The Problem with Libertarians...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by One_Brow
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.

"Strictly larger infinute value"? I believe that is a contradiction in terms.

And suppose there were enough random killings that many nations, and many genetic lineages were wiped out. Say 1 or 2 billion. Would that be less 'evil' that the holocaust?

I have heard your 'infinite springs model' (as I've heard it called) before, and while I accept your premise, I believe that all people are equal, and as such, each person has a value of 1, rather than infinity. Therefore, If I could chose 1 person to die, at random, instead of 5, I would choose that one. I realise I cannot judge them, and that that 1 person may have given more to humanity than those 5 put together. However, probability points to those 5 people as having more impact, and giving more, therefore I would choose the route of least life lost. I commend your stance, and agree with much of the reasoning, however I do feel that saying 1 life is as valuble as 5 (or 2 etc.) is flawed.

Also if you were to say that 1 life equals any number of other lives, then if you were to add one to the 5, it would be worthless. Since 1 life is worth 5, and 1 life is worth 6, the extra 1 life to go between the two is worth 0. I realise with infinity is could be still worth infinity, however, though I believe a life to be more valuble than money, I do not see it as an infinite, since it will only be here for a finite amount of time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

With regards to murder, I have two absolute preferences. The first is that nobody is murdered. The second is that I don't commit murder, ever. Both of those are consistent with a position that murder is immoral.

Here you are just avoiding the question. I too have a preference that nobody commits murder. I too have a preference that I don't do it. But again I have a preference that if there are going to be murders, it is better that there are fewer of them. The price of consistency in the case of your opinion is, once again, that murder is immoral but in some cases more murders are preferable to less.

So again, do you agree that fewer murders are better?

If you believe murder is wrong, then it is you who is being inconsistent. If you believe murder is wrong, then you obviously believe that murder shouldn't happen. However, the only way you can absolutely control the murder rate is by making sure that you don't commit murder - again, responsibility for your own actions. Yet, even though you believe murder is wrong, you are willing to commit murder in certain circumstances.

Where is the inconsistency. I believe:

(1) Murder is a bad thing.

(2) More murders are worse than less.

(3) One ought to act so that there are as few murders as possible.

(4) In some situations (war, etc.) the only way to lower the murder rate is to kill someone.

Where is the contradiction??????? There isn't one.

In that case, you don't have an absolute aversion to murder - you only believe that murder is wrong in some cases. But that's ridiculous - now you are starting to sound like a Republican or a Democrat, who claim to believe in freedom, but in reality only believe in freedom for some people in some cases.

Isn't this what I have been arguing all along: that the "simple moral guarantees" of Libertarianism are untenable? Again if sad reality means that rights claims occasionally conflict then it is obvious that killing is only wrong in some cases (most as it happens, but still not all).

So, then, a question for you: Do you believe that murder is wrong?

In most cases yes, in some cases no.

If the answer is "yes", then your position is not consistent. If your answer is "no", then your position is ridiculous. Which is it gonna be - inconsistency or absurdity?

My position is inconsistent or absurd only if one believes that questions like this only have two answers. My position is that one cannot answer this question without some reference to the consequences of the action.

So, then, let's look at a couple more scenarios.

1)A random guy comes up to you on a bridge, and says that unless you hand him a billion dollars, he's going to jump off and kill himself. You can't physically restrain him because he's pointing a gun at you.

Unfortunately, "ought implies can" - that means that I can only be said to do be morally obliged to do something if I can actually do it. This is like saying, "Agathon, you are morally obliged to fly about the room."

2)A lady calls you on your cellphone. She says that she will put her baby in a stroller and push it out into traffic in 5 days, unless you cut off your **** and drop it off the top of the Empire State Building. Assuming you don't cut your penis off, are you responsible for the death of her baby?

