The Problem with Libertarians...

[Ted Striker]

It led to war

Are you blaming the Chinese for trying to enforce rules in their own country? There were over 2 million Opium addicts. No doubt you are trying to compare this with the modern war on drugs, right? They had decided that Opium was having a terrible effect on their country, and rightly so. And by every historical account I have read, it was a devastating drug (in terms of the effects on Chinese society as a whole).

Does modern China still have this problem? I say no, but then again I am ignorant of China's current drug situation.

and the undermining of Chinese soverignity.

Chinese Sovereignty had already been undermined long before the Opium Wars. Again, gunboat diplomacy. This is blaming the victim. Certainly other European powers (and the US) became more confident after the wars, but the trend had already been established.

This one is completely on the British for being the bad guy. They were "conveniently" shipping Opium into China in HUGE ships alongside regular goods, making sure any attempt to enforce anti-Opium drug laws became complex.

The Opium Wars were over greed, as the British were making a fortune from it.

Regarding its legality, I see the Pharmacy Act of 1868 restricted its use to only licensed pharmacists, so I stand corrected. Do you have more information on the year 1878? (I can't find it).

One final note is that the Chinese banned Opium in response to its deterimental effects, so there was a period of time in the late 18th century where it was used legally there.

[Berzerker]

MRT -

you dont, you just provide one sentence answers that are basicly your unproven opinions.

Let us know when you learn to read, or is the problem just comprehending what you read?

you are also fairly dismissive with your one sentence replys

I am to a$$holes like you and Ted.

and i dont think you even really care about proving yourself. you only care about one upping another person.

Well, how can I care about "one upping" someone when I don't care about supporting my arguments? I take it 144 is not your IQ.

in fact if YOU had read my previous post you would see i said that you didnt provide counter arguements.

I did read it, you just edited your post after I responded to it. So now you accuse me of not reading it? A$$hole! You are the one who apparently doesn't know a rebuttal is an argument. If you look back and "read" this thread, you will see that a couple people have complained about me making to many rebuttals. Naturally, a moron would enter the thread to accuse me of doing the opposite.

and i hope you derive some pleasure by demeaning me.

I do, I don't like a$$holes and hypocrites.

how exactly do you make points with once sentence quips and jabs at people?

Read.

i couldnt find more than 10 points you made that were longer than 2 sentences and were not a rebuttle to someones arguement.

I didn't start this thread with a proposal, Speer started the thread with his proposal. That means people who disagree are in the position of refuting his arguments.

thats your whole debating style though. you try to look superior to others and get your point across simply by breaking down other people's arguements line by line but not providing a counter arguement that you could prove yourself.

Lol, what a moron.

but hey, if you want a power trip by calling me illiterate by all means go ahead.

I did. Ooh, the power...

Im ignorant and cant read.

I know.

hope you celebrate this occasion with all your friends and family and make light of what a sad person i am.

There's an idea, they could use a good laugh too.

take the power trip. be that person

Do you realise you've not supported your "arguments" yet? What a surprise...

[MRT144]

do i need to? youve just proven my points for me with that post

[Ted Striker]

Numbers on 19th century American drug users please Berzerker.

Stop harassing MRT though I'm sure you are amusing him.

[MRT144]

and amusing myself at the same time...
im just seeing at which point he will give up and just stop trying to bust my iron hide

[Berzerker]

Ted -

OMG, that is without a doubt the most ignorant and cruel thing you have ever said. The Opium trade was IMPOSED on the Chinese by BRITISH MERCHANTS. The Chinese Emperor was powerless at the time to stop the British.

Oh, poor Chinese emporer. Who did the complaining? The Chinese emporer and his court or the poor Chinese enslaved by the emporer and his court? According to you, a bureaucrat employed by the emporer who was enslaving the Chinese. So, you didn't refute my argument, you in fact supported my argument and accused me of being ignorant, ROTFLMAO!

The Opium Wars were one of, if not THE, most humiliating and darkest time in Chinese history.

Humiliating to a slaveowner, you've misplaced your bleeding heart.

Why do think that it was called the "Opium Wars"?

I know the history.

The Chinese even tried to go to war to stop it but at that time they didn't have a modernized enough armed forces to defend themselves from the European merchant armies.

The "Chinese"? No, a slaveowner.

Numbers on 19th century American drug users please Berzerker.

You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression, then you told me to look for a link to support your argument about a food riot in Arkansas, so don't ask me to do research for you hypocrite.

Stop harassing MRT though I'm sure you are amusing him

If he is deriving pleasure, why would you want me to stop? Doh!

