The Problem with Libertarians...

[Ned]

Albert Speer, the problem of criminalizing alcohol and for that matter prostitution is that they have both been part of Western civilization for as long as it has existed. I am for keeping alcohol legal. But I would consider decriminalizing prostitution in order to get rid of the pimps and make the lives of prostitutes better.

[David Floyd]

AS,

You're missing the point entirely. I'm not concerned with how many drug addicts there are in the world, or if legalization will lead to more drug use. I don't really care.

What I care about is whether or not people are free to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies.

[Agathon]

Ha Ha Ha....

You're out of your league boy - arguing about these things is something I get paid to do and I've seen better attempts to argue than yours from children.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

An unsupported assertion.

Oh God. There is a lengthy and slightly whimsical piece of dialogue which you don't seem to have understood which argues in support of the claim that Libertarianism violates its own principles when applied to the real world.

It seems you don't understand the meaning of the term "unsupported" and how it differs from "badly supported". You should have said "a badly supported assertion" and then gone on to argue why.

Both are wrong, "worse" is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are going to say this you will be thrown out of the Libertarians' Club rather sharpish, because if there is one thing they cannot stand it is moral relativism. It's quite clear that Libertarians (like John Hospers and Robert Nozick) believe that murder is wrong independently of what people might think (they say this). If one murder is bad, aren't two worse (i.e. twice the badness), all other things being equal? And three worse than two? Or is someone like you going to say that stealing an apple is the moral equivalent of comitting a bank robbery every week?

Go on - I'd like to hear this one.

Your premise is that if one act is immoral, another immoral act becomes justified.

No it isn't - I make no such claim. In fact my conclusion (not premise - they're different by the way) is that since we are often confronted in life by situations in which we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" the Libertarian notion of absolute rights has to be dropped. In other words to protect the rights of the many we may have to violate the rights of the few.

All you have to accept to be forced into this conclusion is that more violations are worse than less - and it seems insane not to say that.

Now, can you cite an example of a smithy refusing to let people borrow his weapons to defend the village? If not, your hypothetical is meaningless. No smithy would have such a stockpile and a free people would be armed of their own accord.

Oh Jeez....

It's called a "thought experiment". In moral theory (a branch of philosophy in which people argue about such things as Libertarianism) people often put forward thought experiments as a way of testing moral principles or theories (like Libertarianism) for coherence. It doesn't matter that there is no such smithy, it doesn't even need to be a smith. I could invent other examples - I only chose a smith because it is the sort of homey example used in the Platonic dialogues. The same sort of situation could occur with a gun shop owner or something completely unrelated to weaponry. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the case could happen - and it could.

And forgive me for asking, why would no smithy have a stockpile of weapons? Is there some physical law preventing smiths from hoarding swords? Should we expect to find the weapons at the fishmonger's shop? Surely the smithy would be a logical place.

And why must a "free people" be armed? Couldn't they have forgotten?

Stealing violates the libertarian principles of freedom and property rights. So obviously maximizing one's own position in life is not a libertarian principle when it involves the property of others.

I suppose I must dignify this with an answer...

Again stealing books from the library is only an example to show the general form of PD situations. I could have used non criminals behaviour, but I chose not to.

In any case the private policing example doesn't involve stealing at all. Nor would a PD case of polluting the environment or buying guns or driving SUV's.

Huh? Can you quote me advocating this? Not that I object to the fact that non-governmental police/security is increasing.

I don't have to quote you. It's common knowledge that coercive taxation is forbidden by Libertarian principles. So other than some form of private policing I can't see any other option.

if you want, if you don't all the people who do will be angry with you and treat you with dis-respect. Enjoy your life in that community... See how behavior can be effected without stealing?

Boo hoo. My neighbours don't like me, what can they do? Nothing, apart from not talk to me - and considering some of the neighbours I've had that wouldn't be so bad. Perhaps I prefer free riding and being safe to being liked. The problem here is that there is an incentive to free ride and when that happens a significant number of people will do it - usually enough to mess it up if past experience is worth anything. Indeed you will find that it according to the PD it is rational not to contribute because I will be better off, on the balance of things, if I don't. Indeed, if I believe what Ayn Rand says, I ought always to act in my self interest over that of everyone else - so being nice and contributing would be very bad if she were right.

There are many other PD examples which are immune to this sort of thing - what about buying a gun - no one else need never know that I have one, but if everyone thinks this way we would all be unsafer.

