The Problem with Libertarians...

[TCO]

That's the thing about you livertarians, you don't really understand the free market and incentives. You just like to debate hypotheticals. Well....IF government could operate a business competetively with no special advantages...blablabla. Forget it! Give me one example to show where they've been able to pull it off.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Let's say, for example, that I felt that homosexuality was immoral (not saying that I do, so let's not open that can of worms). That's a personal belief, and it would govern my actions, but because homosexuality does not hurt anyone, I would not support government regulation of it.

The kind of laws I support, as orange pointed out to you, are laws that prevent or punish the violation of individual right. Violating someone's rights is, naturally, immoral, but that isn't all that morality is.

This is a mixture of BS and mere hand waving. You need to tell me why these sorts of rights violations should be prohibited by law and why the rest of morality shouldn't.

Saying that one is mere "personal belief" isn't going to cut because I will just retort, "belief that only rights violations should be prohibited by law is merely another personal belief - in this case yours."

I'm guessing you will say that the one prohibits real harm to others and the other doesn't. This is sophistry - because you are privileging certain kinds of harm over others. For example, Libertarians would permit someone to fly the Nazi flag even though a holocaust survivor would find this more harmful than being punched in the face. Unless you specify what harms count and provide a meaningful distintion between them and the others, this answer will never get off the ground. Furthermore, I can think of plenty of cases of failing to do things which will result in harm to other people (like failing to give the charity) so perhaps by this criterion we should make doing certain things compulsory (i.e. good samaritan laws).

Moreover I can think of cases of violating rights in which no one is harmed. You go away and you leave some of your property behind. I start stealing it and you don't know. Fortunately you never come back and die never finding out that your property has been stolen by me. Even if you did it wouldn't bother you (though you have never consciously made this decision). How can this act of stealing be said to harm you?



Anyway, you should know better than this - Libertarians do not support their version of rights because of some harm that failing to do so would cause, they support them because they think that any other system of rights entails coercion and their fundamental belief is that coercion is wrong. If they privileged harm over coercion they would have to enact good samaritan laws.

Again, if you believe that morality only says "do no harm" one may beiieve this because one believes that coercion is wrong or for some other reason (divine command, etc. ) In other words it's not necessary to be a Libertarian to believe this.

But this rolls us right back around to the central question you have avoided for about 3 or four days now. It is

Is violating rights bad because it causes harm; or is harm bad because it is caused by violating rights?

[orange]

on that same line, some would argue that there is no such thing as personal property. JJ Rousseau, for example...so why have laws to prohibit stealing it?

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I'm starting to feel like Ted.

Losing brain cells will do that.

After all what is the point of producing arguments only to fail to have them understood by one's interlocutor, who resorts to facile and irrelevant replies that show little evidence of thought.

How does your inability to produce a PD proving your assertion that libertarianism is contradictory translate into my failure?

For example, Ted has produced mountains of documentary evidence against your claims which you can't answer, so you keep up with silly and irrelevant sniping or try to change the subject.

He has produced mountains of evidence about droughts, where did I say droughts don't occur?

If you want to know why social sanctions create a prisoner's dilemma, look at the "boycotters' dilemma".

Instead of telling me to look at a PD, why don't you use that PD to support your argument? What is this "boycotter's dilemma" and how does it prove that free riding will destroy a libertarian system?

I thought you would have been smart enought to make the connection and work it out for yourself, but I obviously am guilty of wild overestimation.

You over-estimated your own intelligence when you declared libertarianism was contradictory. You got called on it and you've been running ever since.

You didn't answer this question: would you murder 100 people to prevent the murder of 101 people?

[Ramo]

Actually, I have read accounts that, one of the factors (among many) attributed to the reduction in crime during the 1990s, was breaking down the crack-cocaine trade.

Source?

First of all, since you have asked for sources, please supply me with sources with specific accounts of the atrocities committed by the emperor.

Any decent account of Chinese history during the 18th and 19th centuries could describe the imperial taxes and their implications to the peasantry just fine, for instance "The Rise of the West" by William McNeill.

Secondly, the reason I am arguing the point is simple. (Actually you are arguing with me -- takes 2 to tango). I mentioned the Chinese situation as an example of a drug situation gone wrong, so Berzerker resorted to character assassination on the Chinese Emperor. (He has still yet to prove it, by the way. He hasn't given me 19th century American drug usage proof either).

Character assassination is pretty sly. If you can discredit someone with a sharp label, then in your mind you don't have to debate anymore because everything that the person in question does is pretty much immoral.

I believe he was criticizing your accounts of the situation as not coming from an impartial source.

