.

I did that one time. Of course if I was anal like you, I could argue how you just applied the plural word "links" to a one time occurance. On the other hand, I have provided an overwhelming number of links to back up my analysis.

But you did tell Monkspider he was right to ignore my lengthy rebuttals.

Point it out please.

only a fool would claim that had absolutely no effect on farming practices.

Ah, but again my Anal Friend, I never claimed that it didn't. I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically. And loose money sure as hell didn't CAUSE the Dust Bowl.

But regardless, the Depression was induced by government monetary policy and that in turn effected the farming industry.

It's not that simple. Take any BASIC, elementary level history class, or, if you want, take an advanced level class, or, research the topic on your own. Oh, wait, you won't do research.

You were the one who claimed "greedy mismanagement" induced by laissez faire contributed to the dust bowl.

That's right, I said greedy LAND mismanagement induced by the lassiez faire SPECIFIC to the farming sector, contributed to the dust bowl. The Dust Bowl was a recoverable situation but because of poor land management, the land was unrecoverable.

You're assuming land management decisions were made in a laissez faire system, they weren't.

Farmers can't manage the land that they own?

You keep wanting to seperate how farms were operated from the economic system in place at the time, it can't be done because laissez faire wasn't the system farms were being operated under.

I will meet you halfway on this and say that, some sectors are more heavily regulated than others. The farming sector post 1920s was more heavily regulated than before then, however there were few if any regulations regarding farming in early 20th century.

I heard the drought was regional, the Rockies area, and it culminated (as far as symbolism goes) with the firestorm in Yellowstone. But that firestorm was the result of government intervention just as the more recent firestorms in the four corners area.

Well, again my sources differ from yours, as with the recounting of the Dust Bowl drought years.

Where was this drought? The bread basket of the country?

Ironically, it was actually in the Southwest, where the Okies had retreated to after the Dust Bowl was wiped out. It covered 7 states and Cali and Texas were among them. It's thought of as the worst drought to ever hit that region. The worst of it hit in 1951-1956, but actually precipitation was really low as far back as 1942, so there was a dry period from 1942-1956, and then it was capped off in 1951-56. Remeber that California was and is the #1 agricultural state in the union. And those Southwestern states have all the big cattle ranches as well.

http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/learn/fire/figures/1950smap.html

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Or because you can't.

Where was your response to my post about the drug war and how it came about? Want more? Too bad.

I did that one time.

Well, maybe you've learned a lesson, but I doubt it.

Of course if I was anal like you, I could argue how you just applied the plural word "links" to a one time occurance.

You are anal, that's why you came up with that response.

On the other hand, I have provided an overwhelming number of links to back up my analysis.

Who cares about your analysis about something irrelevant to the debate?

Point it out please.

You already forgot applauding Monkspider for not responding to my lengthy rebuttals? Feel free to refresh your memory by re-reading your posts.

Ah, but again my Anal Friend, I never claimed that it didn't. I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically. And loose money sure as hell didn't CAUSE the Dust Bowl.

Then why blame laissez faire? And it wasn't loose money, it was the contraction of the money supply following loose money I believe.

It's not that simple. Take any BASIC, elementary level history class, or, if you want, take an advanced level class, or, research the topic on your own. Oh, wait, you won't do research.

I don't do your research.

That's right, I said greedy LAND mismanagement induced by the lassiez faire SPECIFIC to the farming sector, contributed to the dust bowl.

Make up your "mind", you just got finished telling us the following - "I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically."

You haven't proven laissez faire was even involved, but you cite the government's intervention in the economy.

The Dust Bowl was a recoverable situation but because of poor land management, the land was unrecoverable.

You keep repeating this as if it proves laissez faire was complicit.

Farmers can't manage the land that they own?

Not if they don't own the land outright and have to manage it to comply with banking and federal reserve policies.

I will meet you halfway on this and say that, some sectors are more heavily regulated than others. The farming sector post 1920s was more heavily regulated than before then, however there were few if any regulations regarding farming in early 20th century.

Then laissez faire is not to blame.

Ironically, it was actually in the Southwest, where the Okies had retreated to after the Dust Bowl was wiped out. It covered 7 states and Cali and Texas were among them. It's thought of as the worst drought to ever hit that region. The worst of it hit in 1951-1956, but actually precipitation was really low as far back as 1942, so there was a dry period from 1942-1956, and then it was capped off in 1951-56. Remeber that California was and is the #1 agricultural state in the union. And those Southwestern states have all the big cattle ranches as well.

