The Problem with Libertarians...

[Graag]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Graag -

Hehe, are you a Ramo/Boshko type anarchist?

I'd need some qualification on that...
I am an anarchist in the most extreame sense of the term. I don't believe in the middle ground

[Berzerker]

Ted -

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

Hmm...I think I've called only you (and possibly MRT) hypocrites, but since the shoe fits...It is hypocrisy to tell me to provide links for my arguments after telling me to look up links to support yours. It is hypocrisy to chastise me for not responding to your posts after you ignore mine.

[Berzerker]

Graag -

I'd need some qualification on that...

I am an anarchist in the most extreame sense of the term. I don't believe in the middle ground

Lol, I think that middle ground is called libertarianism. Ramo and Boshko sound like die hard anarchists, and I'm pretty close.

[Graag]

Die hard
Thats how I'd describe my stance.

[DinoDoc]

I think that my question got buried on page 12.

Now for a libertarian question that has been on my mind for sometime now, "Would thalidomide have been banned in a libertarian state in an action similar to what the FDA took?"

[tinyp3nis]

Then it isn't a choice now, is it

It's not? If you have 2 things to choose from, and you pick one, what is that called? A choice? Well, is it a truly free choice? Of course not. You are also welcome to look up "choice" in a dictionary.

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".

I thought the settings of the question ruled it out.

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"?

Excellent! Now why didn't you just plain said this in the first place? Do you think this about freewill? The conditions of question rules out freewill, sorry. Just admit you can't answer the question with the conditions. If your so smart why didn't you understand the question?

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

Again making things up? What magical world? My magical world, what the hell? The question is not magical, it does have odd conditions however, but it's not supposed to be in magical world.
Well, I'm off to "my magical world", you are just too much

[Berzerker]

Oh crap, you're right. I saw that and wanted to respond but got lost in all the other posts.

No, it would not have been banned. The FDA should be reduced to testing and advising us on products, not deciding what we can or cannot use. More people have been killed by the FDA than saved IMO. Ever hear an FDA official at a press conference tell us how 50,000 people will be saved next year with the approval of a new drug? What about the 50,000 who died the year before, and the 50,000 the year before that, and so on...I have and I think about all the people who died waiting for the FDA approval (permission)...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, it would not have been banned.

What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry? I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

[Berzerker]

Tiny -

It's not? If you have 2 things to choose from, and you pick one, what is that called? A choice? Well, is it a truly free choice? Of course not. You are also welcome to look up "choice" in a dictionary.

Yes, by all means, show us in the dictionary where you found "must" and "choose" under the definition of "choice".

I thought the settings of the question ruled it out.

That's why the question is flawed.

Excellent! Now why didn't you just plain said this in the first place? Do you think this about freewill?

Choice is about freewill, telling a person they must choose is an oxy-moron.

The conditions of question rules out freewill

Which is why the question is not about a choice.

sorry. Just admit you can't answer the question with the conditions.

Why? If I have a choice, I choose not to participate.

If your so smart why didn't you understand the question?

I did understand it just as I understand the person asking the question cannot compel me to commit murder and call it a "choice".

Again making things up? What magical world? My magical world, what the hell?

You were the one who introduced magic, not me. I'm just responding...

The question is not magical, it does have odd conditions however, but it's not supposed to be in magical world.

Then why refer to my answer as magical?

Well, I'm off to "my magical world", you are just too much

Another one bites the dust...

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry? I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

Well you could simply have the FDA test medicines and mark them "FDA approved", and anything else you would buy at your own risk...

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry?

The same they have even when the product has FDA approval - civil lawsuit. But notice how we can't sue the FDA?

I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

Thalidomide was banned, but remained legal in Europe I believe. People in this country still got it though, but tragedies like that certainly do lead to increases in federal power, quite understandable. But I not only fear giving government the power to decide what we can ingest, I fear the fact that people start losing their sense of personal responsibility and wariness as the state becomes our protector.

[Berzerker]

Shi Huangdi -

Well you could simply have the FDA test medicines and mark them "FDA approved", and anything else you would buy at your own risk...

Yup, I don't know if that would help reduce potential corruption at the FDA, but at least people would have the option of waiting for approval or jumping the gun a bit as their hopes diminish.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by orange
One_Brow - that assumes that, if forced to choose between killing one person and killing two people, you'd choose randomly.

Since I can never have perfect standards or complete knowledge of who deserves to live/die, it is fairly random regardless.

I don't know about you, but I'd choose killing one in such a situation. Why? Becuase it is better to have two survivors than one.

Since there over four billion people on earth, you'd have, for example, 4,000,000,022 survivors instead of 4,000,000,021 survivors.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
If One_Brow would have power to adjust laws by his logic, then serial killers would have a blast

Perhaps it would be that one-time killers would receive the same degree of punishment as serial killers...

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Agathon
quote:

Originally posted by One_Brow

All of these arguments are based on a horribly evil premise: that human life has a finite value. This would mean that if you add up 2, or 12, or 50 thousand, or 50 billion violations of free speech, you eventrually get up to the moral equivalent of murder.

However, if human life is considered to be of infinite value N, and the removal of it of value -N, than 5* -N is still -N, when N is infinite. IOWs, a five-fold infinity is no larger than the original infinity. Further, by killing an inocent yourself, your tarnish your own self to that degree, while removing none of the stain from the man who creates the threat.

While I might be wrong, I have the feeling David Floyd also sees human life as having infinite value, and has gotten to the right conclusion without the mathematical training.

There is no such premise. All that is being compared are rights violations.

The "rights violation" for ending a human life is still infinite.

If you can't see that the Holocaust was worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife then I'm afraid there is no help for you.

We were discussing the murder of random individuals. I would say "Joe Bloggs killing his wife" is equally bad.

However, the Holocaust is an entirely different level of evil, the attempted extermination of a genetic lineage. This would have a stirctly larger infinite value than the random killings of individuals. IOWs, no number of simply random killings is as terrible as the Holocaust.