This is a bit of a strange case - I think you need to make it a bit more watertight before penile amputation is required. I'd say yep, after all I had the power to prevent it. But I'd also say that failure to comply in this case would not be punishable by law (just as I said in our killer case); but this doesn't change the fact that someone's penile amputation is less bad than the death of a child.

3)A guy calls you on the phone, says he has five hostages, and that unless you kill 2 specific people, those five will die. Now, that's all well and good - you obviously believe five people are more important than two, so you want to agree. But then he tells you that you have to kill your parents, and, not only that, you can't say anything about "duress" - you have to admit to killing them of your own free will, and take whatever penalty your country hands out for such an action. Do you do it?

Sure, the moral point of view is impartial. Presumably, assigning more weight to my personal interests would be wrong if I think that more rights violations are worse than less.

Actually, Libertarians would say that they aren't responsible for five deaths, because they were not in a position to make a life or death decision, but on the other hand, they are responsible for keeping one person alive.

But they were in a position. Somebody could do this to to you using the "button" case - push this button and one dies, fail to push it and five die.

That's true. You have a choice to make, and so does he. Interestingly enough, you both have the same choice. You get to choose whether or not to kill an innocent person, and so does he.

It isn't the same choice at all, the consequences are different - and that is what makes it different. His decision is roughly what you describe - mine is different - mine is to kill 1 and save 5 or not to kill 1 and to let five die. I don't have the option of making a choice that will not result in death - he does.

But you do not get to choose to save five people - if you had that choice, you would simply say, "I choose to save five people" and it would happen. No, only he has the power to do that.

Yes I do. Look again.

And what about this? Let's say that I kill the one person, and the would-be killer has a good laugh and kills five people anyway. Didn't my actions create more evil? After all, my actions caused six people to die, rather than only five.

Here you are just changing the case to make it suit you.

And how do I know this won't happen? All I have is the word of someone who is threatening to kill five people - it's sorta like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse, isn't it? I mean, if I know that the guy will go through with his threat if I don't kill one person, then obviously I know that he has the predilection and ability to kill. What reasonably makes me think that he won't kill five people anyway?

In this case you are as sure as you can be about what he is going to do. Are you going to claim that we are never sure about what people are going to do? If you are, I'll call you a liar straight up, for the simple reason that we live by our predictions of others' behaviour and we can't avoid making them.

Anway, just use the war case - that doesn't suffer from this difficulty since surely you admit that we could have reasonable evidence that someone was planning to use nuclear weapons against us.

Actually there are four separate possibilities. The first is that I kill one person, and the killer doesn't kill five. The second is that I kill one person and the killer kills five. The third is that I don't kill anyone and the killer kills five, and the fourth is that neither of us kill anyone. In any of those scenarios, I only have control over my end of it, hence, the two potential killings are two separate acts (well, if you want to get down to it, six different ones, but I'm not gonna type all that out).

There are indeed four separate possibilities initially. Unfortunately, if he chooses to put you under duress in the manner described, that reduces to two. Are you saying that other people's choices never reduce our options. If you claim that, then it is manifestly false - thousands upon thousands of counterexamples can be adduced.

You're absolutely right. We can usually predict, within reason, the actions of reasonable, rational, and peaceful people. However, we can usually NOT reasonably predict the actions of the unreasonable, irrational, violent and insane people. If someone is unreasonable or irrational, for example, why should I trust anything he says? And I would certainly call kidnapping five people and threatening to kill them both irrational and unreasonable, wouldn't you?

A criminal need not be irrational in the sense that he employs reasonable means for immoral ends. It is irrational when one wants to kill someone to attempt to do it by spitting at them (since it won't work), whereas it is rational to use the easiest means available (say, a gun). That doesn't mean the criminal is irrational, just immoral.

And you still haven't told me why me behaving morally is worse than someone else behaving immorally.

Because the consequences are worse. And this being so, I don't think your behaviour can be described as "moral" since it deliberately chooses the worse over the better.

No, at best I might THINK I have the power to make a difference, but ultimately, the only one with the real power is the person holding the gun to the heads of five people.