I'm sure you know plenty of selfish people who are despised by many, most of the ones I know don't seem to care. You are overestimating human decency. Ask an insurance agent what "moral hazard" means, and you'll see what I mean.

The point of the PD is to show that the right's assertion that people acting in their own self interest (I don't mean stealing or killing here) will collectively always produce the optimum result (the so called "Invisible Hand") is a load of tosh.


Come one - you can do better than this. Libertarianism is pretty silly but even I can think of better counterarguments than yours.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Not when only one person is writing both sides of the dialogue

Oh man...

So Plato should have sought collaboration when writing his dialogues? Or Berkeley? Or Hume?

Do you read books by any chance?

[Shi Huangdi]

"I'll respond to you simply... "

... And again ignore a good deal of my argument.

"if not prohibition... what else? "

Legalization. Prohibition is ineffective because people can still get drugs if they want to. But with legalization we can take business out of the gangs that are causing so much problems in the inner city.

"watch the drug situation get even more out of control with more and more drug addicts because drugs become legalized in our society... "

Again it wouldn't get more out of control because people can already drugs if they want to.

[Ted Striker]

Let's Look at Droughts

Originally posted by Berzerker
And farming practices were tied to government regulation of the economy.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a government regulation that led to the Dust Bowl farming problems.

We haven't had a decade long drought impacting a similarly sized region.

Unfortunatley this is completely wrong.

the 1988–89 drought was the most economically devastating natural disaster in the history of the United States (Riebsame et al., 1991), a close second is undoubtedly the series of droughts that affected large portions of the United States in the 1930s.

We have only to look back a few years, to the 1990s, to realize how far drought can reach and how long it can last. In the past decade, drought occurred not only in the drought-prone western states but also throughout the eastern United States. The drought of 1999 in the east extended from the New England states to Florida and westward into the Ohio Valley. For the mid-Atlantic states, this was the worst drought in 100 years. The southeastern states, in particular Georgia and Florida, experienced three to four consecutive years of drought from 1998 to 2001, and dry conditions continue to plague much of Georgia and the Carolinas in 2002. Drought also had substantial impacts in the Pacific Northwest in 2001; in 2002, much of the rest of the western United States is experiencing severe drought conditions.

The impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They are estimated to be between $6 billion and $8 billion annually in the United States and occur primarily in agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.

1) There was also a major drought in the 1950s
2) There was also a major drought in the 1970s

Government Aid

The magnitude of the droughts of the 1930s, combined with the Great Depression, led to unprecedented government relief efforts. Congressional actions in 1934 alone accounted for relief expenditures of $525 million (U.S. House of Representatives, 1934); the total cost (social, economic, and environmental) would be impossible to determine.

Government Educating Farmers on Soil Conservation

If the Roosevelt era marked the beginning of large-scale aid, it also ushered in some of the first long-term, proactive programs to reduce future vulnerability to drought. It was in these years, for example, that the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)—now the Natural Resources Conservation Service—began to stress soil conservation measures. Through their efforts, the first soil conservation districts came into being, and demonstration projects were carried out to show the benefits of practices such as terracing and contouring (for a discussion of the activities of the SCS during this period, see Hurt, 1981).

Why Government Spending on Drought Preparedness Makes Sense

Compared to expenditures of this magnitude, an investment in drought preparedness programs is a sound economic decision. Moreover, drought planning efforts can use existing political and institutional structures, and plans can (and should) be incorporated into general natural disaster or water management plans, thus reducing the cost of planning effort.

http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm

[Agathon]

That's pretty funny, Ted. He can't hide from the facts. I wonder how he'll try to wriggle out of this one.

[David Floyd]

If one murder is bad, aren't two worse (i.e. twice the badness),

If I'm the first person to be killed no matter what, then 1 murder is as bad as 1 million, at least from my perspective, wouldn't you say?

This line of discussion also brings us to the next point - is it OK to murder an innocent to save the lives of 5 other innocents? I would say of course it isn't OK, unless that one person volunteered to die. Killing an innocent to save other innocents is still murder, and hence wrong, just as killing one person is as wrong as killing lots of people - there aren't "degrees of badness" associated with murder: either you murder people or you don't.

In fact my conclusion (not premise - they're different by the way) is that since we are often confronted in life by situations in which we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" the Libertarian notion of absolute rights has to be dropped.

