The Problem with Libertarians...

[Berzerker]

Orange -

Very good way of turning this into a real world scenario Couldn't think of one myself.

Thx.

I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Well, I did say that I only "believed" I would have her blessing, but I could have made that clear.

I very much agree. Those are my feelings as well. You must admit, however, that there is the possibility that the person would not be willing to die, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Again, assume no communication with this individual.

True, which is why my perspective has to change when I become the button pusher and not the person being sacrificed since I can no longer know for sure if they would give me their blessing to end their life in exchange for the others. But if they were going to die anyway, their blessing is no longer a determining factor.

I realize this. You wouldn't be 'immoral' for not doing anything, in my opinion. I feel, however, that most people would rationally choose to save the greatest number possible.

Oh, sure, I was talking about saving the group and not the 1 person, not standing by. I do believe we would have a moral obligation to try and save the group since that is the essence of the Golden Rule which I consider a valid basis for morality.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

By some value of time, i meant something short...10 seconds was what I was getting at...basically trying to separate the two events so that it would be you killing someone else, rather than hitting a button 'as he dies'.

Still interested to see what Berzerker thinks about that. And One_Brow. I'll check back tomorrow and see if the thread is still floating around.

It will be I'm sure, but are you referring back to the first hypothetical? Actually be forced by someone to push 1 of 2 buttons to kill either 1 person or 99? I would refuse and try to kill the person putting me in that position. Any murder committed is by the hand of that person with those lousy buttons, not me.

Thx Obiwan.

David -

Again, though, that isn't an act of murder, because the mother is going to die of natural causes at roughly the same time - she is not going to be murdered, therefore you aren't separating the acts.

True, the taking of life in that situation is beyond human control, only saving the baby is within human control.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

You want me to identify a post you never posted?

No, you have to find YOUR post and tell me which one I ignored. But you can't do that.

So I'm supposed to quote a post you never made?

Again, see above. You know, your answers remind me of Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. It was with the lips, so, that does not count as sex."

That's quite a statement coming after your accusation that my lengthy line by line rebuttals should be ignored, hypocrite.

Give me the exact quote where I said your statements should be ignored.

You said the dust bowl occured under laissez faire - wrong.

I was referring to the FARM SYSTEM in particular.

Wrong. We weren't under a laissez faire system,

Tell me what regulations were in place on the farming system. Regulations = no lazziez faire.

By the way, farmers were overburdening their land because they were making money responding to the markets.

government intervention was involved with that "greedy land mismanagement".

How? I want DIRECT intervention into the farming industry in particular. Easy money theory doesn't count as easy money was available in every sector.

If you need the obvious expalined to you, that government intervention also caused the Depression.

Any scholar will tell you you can't pin the Depression soley on government intervention. Again, you're taking that one-dimensional view on things.

The Federal Reserve system and banking practices under government regulation contributed to "greedy land mismanagement".

Tell me how a bank tells farmers how to farm the land? Banks loan money. Again, we are talking specific to the farming system. I'm not disupting that loose money was a problem for EVERY SECTOR during the 20s. But it's not the sole cause. I can go get some sources if you want.

Does the bank tell farmers to uproot trees that serve as windbreakers?

Which is true. On the one hand you claim that greedy mismanagement caused the dust bowl which you blame on laissez faire,

No I don't. Those factors along did not cause the Dust Bowl. The drought and subsequent flooding were the primary causes. HOWEVER, the poor land management (no regulations regarding how to take care of the land) made the situation much worse than it needed to be.

No regulations = lazziez faire

So if you're going to blame the dust bowl on an economic system, blame the economic system in place at the time, not a system that did not exist at the time.

I never put the whole blame on the economic system. Again, I am referring to the farming system specifically. Then later I pointed out how government intervention programs like land conservation programs have kept another Dust Bowl from happening again.

Regarding the droughts, The Dust Bowl droughts occurred in three waves -- 1934, 1936, and 1939-40. There was PLENTY of time to recover the land between waves.

I don't know where you were going with that Yosemite connection but the drought affected most of the country.

I asked if their was any subsequent drought impacting a similar sized area for a roughly equal amount of time, did you cite such a drought?

