The Problem with Libertarians...

[Berzerker]

Ted -

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

No you didn't.

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

Translation please.

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.

You applauded Monkspider for ignoring my post and said he and others were justified in doing the same. I see your memory has returned...well...almost...

And you accuse me of being "anal"?

You don't do your own research.

I tracked down the drug consumption rate prior to the Harrison Act, a stat corroborating my claim, did you ignore that stat again? I provided an article dealing with the alleged complicity of laissez faire in the Irish potato famine which you dismissed without even refuting anything in the article, so what's the point of providing documentation when you just ignore it?

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

That's nice...and irrelevant to what I said.

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

I said the Fed makes decisions about money supply which in turn impacts economic decisions made by bankers and then farmers.

Lassiez-faire like lack of regulations ARE.

Strange, what happened to meeting me halfway? You don't think the Fed makes regulations concerning banks and the economy?

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

Why don't you look at the last couple of pages? Do you need your hand held?

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

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

I understand your PD's, I'm just pointing out that you never produced a PD for the purpose you stated - proving libertarianism is contradictory.

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.

Well, that's all very nice, but you still haven't produced a PD to support your assertion. And let's rememeber, your assertion was about libertarianism, not Rand.

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.

People often behave altruistically because they believe it is in their self-interest. Mother Teresa is just one example. Now you are trying to switch the debate to Rand, but that wasn't your assertion.

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

You haven't made the case for either objectivists or non-objectivists. Just focus on libertarianism and then maybe one of the Randian's (if there is one) here will debate you about her ideas...

Your response was that social sanctions would suffice to convince non-contributors to contribute.

I don't care if there is a tiny minority of people who don't support the military or police. Social sanctions will work for most of those who don't contribute. I never said it would eliminate all free-riding.

I think that the evidence of ordinary social regulation is sufficient to show this isn't true.

Then provide the evidence. If your argument was valid, there wouldn't have been an American Revolution.

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.

There's nothing to look at, you've neither provided a PD or evidence that social sanctions fail.

You say that people try to cheat on tax because they are paying too much.

Yup, and they may not appreciate having their money taken to enrich those who didn't earn it.

This would suggest that they would be satisified with a certain level of taxation and stop trying to cheat.

If the level of taxation increased to 95%, would we see more tax "cheating" or less? If it was reduced to %5, would we see more "cheating" or less?

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.

Then they wouldn't get the services they want. Again, if your argument was valid, we wouldn't have any taxation now. I've asked you to explain that paradox in your argument but you don't.

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.

Geez, didn't I just explain that more people now try to reduce their taxes because they feel they are paying too much? Are you suggesting people not seek accountants so they pay only what is "legally" required of them? Under a libertarian system, there are only a few services open to free riding - military, police, and fire. And that's if these are voluntary and not funded by user fees.

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.

Yup. Most would pay taxes even without the sanctions because it is in their self-interest to have certain services.

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.

Can you clarify that?

And can you answer my question: would you murder 100 people to prevent the murder of 101 people?

[orange]

instead of thinking of the government as Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, why not think of government as charging a price for its services (protection, law enforcement, etc.) and then spending its money as it sees fit? (in a moral way...giving to the poor...etc.)

[Agathon]

David:

I knew you'd back out at the last minute.

You think you would save the drowning child but you back out regarding good samaritan laws. Well one such law would be that someone would be guilty of manslaughter through negligence if they allowed a kid to drown when they could have saved him at little cost to themselves (i.e. wet trousers).

In any case if you are a Libertarian, morality (the Libertarian system of rights) should be the law - one distinguishing mark of Libertarianism is that it believes that morality should be the law. Anything that doesn't fit the Libertarian schema of rights might as well be like one's taste in clothing for all the effect it has - and clearly can't ever be the law.

Are you saying that, as a Libertarian, you think that it is OK for a sadist to watch a child drown, and for this to be morally excusable and not subject to legal sanction in any way? Or do you think, as a Libertarian, the former and not the latter?

Berzerker:

I'm starting to feel like Ted. After all what is the point of producing arguments only to fail to have them understood by one's interlocutor, who resorts to facile and irrelevant replies that show little evidence of thought. For example, Ted has produced mountains of documentary evidence against your claims which you can't answer, so you keep up with silly and irrelevant sniping or try to change the subject.

If you want to know why social sanctions create a prisoner's dilemma, look at the "boycotters' dilemma". I thought you would have been smart enought to make the connection and work it out for yourself, but I obviously am guilty of wild overestimation.

[orange]

Floyd isn't concerned with morality regarding any laws. He's concerned with violating a person's right to life liberty or property. Any of these three are the only grounds for legal punishment or the legitimate use of force to prevent. That's what I gather. Correct me if I'm wrong DF.

[orange]

ie - you kill me you're violating my right to life. Enslave me and you're violating my right to liberty. Steal my truck and you're violating my right to property.

Any of these would be grounds for legal action or the legitimate use of force to change/prevent.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

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.

Man, you are losing your Libertarian credibility here. So the government runs casinos - odd thing to say for a bunch of people that wants to get the government out of business - presumably it couldn't stop others running them as well. And what limits would there be to government imposition of fines - after all isn't the paradigmatic Libertarian case of a fine something paid to another citizen when one has wronged them - i.e. the victim gets the money not the government?

[David Floyd]

In any case if you are a Libertarian, morality (the Libertarian system of rights) should be the law

Erm, no.

Let's say, for example, that I felt that homosexuality was immoral (not saying that I do, so let's not open that can of worms). That's a personal belief, and it would govern my actions, but because homosexuality does not hurt anyone, I would not support government regulation of it.

The kind of laws I support, as orange pointed out to you, are laws that prevent or punish the violation of individual right. Violating someone's rights is, naturally, immoral, but that isn't all that morality is.

Are you saying that, as a Libertarian, you think that it is OK for a sadist to watch a child drown

No, it's not OK or excusable, I just don't believe in Good Samaritan laws. Another example of the difference between personal morality and violation of rights.

So the government runs casinos - odd thing to say for a bunch of people that wants to get the government out of business - presumably it couldn't stop others running them as well.

As long as the government is not imposing restrictions on private casinos, and as long as their casinos are not being funded, even initially, by taxes, then I see no problem with them, at least not yet. Someone might convince me I'm wrong, but you're not going to.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Who ever claimed to be an Objectivist?"
David Floyd

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I thought an objectivist is one who believes in the existence of moral truth right for everyone?

You also say you are Christian.

Generally these two are incoherent. While Christians do agree that no one should be forced to worship, they do believe in a moral truth applicable to everyone, a code that everyone should follow.

How could they preach that everyone has sinned and needs redemption without an objective moral standard to measure everyone up to?

Do you believe that everyone should emulate Christ in their behavior?

[orange]

If you're going to go the morality/christianity route, better question is to ask about the ten commandments, specifically one: Thou shalt not kill.

Not "Thou shalt not murder". Not "Thou shalt not kill except in self defence or when your rights are threatened"..."Thou shalt not kill".

You wanna talk strict interpretation of the constitution, how about a strict interpretation of those commandments, God boy

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
Not "Thou shalt not murder".

Why not? That's what it says. Not "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

[orange]

hah, does it really?? See what 7 years of CCD did for me? Nothin'

[orange]

Hmmmm...I'm finding

13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13

[orange]

both the American Standard AND King James versions

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
both the American Standard AND King James versions

You and they are wrong.