And very sparce soil. I'd have to see the drought parameters concerning California. I'll look at the az link.

No comment on the drug use stats prior to the Harrison Act?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

Where was your response to my post about the drug war and how it came about? Want more? Too bad.

Nonstop Anal probe Machine, I responded to it. So yes, I want more.

Who cares about your [b]anal/b]ysis about something irrelevant to the debate?

You've never gone out on asides or sidetracked, or sidestepped anyone though have you?

You already forgot applauding Monkspider for not responding to my lengthy rebuttals? Feel free to refresh your memory by re-reading your posts.

The original point was that you claimed I said we should ignore your posts. In fact, I never said that. Instead, I was making fun of your posts.

I don't do your research.

You don't do your own research.

You haven't proven laissez faire was even involved, but you cite the government's intervention in the economy.

I cited the government intervention as helping the farming sector in particular for preventing another Dust Bowl.

Not if they don't own the land outright and have to manage it to comply with banking and federal reserve policies.

Oh come on! The Federal Reserve makes land management decisions? Give me a break.

Then laissez faire is not to blame.

Lassiez-faire like lack of regulations ARE.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, where are those drug numbers?

[David Floyd]

Agathon,

Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less - less liberty than more - and more property crimes than less.

That's ridiculous. I'm not settling for any murders - I'm saying that all murder is wrong. You can't blame the evil in the world on me - you can properly blame it on the person or people committing evil acts.

Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it?

That's not a correct interpretation of my position. I will happily use any moral means at my disposal to prevent murder.

And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you.

I've answered every question you've asked and every point you've made - you just don't like the answers.

It's as if someone complained that Schrodinger's cat was a pointless thought experiment because no one would be cruel enough to do that to a cat.

Comparing physics to philosophy is stupid.

What you seem to be claiming is that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, they would never do anything bad to us

While you seem to be making the claim that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, we would still have fought in the same number of wars. I can't tell you what would have happened had we behaved morally - no one can. All I can tell you is that if we had behaved differently - morally - the same situation would not have happened.

So I should be punished if I let him die? Is that what you are saying?

I think that parents have certain obligations to their children, once they take on the implied responsibility of taking care of a helpless - or at least comparatively helpless - child.

In other words do I have a moral obligation to save him

Certainly, as long as saving him won't endanger yourself. If danger to yourself is involved, it becomes a personal decision with no absolute right or wrong answer.

and should I be had up for manslaughter if I don't?

I'm not sure what the proper charge, if any, would be. What I can tell you is something you've already said and agreed to - moral obligations and the law aren't necessarily the same thing.

And in any case, I thought we were discussing morality, not legality. Why are you changing the debate?

[Agathon]

David,

I said I'd leave the other stuff alone as long as you answered this question, and I'm true to my word.

You answered regarding the drowning child.

Certainly, as long as saving him won't endanger yourself.

You're really sure?

Is this because you think that we all have a moral obligation to help people when there is no comparable danger and little cost to ourselves, and that in egregious circumstances failure to act should be punishable by law; commitment to this general ethical principle being the reason for your answer?

Please think carefully before you agree to this - I'm really surprised and baffled that you agreed to the first one.

[David Floyd]

Is this because you think that we all have a moral obligation to help people when there is no comparable danger and little cost to ourselves, and that in egregious circumstances failure to act should be punishable by law

First of all, I never said anything about legality and punishment, you brought that up. I'm only arguing morality.

Secondly, I suppose I should add the caveat that the moral obligation to act ONLY EXISTS when the action itself is moral. I figured that would have been assumed.

Thirdly, I should never force someone else to help someone out. That means that my wish to go help England fight Nazi Germany should only apply to myself - I should not push for a declaration of war against Nazi Germany or push for the use of government income to fund the war in any way. If I want to go fight, fine, I can go join the English (or German) army, but I shouldn't force anyone else to.

Finally, some of my beliefs in obligations are as a result of my religious beliefs. These only extend to myself, obviously - I can't and shouldn't force anyone to believe the same as I do, but as far as I am concerned, the fact that I'm a Christian means that I have certain additional responsibilities that someone who is not religious would not have.

So, does that mean that I have an obligation to help a poor person, for example, if I can do so without hurting myself and can do so with the means at my disposal? Sure I do - I shouldn't rob a store to give him money, and I shouldn't impoverish or harm myself or my family, but if I have extra money at hand, and I see someone in need, I should help them out (explanation below, don't quote me out of context).