Give me a real life example in which we must choose the lesser of two evils. If you bring up an example of choosing to kill 1 person to save 5, I'm gonna call bull****. It's still murder. The proper course of action is to either do nothing - that way, you are not morally responsible for the deaths of five people (that responsibility lies with the person who killed them), nor are you responsible for the deaths of one person - or to act in a way that will prevent the deaths of five people WITHOUT killing an innocent.

It's called a "thought experiment".

Weren't you the one talking about real world situations? Be consistent.

And forgive me for asking, why would no smithy have a stockpile of weapons? Is there some physical law preventing smiths from hoarding swords? Should we expect to find the weapons at the fishmonger's shop? Surely the smithy would be a logical place.

Well, we're going to make this a (semi) real life scenario, and replace "smithy" with "gun shop". In this case, naturally a gun shop would have lots of guns in it. Yet it would still be wrong to rob the gunshop. If most people were too stupid to purchase firearms in advance, that isn't the fault of the gun owner. Now, I think that he probably WOULD loan or even give out firearms in an extreme situation, acting in his own best interest - that's the most realistic situation, wouldn't you say?

Again stealing books from the library is only an example to show the general form of PD situations. I could have used non criminals behaviour, but I chose not to.

In any case the private policing example doesn't involve stealing at all. Nor would a PD case of polluting the environment or buying guns or driving SUV's.

I'm not sure what PD means (and I'm too tired to go look), so I'll leave this one for Berzerker.

I don't have to quote you. It's common knowledge that coercive taxation is forbidden by Libertarian principles. So other than some form of private policing I can't see any other option.

Well, both Berzerker and I are supporters of government-run lotteries. Those are usually pretty lucrative. As Berzerker will point out, much of the American Revolution was funded through lotteries.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's pretty funny, Ted. He can't hide from the facts. I wonder how he'll try to wriggle out of this one.

As long as the "Submit Reply" button exists, he'll find a way.

Tireless Rebutter:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

We haven't had a decade long drought impacting a similarly sized region.

While you have stated there has been a worse drought, where is the 'decade long drought impacting a similar sized region'? Since you never addressed it, am I to assume you really didn't mean he was completely wrong .

[Ted Striker]

Actually, "a decade long drought affecting a similarly sized region" is even more wrong to begin with because the 1930s droughts weren't really one decade long decade, but, depending on which source you read -- one long 7 year drought, or a series of 4 separate droughts.

But not 10 years.

Also, we have had droughts that have had more economic impact and droughts that have had economic impacts to a similar or larger sized region. And some would even argue the 1950s droughts were even more intense than the 1930s droughts, but that they don't get as much attention because the economic climate in the 1950s was more prosperous.

The point of all this is that we have had several droughts and have recovered alot better because of soil convervation programs.

But if you want to start down the boring semantics route, feel free, but I more than addressed what he said Siddiqui.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If I'm the first person to be killed no matter what, then 1 murder is as bad as 1 million, at least from my perspective, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't and I don't believe that a card carrying Libertarian would either. They hold to a notion of human rights - that is, from the point of view of morality, any murder is as bad as another - I can't make an exception in my own case. My murder would be bad from my point of view, but not from the impartial point of view which Libertarians think is central to ethics.

This line of discussion also brings us to the next point - is it OK to murder an innocent to save the lives of 5 other innocents? I would say of course it isn't OK, unless that one person volunteered to die. Killing an innocent to save other innocents is still murder, and hence wrong, just as killing one person is as wrong as killing lots of people - there aren't "degrees of badness" associated with murder: either you murder people or you don't.

It doesn't have to be murder, it could be theft or some other wrong. No one, least of all me, is arguing that such a murder would be a good thing, but surely from the impartial view of moral rights five murders is worse.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that the person who murders his wife has committed an equivalent wrong to the man who ordered the Holocaust? He might be just as much a bad person but it is actions and not characters that are subject to moral scrutiny in Libertarian theory. Are the police unjustified in their satisfaction at a lower murder rate? You owe a very convincing answer to this question.

Give me a real life example in which we must choose the lesser of two evils. If you bring up an example of choosing to kill 1 person to save 5, I'm gonna call bull****. It's still murder. The proper course of action is to either do nothing - that way, you are not morally responsible for the deaths of five people (that responsibility lies with the person who killed them), nor are you responsible for the deaths of one person - or to act in a way that will prevent the deaths of five people WITHOUT killing an innocent.

Your example is good enough - perfectly plausible in fact. It seems to me to involve a choice between the lesser of two evils. So what's the problem?