The 1950s drought went on for 5 years and covered the a same sized area. 5 years straight with no time to recover yet the land did not blow away. Why is that?

In the aftermath of the Dust Bowl, it was clear that many factors contributed to the severe impact of this drought. A better understanding of the interactions between the natural elements (climate, plants, and soil) and human-related elements (agricultural practices, economics, and social conditions)of the Great Plains was needed. Lessons were learned, and because of this drought, farmers adopted new cultivation methods to help control soil erosion in dry land ecosystems. Subsequent droughts in this region have had less impact due to these cultivation practices.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_history.html

[Ted Striker]

19th Century drug use numbers, please.

[MRT144]

bezerker...sucks when people beat you at your own game?

[Ben Kenobi]

www.aegis.com/factshts/niaid/1995/ niaid95_fact_sheet_hivaids_22.html

"The widespread use of opiates in the United States has existed since the middle of the 19th century (Courtwright, 1982); as many as 313,000 Americans were addicted to opium and morphine prior to 1914."

http://www.ccsa.ca/docs/horiz2e.htm

"The few studies done on opiate use in the 1880's revealed that women users outnumbered men two to one."

No citation unfortunately, but the article also available off-line

Edited by David Hewitt, Garry Vinje, and Patricia MacNeil
Health Canada (1995); ISBN 1-896323-10-3; Cat. No. H39-307/2-1996E; Published under Canada's Drug Strategy
Available from Health Canada in PDF format

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990709.html

"At the beginning of the 19th century drug addiction was rare in the English-speaking world, but at the end of the century it was common, at least in the United States. By a conservative estimate the U.S. had 200,000 addicts in 1900, with most of the increase coming in the late 1800s. The Civil War is often blamed for this, and in fact, after the war it's said that many called morphine addiction "the army disease."

Again, no source listed.

Don't know if this helps or hinders your point, Ted

Google

[Berzerker]

Ted -

No, you have to find YOUR post and tell me which one I ignored. But you can't do that.

I can, I just won't.

Again, see above.

Again, see above.

Give me the exact quote where I said your statements should be ignored.

Nope, you won't provide links when asked, I won't either. But you did tell Monkspider he was right to ignore my lengthy rebuttals.

I was referring to the FARM SYSTEM in particular.

So what? The farm system didn't exist in a laissez faire system.

Tell me what regulations were in place on the farming system. Regulations = no lazziez faire.

I've already told you I won't do research for you since you told me to do your research. But I don't have to do any research, we had a Federal Reserve system and banking regulations and a government induced Depression, only a fool would claim that had absolutely no effect on farming practices.

By the way, farmers were overburdening their land because they were making money responding to the markets.

Markets involving banks and regulations before and during a Depression. Btw, it's my understanding that it wasn't "easy money" that caused the Depression, but a restriction of money that followed the easy money. But regardless, the Depression was induced by government monetary policy and that in turn effected the farming industry.

Any scholar will tell you you can't pin the Depression soley on government intervention. Again, you're taking that one-dimensional view on things.

"Soley"? What happened to your claim that we were under a laissez faire system?

Tell me how a bank tells farmers how to farm the land?

You were the one who claimed "greedy mismanagement" induced by laissez faire contributed to the dust bowl. Why did one economic system that wasn't in place cause this but not the economic system of intervention in the economy that was in place?

Banks loan money.

And farmers have to pay off loans. Remember that "greedy mismanagement"? We could go back to "share cropping" policies if you want, but to argue the system in place was laissez faire is false.

Does the bank tell farmers to uproot trees that serve as windbreakers?

They might if that loan needed paying off and the farmer needed more space for crops to pay the loan. The choice of which crops to grow matters too, some crops are better for soil conservation.

No I don't. Those factors along did not cause the Dust Bowl. The drought and subsequent flooding were the primary causes. HOWEVER, the poor land management (no regulations regarding how to take care of the land) made the situation much worse than it needed to be.

You're assuming land management decisions were made in a laissez faire system, they weren't.

I never put the whole blame on the economic system. Again, I am referring to the farming system specifically. Then later I pointed out how government intervention programs like land conservation programs have kept another Dust Bowl from happening again.