It's alot easier to just label him as a "slavelord" or whatever than to actually debate. The problem with this character assassination is that it ignores the simple fact that slavery was widespread thoughout the globe during this same time period, and our own US government was practicing it at the same time as the Chinese Emperor (assuming the slavery idea is true, which I don't buy).

Why does it matter if the US gov't or anyone else is doing atrocious things?

quote]Sorry, every account I have read does not say that. Please again list your sources.[/quote]

I don't have a source on this as I'm making an assumption that the demographics of opium use in 19th century China was not fundamentally different from opium use in just about every well-documented situation. But apparantly you do have a source that this is not the case, so I'd appreciate it if you gave it to me.

No the British did not force them to buy it but I mean come on addicts go to desparate lengths to get their drugs, so, how "convenient" for the British to supply them.

Since tobacco is an extremely addictive drug, I guess you consider that the purchasing of tobacco isn't a voluntary process, so you think tobacco should be prohibited? Right?

It's not moral, but if the Brits didn't supply them, someone else would've anyways. If the Chinese gov't cared about its subjects' well-being, it should've attacked the root of the problem, poverty, by stop leeching off the peasants.

Come on guys, I have supplied mountains of documentation that have backed up most of my points. You guys have supplied us with nothing but opinion and speculation. And some absurd theory that the Emperor didn't want them smoking because, "they might stop working hard." Fess up. Why do you think they are called, "The Opium Wars?" Duh!

I don't think either of us have disputed that opium use isn't exactly a good thing. Its the other points you haven't provided any documentation for.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -
No you didn't.

What is this? Do you want to go back and forth like a couple of third graders? Nuh uh! Yuh huh!!!

But I did respond to your Drug War post.

Translation please.

Mein Schwanz ist ein grosse Banane!!!

I tracked down the drug consumption rate prior to the Harrison Act, a stat corroborating my claim, did you ignore that stat again?

I'll have to check and get back to you. Though I don't remember seeing any stat. (Notice that I will actually check unlike *ahem* someone we know). In the meantime, enjoy your anal probe machine.

I provided an article dealing with the alleged complicity of laissez faire in the Irish potato famine which you dismissed without even refuting anything in the article, so what's the point of providing documentation when you just ignore it?

Well, the Potato Famine article you posted was from a site that was against government intevention. That is like quoting a gun control article from the NRA. If you had listed something like the University of Arizona or something than I think it would deserve credibility.

That's nice...and irrelevant to what I said.

YUH HUH!!!

I said the Fed makes decisions about money supply which in turn impacts economic decisions made by bankers and then farmers.

But that happens in every single sector. There wasn't anything special specifically to farms back then, with regards to monetary policy.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Source?

Crack-cocaine Usage and Inner City Violence:

Reginald Shareef, professor in the Political Science Department at Radford University:

http://www.roanoke.com/magazine/shareef/10499.html

The researchers found a relationship between the waning crack-cocaine epidemic and violence in inner city neighborhoods.

Urban Institute:

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=7834

Violent crime rates, which rose dramatically in the mid-1980s with the introduction of crack cocaine into U.S. inner cities, have declined every year since 1993.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Any decent account of Chinese history during the 18th and 19th centuries could describe the imperial taxes and their implications to the peasantry just fine, for instance "The Rise of the West" by William McNeill.

Sure but please mention those other factors as well.

Why does it matter if the US gov't or anyone else is doing atrocious things?

It matters because this doesn't make China any relatively "worse" than other countries during that time period in regard to slavery. It matters because you can't just outright write off anything the Emperor did by character assassinating him.

I don't have a source on this as I'm making an assumption that the demographics of opium use in 19th century China was not fundamentally different from opium use in just about every well-documented situation. But apparantly you do have a source that this is not the case, so I'd appreciate it if you gave it to me.

Go back to my opium posts. There are several there listing opium usage statistics.

Since tobacco is an extremely addictive drug, I guess you consider that the purchasing of tobacco isn't a voluntary process, so you think tobacco should be prohibited? Right?

Actually I do.

It's not moral, but if the Brits didn't supply them, someone else would've anyways.

That's not correct. The British were bringing this stuff in on huge frigates. Who would have supplied them?

[Berzerker]

Ted -

What is this? Do you want to go back and forth like a couple of third graders? Nuh uh! Yuh huh!!!

But I did respond to your Drug War post.

No you didn't.

Mein Schwanz ist ein grosse Banane!!!

I hope that makes more sense to German speakers than what you said in English to me.

I'll have to check and get back to you. Though I don't remember seeing any stat. (Notice that I will actually check unlike *ahem* someone we know). In the meantime, enjoy your anal probe machine.