Your view is often called "moral fetishism" because you seem to put your own moral purity over and above the consequences of your acting or not acting. What you need to tell me is just why the lives of the 5 people are somehow worth less than your clear conscience. Why does it matter that you do it? No one would throw you in jail for killing someone in this situation- so responsibility is a side issue.

Again, I don't say that killing a person is a good thing, but it can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. I can't understand how you seem to think 1 death is the moral equivalent of 5. There's nothing bull**** about it - if you think murder is a bad thing, it must be a bad thing because people's rights are violated, and if you think that, you must think that it would be a better situation overall if fewer rights were violated even if this makes you the violator, otherwise what's the point of saying it's wrong in the first place.

This is the key question. Why do you think it is wrong in the first place?

I'd say (putting on a Libertarian hat) - [i] when someone is killed their right to determine their own life plan has been disrupted by another - their freedom has been violated in the most heinous fashion. If we are committed to a society of free individuals then we must rejoice at a state in which all individuals rights are respected and deem a society less free the greater the number of members who do not have their rights respected. We can compare societies by the degree to which they have realised this for their members. But if we can do that - if we can say one is better than another - we can also say that one is worse than another depending on the number and degree of rights-violations - and that's the key move. If I am a Libertarian it makes no sense for me to say that I don't care if more or less people are free in my society. And if I make this move I will inevitably be confronted with cases in which rights can't be absolutely respected.

Weren't you the one talking about real world situations? Be consistent.

I don't see anything wrong with your example.

Well, we're going to make this a (semi) real life scenario, and replace "smithy" with "gun shop". In this case, naturally a gun shop would have lots of guns in it. Yet it would still be wrong to rob the gunshop. If most people were too stupid to purchase firearms in advance, that isn't the fault of the gun owner. Now, I think that he probably WOULD loan or even give out firearms in an extreme situation, acting in his own best interest - that's the most realistic situation, wouldn't you say?

I say it is the most realistic situation that the gun owner would hand out guns, yet it is conceivable that he wouldn't - and if that was the case force would be the only option. Look, the specifics of the case don't matter that much - the key question is: "Is it permissible to violate one person's right in order to prevent the violation of the rights of many persons?"

I'm not sure what PD means (and I'm too tired to go look), so I'll leave this one for Berzerker.

Well, both Berzerker and I are supporters of government-run lotteries. Those are usually pretty lucrative. As Berzerker will point out, much of the American Revolution was funded through lotteries.

Prisoner's Dilemma.

[Agathon]

Ah, there's a bit of tireless rebutter in us all. But the decent among us know when we're beat.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"I'll respond to you simply... "

... And again ignore a good deal of my argument.

"if not prohibition... what else? "

Legalization. Prohibition is ineffective because people can still get drugs if they want to. But with legalization we can take business out of the gangs that are causing so much problems in the inner city.

"watch the drug situation get even more out of control with more and more drug addicts because drugs become legalized in our society... "

Again it wouldn't get more out of control because people can already drugs if they want to.

Huh? No FDA? No more prescriptions? Any drug for sale to anyone for anything?

This doesn't make sense.

[Ramo]

Trying to ensure economic equality is anti-thetical to libertarianism.

Excuse me? Economic equality (I believe in rough economic equality, not absolute economic equality BTW) can be ensured through voluntary means. If workers control their businesses, they would likely not pay certain positions exorberant salaries, and they would likely not screw over their comrades too badly...

The inventors and producers who create wealth will have to be restrained from keeping the wealth they create and the fruits of their efforts syphoned off to enrich those who don't invent and produce less.

That simply is not true. The point of anarchism is to enable workers to be the inventors and producers. You are describing a social democratic system; i.e. a strawman.

Diverting resources from the efficient to the inefficient is not better than the marketplace.

This so-called "inefficiency" is baseless speculation. If you look at anarchist societies such as in Spain, there is often a great deal of innovation.

Sure, many people seek the use/power of government to take what belongs to others, that isn't a justification for allowing that to happen.

What justification? I was simply showing why your beliefs are not practical, not justifying a more statist system.

And if they strike, I can hire people who will honor their contracts.

And the workers could collectively refuse to work at your business.

If I stole it, yes, but they would have to have a better claim to the land.

I agree as long as you keep in mind that this usage of theft is not constrained by the wishes of the state.

Yes, that's why I asked how stealing by either group is justified.

Morality matters more.

That's a non-issue. I'm not justifying the morality of statism; rather I'm illuminating the impracticality of libertarian capitalism. Please stick to the actual debate.