You keep wanting to seperate how farms were operated from the economic system in place at the time, it can't be done because laissez faire wasn't the system farms were being operated under.

Regarding the droughts, The Dust Bowl droughts occurred in three waves -- 1934, 1936, and 1939-40. There was PLENTY of time to recover the land between waves.

As Strangelove pointed out, it began in '31. Severity undoubtedly fluctuated, but the links I was reading said it was a decade long drought, from '31 to WWII.

I don't know where you were going with that Yosemite connection but the drought affected most of the country.

I heard the drought was regional, the Rockies area, and it culminated (as far as symbolism goes) with the firestorm in Yellowstone. But that firestorm was the result of government intervention just as the more recent firestorms in the four corners area.

The 1950s drought went on for 5 years and covered the a same sized area. 5 years straight with no time to recover yet the land did not blow away. Why is that?

Where was this drought? The bread basket of the country? Or was it the plains where natural grasses cover much the land? Maybe the mountain states where there isn't alot of soil? I'm not sure why all this matters, your last quote/link says farmers adopted better means of farming, not that government required they change. And if it did, it was based on what farmers were advising.

In the aftermath of the Dust Bowl, it was clear that many factors contributed to the severe impact of this drought. A better understanding of the interactions between the natural elements (climate, plants, and soil) and human-related elements (agricultural practices, economics, and social conditions)of the Great Plains was needed. Lessons were learned, and because of this drought, farmers adopted new cultivation methods to help control soil erosion in dry land ecosystems.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

"At the beginning of the 19th century drug addiction was rare in the English-speaking world, but at the end of the century it was common, at least in the United States. By a conservative estimate the U.S. had 200,000 addicts in 1900, with most of the increase coming in the late 1800s. The Civil War is often blamed for this, and in fact, after the war it's said that many called morphine addiction "the army disease."

Yes, a government intervention extraordinaire spiked addiction rates with more than a million wounded soldiers seeking relief from their agony. But in the 1820's, alcoholism was extremely high and resulted in a true temperance movement, i.e., non-governmental, which greatly reduced alcoholism rates. Unfortunately those numbers don't include other drugs like pot, booze, and tobacco.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker- your argument's not with me. I just like to keep the ball rolling.

As for the existence of two temperence movements- you learn something new everyday. I knew about the later one near the turn of the century, because women were highly involved.

My thesis on this issue is that while addiction can be exacerbated by environmental conditions, (just look at Apolyton), people always have a choice whether or not to partake. Both are a factor.

BTW how many of Speer's threads have a chance to reach 500?



Today I become a Warlord

[Berzerker]

Obiwan - hehe, warlord at last.

The "Soldier's Disease" has become a political football as the link to the Schaeffer Library in your "Straightdope" link explains, but it seems quite sensible to accept that the US Civil War created an artificial spike in opiate addiction rates. But the number of opiate addicts in 1900 (200,000) with a population of ~75 million translates into about 800,000 opiate addicts today even with the likely increase resulting from the Civil War population.

So, are there fewer than 800,000 addicts today?

Here's an interesting link:

It is probably not a good idea to tell our children the truth; that would clearly be sending them the wrong message. How, for example, could they deal with the fact that in 1914 when drugs were available on grocery store shelves and without prescription at the local pharmacy, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, just before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%.

http://www.lindesmith.org/library/judge_kane2.cfm

[Zero]

Let me first start by spamming... The 400th post belongs to me! (calc flashes a victory sign)

Originally posted by orange
In other words, the death of one person and the deaths of many people are equally undesirable to you - and faced with the spiderman scenario - you would choose randomly?

Yes. But small things might count. I may like the sweater the third person on the group wears. Or individual might be wearing a team hat and I may like that team. It all depends. But not according to morals.

This part makes me think that you would simply not chose either. Now, morals aside (that I don't care about for now, as they're all different) if you feel it equally undesirable for either the individual or the group to die, why wouldn't you at least act to save one of them? Or is the undesirability of the deaths infinite, so that whether you save either or neither the end result is the same? If so, wouldn't you choose randomly, but including the option not to do anything?