MRT -

do i need to? youve just proven my points for me with that post

Yup, real brilliant there. You made the accusations before "that post", so the "proof" did not exist when you made the accusations.

[Berzerker]

and amusing myself at the same time...
im just seeing at which point he will give up and just stop trying to bust my iron hide

You enjoy being demeaned? Iron hide? That explains why nothing is getting through to that "brain" of yours.

[MRT144]

because i knew the way in which you would reply. i could cite the previous posts you made but why waste my time when your quick fingers would provide a perfect example only seconds later

and yes, im defying the human anatomy by having a phantom brain

and i dont mind being demeaned because i have nothing to prove to people online

[Ted Striker]

slaveowner

Proof?

You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression

500,000 was not my estimates. I never complained about a specific number. And I've also addressed your faulty one-dimensional requirement of death count numbers a couple of times already.

[Ted Striker]

If he is deriving pleasure, why would you want me to stop? Doh!

Every single comment is an argument to you isn't it?

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

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.

If there is one, you've failed to offer it.

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.

An argument is either supported or it isn't, and I did explain why it was unsupported. You didn't explain why it was "badly supported" or supported at all.

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.

I said both examples you gave were wrong.

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).

And what did I say to your hypothetical? That both were wrong.

If one murder is bad, aren't two worse (i.e. twice the badness), all other things being equal?

Worse for whom? Yes, it's worse to murder 1 million people than 1 person. How does that justify murdering the 1 person?

Or is someone like you going to say that stealing an apple is the moral equivalent of comitting a bank robbery every week?

Both are immoral (I didn't know immorality was broken up into varying levels - either an act is immoral or it isn't), the fact a murder occurs doesn't justify rape if the rape will prevent the murder.

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

Read it instead.

No it isn't - I make no such claim.

Yes you did, you (Socrates) argued that there were situations in which choices between 1 violation of rights was justifiable if the alternative was multiple violations.

In fact my conclusion (not premise - they're different by the way)

A conclusion depends on a premise. Your conclusion, that violating the rights of one person is justified if the alternative is 50 violations, depends on the premise that the conclusion should be based on which is "worse".

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.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil.

In other words to protect the rights of the many we may have to violate the rights of the few.

On the issue of drugs, everyone's rights are being violated. But does this mean you would have supported the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?

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.

"Worse" is your standard.

Oh Jeez....

It's called a "thought experiment".

So the fact you can't support your hypothetical with a real world example means your "thought experiment" is relevant?

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.

And if these "thought experiments" are detached from reality, they are meaningless.

It doesn't matter that there is no such smithy, it doesn't even need to be a smith.

If there is no such smithy, there is no "experiment".

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.

Okay, then my response remains the same.

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the case could happen - and it could.

Really? But you can't show that it has, umkay.

And forgive me for asking, why would no smithy have a stockpile of weapons?

I didn't say a smithy would not have a stockpile, I said he wouldn't have the stockpile necessary to ward off the intruding army.

Is there some physical law preventing smiths from hoarding swords?

Nope, just common sense. A smithy would have weapons owned by others in need of repair and some for sale.

Should we expect to find the weapons at the fishmonger's shop? Surely the smithy would be a logical place.

No, the logical place would be in the homes of the people who are free to have them unless people like you decide to violate their rights for the good of the community.

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

Let us know when you come down from planet whoopie. Where did I say they "must" be armed? I said they would be armed of their own accord.

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

You were the one who gave the hypothetical of stealing library books as a contradiction of libertarianism.

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.

Then do so because using a behavior libertarians believe should be illegal is not a contradiction of libertarian principles.

In any case the private policing example doesn't involve stealing at all.

So use that argument to show the self-contradictory nature of libertariansim, but private or public policing doesn't violate libertarian principles.

Nor would a PD case of polluting the environment or buying guns or driving SUV's.

If that is your example, flesh it out.

I don't have to quote you. It's common knowledge that coercive taxation is forbidden by Libertarian principles.

So quote me or the LP platform that says the police must be private. Furthermore, user fees are not coercive, they are payment for services rendered and wanted.

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.

Pretty short-sided there, they can do a whole lot more than not talk to you. They can dis-associate from you in ways you won't like. Try buying food from the local grocer who hates your guts.

Perhaps I prefer free riding and being safe to being liked.

Then don't support the local police and suffer the consequences.

The problem here is that there is an incentive to free ride and when that happens a significant number of people will do it

If they get treated just like everyone else when they do, but that won't happen in a free society where discrimination is legal.