Again this is absurd. If I ask you if you want a drink you might think you have the power to get a drink off me. However, I might be lying, so you don't. But when I am sincere you do. Sometimes when you think you have the power you actually do.

No, it's repetitive because you don't seem to be able to comprehend the relatively simple notion of personal responsibility.

"Simple" is right - your notion of responsibility seems to exonerate me from culpability for the things I allow to happen by doing nothing. This is absurd. If my infant son hits his head in the bath and starts to drown and I stand there and watch him die, being able all the while to save him, am I not responsible for his death? Similarly, If I am placed in a situation where I have to choose between two evils, am I not responsible for the consequences of my choice?

Unlike your simple view of responsibility, where it seems to be passed around like a joint, I think that you can acquire it without someone else giving it up - which is what happens in our case.

Every violation of a moral rule is bad? What?! What kind of nonsense is THAT!

Um, isn't that common sense? Each one is bad, more are worse, less is better, but none is best.

Morally speaking, murder and stealing are both absolutely wrong. Murder is comparatively worse than stealing, in light of the fact that it harms an individual more. That's also a self-evident statement - would you rather have someone shoot you, or have someone steal your wallet?

Aren't five murders worse than one then? Or do you think that there is no difference between you committing one and committing five? What if I have to steal a gun to prevent a murder? Is that allowed?

Again, absolutely incorrect. My decision is not responsible for anyone's death. How can my decision possibly kill anyone, in this example? Only the action of pulling a trigger kills a person.

Your decision, like all decisions, has consequences, and you are responsible for those consequences which could have been reasonably foreseen.

That's a non-sensical statement. Less liberty for whom? Five murders results in the same exact loss of liberty for each of those five as one murder does for the one. There's no such thing as "net liberty", only liberty as it relates to each individual.

If you mean by "net liberty" the notion that is captured by the possibility of violating the rights of several persons then it makes perfect sense. If I violate one person's rights, that's bad. But I could violate the rights of more than one - why is this not worse?

Again - if you take this road, you are basically saying that five murders are no worse than one.

As much as you might know about political philosophy, you clearly don't know much about history. Japan wouldn't have attacked the United States if the US was not in a position to threaten the GEACPS. In my scenario, where the US behaved morally in 1846 and 1898, the US is not in that position, therefore, it will not be attacked by Japan.

This doesn't matter in the slightest. Do you agree that bad people exist, and that they sometimes attack innocents without just cause? That's all I need to get my argument going. Not every attack is provoked.

OK, but you aren't finding contradictions, you are making up ahistorical, outlandish extreme situations and using those situations to prove your argument. That's ridiculous. EVEN IF that proved your argument - which it does not - the best you would be able to say is that in some extreme cases, Libertarianism fails. But you haven't even proved that much, and even if you had, that doesn't get around the fact that the same is just as, or more, true for the system you support, whatever system that may be.

I thought it was quite plain. The historical accuracy of the various situations matters not one jot. The basic situation under discussion is a generic one - my acting according to the dictates of Libertarianism produces a situation which is worse from the Libertarian point of view.

The Libertarian is saying this:

(1) No one should ever violate rights because it is absolutely bad.

to which the response is:

(2) Are more violations worse than fewer?

to which the answers are:

(3) No - in which case the Libertarian invites the absurdity that the holocaust is no worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife. This is perverse.

or

(4) Yes.

the response to (4) is:

(5) Can my not violating the rights of others sometimes have the avoidable consequence that more violations overall are effected than if I had violated the rights of other?

the response to (5) is either:

(6) No; in which case cue one of the 10 million examples of this situation.

or

(7) Yes; in which case by (1) the Libertarian is saying, "one ought not to violate the rights of one person to prevent more violations" which ultimately boils down to saying

"It is both absolutely bad and good to violate the rights of one person when this will avoid more grevious instances of rights violation."