Hmm...can't even admit missing my post without an insult...But since you accused me of hypocrisy for allegedly missing the post of someone you didn't bother identifying, hell hath no fury like a hypocrite exposed for all to see...

Well, the Potato Famine article you posted was from a site that was against government intevention. That is like quoting a gun control article from the NRA. If you had listed something like the University of Arizona or something than I think it would deserve credibility.

And you complain about "character assassination"? You dismissed the article because of where I found it, you didn't refute anything in the article.

But that happens in every single sector.

Which means we weren't under a laissez faire system.

There wasn't anything special specifically to farms back then, with regards to monetary policy.

So what? Just because the Fed was making decisions affecting other sectors of the economy doesn't mean farming was under a laissez faire system. It means farming was affected by Fed policies too.

[Ramo]

The researchers found a relationship between the waning crack-cocaine epidemic and violence in inner city neighborhoods.

Crack is coorelated with poverty and violence is coorelated with poverty. Could it be that there have been some reduction in poverty in the areas that that have had reductions in crack use and violence?

Sure but please mention those other factors as well.

What other factors?

Go back to my opium posts. There are several there listing opium usage statistics.

There are almost 500 posts? What's the post number of the ones you're referring to?

Actually I do.

What about caffiene? It's extremely addictive too.

That's not correct. The British were bringing this stuff in on huge frigates. Who would have supplied them?

Russians? French? Americans? Brits acting without the authority of the state?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo


Crack is coorelated with poverty and violence is coorelated with poverty. Could it be that there have been some reduction in poverty in the areas that that have had reductions in crack use and violence?

Read the studies. Crack-cocaine is what they studied, not poverty.

What other factors?

Already mentioned them, and #1 is Western interference.

There are almost 500 posts? What's the post number of the ones you're referring to?

Oh no, I'm not playing that game. It's hard to miss, it's around the pictures of strung out Chinese opium users.

What about caffiene? It's extremely addictive too.

I see where you are going with this. Nice lure but it won't work. Actually, if you have noticed, a caffeine-like compound called Ephedra has been banned. Caffeine hasn't been proven to be dangerous like opium.

Russians? French? Americans? Brits acting without the authority of the state?

Actually, there were some Americans in on it. But the fact of the matter is that the British Clippers sailing into those major ports were the equivalent of huge oil tankers sailing into harbor full of opium on board.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

No you didn't.

YUH HUH!!!!

Hmm...can't even admit missing my post without an insult...But since you accused me of hypocrisy for allegedly missing the post of someone you didn't bother identifying, hell hath no fury like a hypocrite exposed for all to see...

I'm not even sure I even understand what you are talking about anymore. I'm not even sure you do. But hey, as long as the word, "hypocrite" is involved, it's all good to me.

And you complain about "character assassination"? You dismissed the article because of where I found it, you didn't refute anything in the article.

So provide an article from a neutral source and we can discuss it.

Which means we weren't under a laissez faire system.

Not really. Actually, I think they are using the Berzerker definition system in college economics classes now. "Alright class, if you will turn to page 3, you will notice that under the hypocrite section, there is an ad hominem discussion regarding the fictional laissez faire system."

So what? Just because the Fed was making decisions affecting other sectors of the economy doesn't mean farming was under a laissez faire system. It means farming was affected by Fed policies too.

Already met you half way on this Chief. I said "lazziez fair LIKE."

For some reason you seem to have a fetish with particular words. Can you believe this guy Ramo?

[Ted Striker]

Okay, I see what you are talking about. You made a THREAD about the Drug War. Today is the first time that I have seen it. And yes, now that I see who wrote it, I am going to ignore it.

When you said I was ignoring a Drug War POST, if you look back, you have a Drug War post that talks about the reasons for the Drug War and it had some kind of babble about Chinese, Blacks, and Mexicans.

[Berzerker]

Ted - the post is on page 13 07-01-2003 00:07

[Ted Striker]

And my response is on Page 15.


TOLD YA SO!!! TOLD YA SO!!! TOLD YA SO!!!

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Okay, I see where you are going. You made a THREAD about the Drug War. Today is the first time that I have seen it. And yes, now that I see who wrote it, I am going to ignore it.

No, the post is in this thread.

When you said I was ignoring a Drug War POST, if you look back, you have a Drug War post that talks about the reasons for the Drug War and it had some kind of babble about Chinese, Blacks, and Mexicans.

You call it babble, but it is fact. Opium, cocaine and marijuana were banned by people using racist fears of Chinese, blacks, and Mexicans. And you are still missing the more recent posts Obiwan and I (page20?) made about drug consumption rates prior to the Harrison Act.