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.

Not if the consequences are negative.

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.

Most people believe in God, that effects how they behave. Mother Teresa was "selfish" too, but look at the good she did as payment for her self-interested ticket to Heaven.

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.

That depends on how you define "selfishness". The so-called robber barons may have done some very bad things, but they employed lots of people in their "selfish" zeal.

You are overestimating human decency.

No, that's why I want government limited to protecting our rights. I know what happens when government decides it can start sacrificing our rights for our own good. Those bad people will just have a safer way of hurting people - government.

Ask an insurance agent what "moral hazard" means, and you'll see what I mean.

Gee, I have to wait until I find one to get an answer?

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.

"Optimum results" are in the eye of the beholder and used as an excuse by one group of people to trample others. The "Invisible Hand" deals with economics and how an economy based on freedom and the multitude of decisions consumers and producers make every day is a better system than controlled economies where a group of elites try to make all those decisions for everyone (I believe).

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

Using the theft of library books to show an alleged contradiction in the libertarian philosophy is silly, can you counter it better than I did? If so, do so...

[Berzerker]

MRT -

because i knew the way in which you would reply. i could cite the previous posts you made but why waste my time when your quick fingers would provide a perfect example only seconds later

Because we are engaged in a flame war of sorts, not a debate. Or did you think we were debating whether or not I've made any arguments when you don't even bother to support your proposition choosing instead to ignore the rest of the thread?

and yes, im defying the human anatomy by having a phantom brain

"Phantom" brain to go along with that iron hide of yours?

and i dont mind being demeaned because i have nothing to prove to people online

Having nothing is what you've proven.

Ted -

Proof?

Emporer?

500,000 was not my estimates.

I didn't say it was your number.

I never complained about a specific number.

No idiot, you complained when I asked for a link.

And I've also addressed your faulty one-dimensional requirement of death count numbers a couple of times already.

Strangelove said a 1/2 million people died of starvation, your comment is irrelevant to what he said. Try to keep up on the "debate".

Every single comment is an argument to you isn't it?

I try not to miss opportunities to make fun of morons.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Emporer?

Grunting out words and making silly faces isn't an acceptable show of proof.

George Washington had slaves by the way, as did many of the founding fathers. But that was in the good old days before the thieving government started intruding into our lives and took away "rights" such as slavery and child labor.

No idiot, you complained when I asked for a link.

I am not going to do your work for you when there is a mountain of information out there you can read through yourself. It's not that hard. You just type the little words in the Google search box thingie and it comes up with sites you can go to: Arkansas Food Riot or England Food Riot

Strangelove said a 1/2 million people died of starvation, your comment is irrelevant to what he said.

So why did you lump his number in with me?

Your exact quote is:

You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression

Show me my and exact quote regarding complaining about the 500,000 starving to death stat.


hypocrite

[MRT144]

zing!


i have no interest in this debate over political philisophies...but i do have an interest in keeping your little fingers typing as long as possible for no good reason.

[Berzerker]

loinburger -

Why should I, a responsible drug user, be punished for the actions of irresponsible drug users?

Because Speer's moral compass won't stop spinning.

Ramo -

Excuse me? Economic equality (I believe in rough economic equality, not absolute economic equality BTW) can be ensured through voluntary means.

If so, I have no problem with it.

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...

That assumes all businesses are run by the workers. How will you achieve this through voluntary means?

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.

But not everyone is an inventor, in fact, very few people are inventors (Thank God for them). So how would you prevent the inventor of a great machine that mines copper from making alot of money while non-inventors can't?

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.

I thought Spain's experience with anarchism was too short-lived. If company "A" produces more efficiently, what will happen to the workers in company "B" which produces less efficiently? Will they lose their jobs through competition or will company "A" have to subsidise company "B" in some way?

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

But if you hold libertarianism to this standard, why not anarchism? You say the libertarian system will fall because either the haves or the have nots will corrupt it, that's true for any system. Having economic equality (roughly) is no guarantee if even the extremely rich in a libertarian system will seek the power to get more via unethical means. The reality is that there will always be some people who seek power over others regardless of the political system in place.

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

True, and they can stop buying my product as a further means of control. But what happens if some people decide to work for me anyway? Some people who don't share the anarchist way of life.

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.

But I can't seperate morality from the system I advocate or support. I have no problem with anarchism as long as it's voluntary, but I don't see how it can be voluntary unless virtually everyone practices it. Only then can workers acquire privately owned businesses through discrimination or freedom of association.