I can't see how the contradiction could be any clearer than that.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Drogue
"Strictly larger infinute value"? I believe that is a contradiction in terms.

Then you would be incorrect. There are more sizes that are infinite than there are sizes that are finite

And suppose there were enough random killings that many nations, and many genetic lineages were wiped out. Say 1 or 2 billion. Would that be less 'evil' that the holocaust?

If it were truly random, yes.

Also if you were to say that 1 life equals any number of other lives, then if you were to add one to the 5, it would be worthless. Since 1 life is worth 5, and 1 life is worth 6, the extra 1 life to go between the two is worth 0. I realise with infinity is could be still worth infinity, however, though I believe a life to be more valuble than money, I do not see it as an infinite, since it will only be here for a finite amount of time.

I see the worth of a single human life as being greater than any finite measure, therefore infinite. I don't require anyone to agree with me, although I truly despise the notion of finite human worth.

[Sava]

Berzerker, I think you misread my post. I agree with the social Libertarian ideals.

[TCO]

I thought the problem with Libertarians was that they couldn't maintain Army weight standards?

[TCO]

Actually the real problem with Libertarians is too much cut and pasting and not enough bridge playing.

[orange]

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

So if faced with that option, you would honestly eenie meenie minie moe it?

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.

Not within the confinds of the scenario. And there are well over 4 billion Try 6 billion +

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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...

The problem I see with this is that even without the FDA, the trial lawyers would force the drug companies to test to the same extent as the FDA now requires.

How would a libertarian handle tort law?

[Shi Huangdi]

"The problem I see with this is that even without the FDA, the trial lawyers would force the drug companies to test to the same extent as the FDA now requires."

Not nessecarily. If the product is sold "as is" and consumers are told to purchase at their own risk, they would be without legal recourse if they had a problem with the product.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by One_Brow
Then you would be incorrect. There are more sizes that are infinite than there are sizes that are finite.

If there are degrees of infinity, that is, infinity can be larger than infinity, as you have posted. Then 5 human infinities would be more than 1 human infinity. Unless you consider infinity itself to be of differing sizes, in which case, how do you denote a larger infinity? I have always believed that infinity was a particular concept, so that infinity is equal to nothing but infinity. Therefore, there are no sizes of infinity, there is an infinite amount, and many times of that infinite amount still equals that infinite amount, and any finite numebr added to, or subtracted from, that infinite number can be discounted, as that number is still infinity.

Originally posted by One_Brow
I see the worth of a single human life as being greater than any finite measure, therefore infinite. I don't require anyone to agree with me, although I truly despise the notion of finite human worth.

I have heard that before, and while I respect your beliefs, I do not agree. As such, I don't see a need to discuss that further, I just wished to clarify a few points for myself.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by orange

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

So if faced with that option, you would honestly eenie meenie minie moe it?

No, I would refuse to perform teh equally heinous act of killing one person.

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.

Not within the confinds of the scenario. And there are well over 4 billion Try 6 billion + [/QUOTE]

Every person who is not murdered survives the random selection. Within the confines of this scenario, there are 6 billion + survivors either way.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Drogue

Then you would be incorrect. There are more sizes that are infinite than there are sizes that are finite.

If there are degrees of infinity, that is, infinity can be larger than infinity, as you have posted. Then 5 human infinities would be more than 1 human infinity. Unless you consider infinity itself to be of differing sizes, in which case, how do you denote a larger infinity? I have always believed that infinity was a particular concept, so that infinity is equal to nothing but infinity. Therefore, there are no sizes of infinity, there is an infinite amount, and many times of that infinite amount still equals that infinite amount, and any finite numebr added to, or subtracted from, that infinite number can be discounted, as that number is still infinity.

There are a few standard designations of different sizes of infinity, most of which use Greek letters. The smallest size of infinity is the size of the set N = {1,2,3,4,5 ...}. This size is called "countable", and we can call this number w. If you take five copies of N and combine them, the resulting set also has size w. In fact, if you take w sets of size w or smaller and add or multiply them, you get a set of size w.