Which scneario is this? spiderman or the "kill one or I will kill ten"? In the threat scenario, doing nothing saves the individual. And I have to do nothing to save him. I also told you already, that I get an additional bonus of spiting the one whos imposing this scenario one me as well.

You see, you wouldn't simply choose to do nothing. You would choose randomly between the three options (save A, save B, save neither) since all three lead to equally undesirable results. You can't say that you would choose to save neither, because that suggests another variable. Either you feel choosing neither provides a sense of justification to your choice (I couldn't save both, so I chose neither, to not 'play God') or for some other reason.

Well its very possible, that I may not choose to save neither. I'll have to weigh wether act of my altruism overweighs my desire to do nothing.

laws have no bearing on this hypothetical. Irrelevant information.

I noticed. Therefore I said, even if this did not weigh in, it would not change my decision.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Of course the deputy was a strait-laced, moralistic type who had no tolerance for human frailties, save his own. The deputy lusted in his heart, but his first act was to arrest an individual for violating an old statute prohibiting pre-marital intercourse."

"the need to treat drug users and decrease the demand for drugs instead of vainly attempting to attack the supply side."

Very interesting. A lawyer who cites literature? I think I could get along with someone like this.

That 1.3% quote seems to suggest some inherent human weakness, but there are three ways to respond to the example of the Duke.

1. There is no morality, or at least no morality that can be enforced.

2. People can continue to try to create other 'perfect people.' If we can't stop the production, we can try to fix people ourselves.

3. Help from somewhere else.

[orange]

Originally posted by Calc II
Let me first start by spamming... The 400th post belongs to me! (calc flashes a victory sign)

Yes. But small things might count. I may like the sweater the third person on the group wears. Or individual might be wearing a team hat and I may like that team. It all depends. But not according to morals.

Which scneario is this? spiderman or the "kill one or I will kill ten"? In the threat scenario, doing nothing saves the individual. And I have to do nothing to save him. I also told you already, that I get an additional bonus of spiting the one whos imposing this scenario one me as well.

Well its very possible, that I may not choose to save neither. I'll have to weigh wether act of my altruism overweighs my desire to do nothing.

I noticed. Therefore I said, even if this did not weigh in, it would not change my decision.

For all posts you quoted I was asking about the spiderman scenario.

It is unfathomable to me that you would base a decision to save lives on the colour of a shirt or the decal on a hat. There is, in my opinion, a very large flaw in your mental process. It seems not that death is infinitely tragic to you, but rather, infinitely small in signifigance.

[Zero]

Originally posted by orange


For all posts you quoted I was asking about the spiderman scenario.

It is unfathomable to me that you would base a decision to save lives on the colour of a shirt or the decal on a hat. There is, in my opinion, a very large flaw in your mental process. It seems not that death is infinitely tragic to you, but rather, infinitely small in signifigance.

Death is never infinitely small in significant for me. Death facinates me the most. I would not decide the fate of 2 people's life SOLELY on a insignificant preference such as a colour of a shirt. BUT being all things equal, I would as compared to a normal person who wouldnt dare think out loud in his head (but he would). Also, it was to emphasize that I do not believe in Utilitarinism (or whatever the philosophy of "greatest good for greatest mass" is). fate of 10 vs fate of 1 soley thus not create a tension in my morality.

You could say I have no price on what death is, therefore in my mind, 10 death isnt necessarily tens times the one death. You would ask then how I can compare to other things and determine wether I will commit to altruism or not. Death of an individual is seperate from my act of altruism. I can commit altruism and the person can still die. However, that is irrelevant from recieving the satisfaction that I have commited altruism. I dunno if you get me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by obiwan18
1. There is no morality, or at least no morality that can be enforced.

Perhaps. I know now I contradict myself, but the reason why I came so strong with "morality is bull crap" was to incite people to post . For as long as I know, I have reviewed other people's morals and beliefs and I have found none to work in all cases and cannot be adopted universally. I have on the otherhand, found things to work just as well without morals. So unless someone corrects me or have a perfect defintion of what good morality is, I'll stick to mine thank you.