Ayn Rand might not agree with me, but when did I claim to agree 100% with her?

Also realize that, in general, I don't think that laws should be passed to force us to act morally - only laws that prevent us from directly harming another should be on the books. Thus, the government shouldn't pass a law forcing me to help the poor (through food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or whatever) - my belief that I have a moral obligation to help the poor, when possible, stems from my Christianity, not from any particular societal obligation or anything else. An atheist, for example, has NO obligation to help the poor, only an obligation not to do something to cause them harm.

Sufficient answer?

[Agathon]

Your failure to cite a PD proving your proposal that libertarianism is contradictory is hardly impressive.

Your failure to understand the import of the prisoner's dilemma was even more impressive.

The incoherence is basically the same in the other case. Libertarianism is committed to a conception of rights that endorses a certain political system. Adoption of that system given rational choice theory means that Randian libertarianism fails since each person must always seek the optimum result for him and herself, no matter what; and this entails that prisoner's dilemma situations will lead to a less than optimal outcome overall - in fact I think it will destroy the economic and social basis that enabled it to function in the first place. To avoid the prisoner's dilemma, citizens will have to behave alruistically, which is forbidden by Rand (although her grounds for this are shaky). How can you promote something if promoting it leads to its own destruction.

In the case of non-objectivists, the case is harder to make. Your response was that social sanctions would suffice to convince non-contributors to contribute. I think that the evidence of ordinary social regulation is sufficient to show this isn't true. Unfortunately, this is an empirical rather than deductive claim so the best way of confirming it is to look. However, I can't make you look so that's all I can really say - other than to remark that I find your remarks about taxation odd. You say that people try to cheat on tax because they are paying too much. This would suggest that they would be satisified with a certain level of taxation and stop trying to cheat. Unfortunately, in my experience, almost everyone's preferred level of taxation is zero; in fact it is less than zero, since people often try for top ups from the government if they can.

The reason for this is that it is a classic prisoner's dilemma situation - people know that everyone else will do their darndest to pay as little tax as possible (look at the thriving trade done by accountants in this area) so they do the same, otherwise they will pay more than their share and everyone will free ride off them.

I can offer this response to non objectivists and objectivists alike. Your attempted social sanctions will only be effective if most people adhere to them. Yes, you've guessed it: this creates another prisoner's dilemma since each person has an incentive to break the sanctions unless they have complete trust in everyone else.

[Agathon]

David,

Can you think of any situations like the drowning child (and including it) in which a person is not only morally obliged to help, but laws should be passed to punish those who don't?

A fuller diagnosis tomorrow.

[David Floyd]

In the case of non-objectivists, the case is harder to make.

Who ever claimed to be an Objectivist?

Further, you are again missing the point that government income can come from a source that is neither a tax or a voluntary check written out to the government. Government lotteries, for example, or fines as a punishment for certain crimes. Government-run casinos are a possibility that I haven't thought much about, but on the surface seem reasonable, given their non-coercive nature and the fact that they seem to be pretty lucrative.

[orange]

Religion has nothing to do with it. I feel obligated to give to the poor just as you do and I'm an athiest. Your religion makes you feel obligated, but it does not actually make you obligated any more than my own humanity makes me obligated. I resent any implication that religion is what forces individuals to be compassionate.

[David Floyd]

Can you think of any situations like the drowning child (and including it) in which a person is not only morally obliged to help, but laws should be passed to punish those who don't?

Not really. Quite frankly, I don't believe in "Good Samaritan" laws.

The only exception would be the case of parents and children. Parents, by becoming parents, take on a responsibility for the life of another. The assumption of this responsibility is totally voluntary - no one is making them have a child. So if a parent watches their child die when they can reasonably prevent it, I think that is a punishable act.

[David Floyd]

Religion has nothing to do with it. I feel obligated to give to the poor just as you do and I'm an athiest. Your religion makes you feel obligated, but it does not actually make you obligated any more than my own humanity makes me obligated. I resent any implication that religion is what forces individuals to be compassionate.

Outside of religion, helping others is a decision that is really neither moral or immoral, in the sense that murder is immoral and not murdering is moral. If you want to help others, great, but I fail to see the moral obligation. If you want to feel morally obligated, fine, but I'm not sure what you base that on.

[orange]

mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1) Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

If "not murdering" is moral, so is "giving to the poor".