A strictly larger set can be built by looking at all the functions that map N into the set {0,1}, which size is usually called c. Since {0,1} is the manner in whcih 2 is constructed in set theory, this set is called 2^N. The proof that the size of 2^N (c) > w, while longer than I wish to use here, is a very well-known process in mathematical circles. The size of the set of all points on a number line (R) is c.

The size of 2^R is strictly begger than c.

You can verify all this, and more, in almost any local college that offers a four-year math degree, or in the sci.math Usenet group. I think that's enough on this topic for this thread, though.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

Yes you did.

Point out the exact post please.

By the way, I saw you just ignored someone else's post. Hypocrite.

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

You also completely ignored my Dust Bowl post way back there. That makes you a double hypocrite.

But I understand why you couldn't refute several neutral, well documented sources. It's alot easier to just label people as hypocrites and be done with it.

Hypocrite.

19th century drug usage numbers please.

[David Floyd]

But again I have a preference that if there are going to be murders, it is better that there are fewer of them.

Obviously, and that's exactly why I won't commit murder. Murder is wrong, and must be avoided, so therefore I will not commit murder.

(4) In some situations (war, etc.) the only way to lower the murder rate is to kill someone.

That's a contradiction - the only way to LOWER the murder rate is to kill someone? That's the only 100% way you have to RAISE the murder rate. In fact, the only 100% way to LOWER the murder rate is for you not to kill people.

Again if sad reality means that rights claims occasionally conflict then it is obvious that killing is only wrong in some cases (most as it happens, but still not all).

Even if that were so, rights do not conflict in the scenario we are debating.

In most cases yes, in some cases no.

Ah, moral relativism. I'm beginning to understand why you believe the way you do. If you don't believe in absolute morals, then naturally it's easy to justify in immorality - because after all, moral relativists don't really believe in immorality, only in truth based upon the situation.

My position is inconsistent or absurd only if one believes that questions like this only have two answers.

My question only DOES have two answers - either yes, you will commit murder, or no, you will not. Your answer, as convoluted as it is, seems to be that you will commit murder. My simple answer is that I will not, under any circumstances.

Unfortunately, "ought implies can" - that means that I can only be said to do be morally obliged to do something if I can actually do it.

Good point. Let's change $1 billion to $1000.
And if your answer is still yes, then I know who I'm coming to next time I want an easy buck.

I'd say yep, after all I had the power to prevent it.

If by this you mean that you would cut your penis off just because someone called you and told you to, then I would have to say you are a liar.

Sure, the moral point of view is impartial. Presumably, assigning more weight to my personal interests would be wrong if I think that more rights violations are worse than less.

You'd kill your parents because someone said that you had to, or else he'd kill five other people? Liar.

Somebody could do this to to you using the "button" case - push this button and one dies, fail to push it and five die.

Certainly, and my answer would be the same. If I push the button, I am morally responsible for someone's death, if I don't push it, I am morally responsible for nobody's death.

I don't have the option of making a choice that will not result in death - he does.

Incorrect. You DO have a choice that will not result in death - that is, you choosing not to commit murder. The other person may then commit a murder, but that is a result of his decision, not your own.

Here you are just changing the case to make it suit you.

If you can bring up ridiculous hypotheticals, why can't I apply real world logic to them?

Are you going to claim that we are never sure about what people are going to do?

No, I'm going to claim that if you think you can predict the actions of a criminal, or take a criminal at his word, then you are not in touch with reality.

that doesn't suffer from this difficulty since surely you admit that we could have reasonable evidence that someone was planning to use nuclear weapons against us.

True, but if we were behaving morally in our foreign policy I'd wager that nuclear weapons would not be an issue.

Are you saying that other people's choices never reduce our options.

That's exactly what I'm saying, at least applied to this particular case.

It is irrational when one wants to kill someone to attempt to do it by spitting at them (since it won't work), whereas it is rational to use the easiest means available (say, a gun).

But it is irrational from the perspective of the likely punishment for murder.

And this being so, I don't think your behaviour can be described as "moral" since it deliberately chooses the worse over the better.

What kind of twisted logic is this? Murder is moral, while not murdering someone becomes immoral? Come on - that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Sometimes when you think you have the power you actually do.

Very true. When we enter into a written or implied contract, we each have the power to enforce the contract through legal means.

But that has nothing to do with the case of someone calling me and trying to get me to commit murder. Not only is it not a contract if I don't agree, but a contract that obliges one party to commit a crime is not an enforceable contract.

This is absurd. If my infant son hits his head in the bath and starts to drown and I stand there and watch him die, being able all the while to save him, am I not responsible for his death?

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.

What if I have to steal a gun to prevent a murder? Is that allowed?

No. But I think that in the real world, if that was the only way to prevent a murder, someone would loan you a gun.

Your decision, like all decisions, has consequences, and you are responsible for those consequences which could have been reasonably foreseen.

I agree. But if someone chooses to murder an innocent person, the murder is a consequence of THEIR decision, not of mine.

Again - if you take this road, you are basically saying that five murders are no worse than one.

In terms of violations to individual liberty, five murders are not worse than one. To each individual, their liberty is not reduced by the death of others, only by the death of themselves. So from the point of view of the victims, five murders ARE the same as one murder.

Do you agree that bad people exist, and that they sometimes attack innocents without just cause?

Yes, I would say that's true, but it's a lot less true in foreign affairs and wars than it is on an individual level.

And as to the specific example, if the US had not been in the Pacific, Japan would not have attacked the US. If the US had not behaved immorally, they would not have been in the Pacific. Thus, if the US had not behaved immorally, they would not have been attacked by Japan. You questioned my argument that we shouldn't have fought in WW2. I specifically answered your question. You have not yet posed another question, or a sufficient rebuttal.

The historical accuracy of the various situations matters not one jot.

That's why I'm not a big fan of most thought experiments. If you apply them to likely real world situations, they become bull****. Yes, you can use philosophical, theoretical arguments to prove anything you like - or at least make a good argument - but some things are so absurd when applied to the real world that making that argument is irrelevant.

If your only example of the failure of Libertarianism is an outlandish argument that is quite unlikely, then that's a bad argument.

(3) No - in which case the Libertarian invites the absurdity that the holocaust is no worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife. This is perverse.

From the point of view of Joe Blogg's wife, or various Holocaust victims, that is undoubtedly the case. They're dead, and there can be no worse violation of liberty than that - 6 million murders don't violate the liberty of the first person murdered any more than that person's murder does, if you follow.

(5) Can my not violating the rights of others sometimes have the avoidable consequence that more violations overall are effected than if I had violated the rights of other?

Your whole argument just does not take into account responsibility. If I make a moral decision, and someone else makes an immoral decision, that isn't a failure of Libertarianism, that's a failure of the person who is committing the immoral act. Don't blame me for homicidal mania, blame the homicidal maniac. Likewise, don't blame Libertarianism for what immoral people do.

I can't see how the contradiction could be any clearer than that.

You're doing the whole "one-sided dialogue" thing again. It's annoying.

[orange]

interesting loophole, Berzerker. I know that you have a lot of posts to respond to, so take your time but let me ask you a revised form of the question then. I realize that this is a very abstract hypothetical, and that you'd never be faced with such a choice, but for the philosophical angle of it all I'd like your response, and floyds, and one_brow...

There is a button. If you push it, it will kill one person. If you do not push the button, 100 people, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WILL DIE IF YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, will die. You know these are facts, and they will happen. You also do not know any of the people. Do you choose to push the button (since one cannot be 'made' to choose) or do you refuse action?

I hope you realize that I am trying to be as inconfrontational about this as possible. I just want to hear opinions. That's all.