The Problem with Libertarians...

[Berzerker]

He usually signs on a bit later. I think he's out on the west coast. Hope I didn't give anything away, lol.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

So you would murder 100 people to prevent someone else from murdering 101 people? YIKES!!!!!!! Sorry, but chastising David for not wanting to commit murder to prevent a holocaust when you would commit a holocaust to prevent a slightly worse holocaust displays a strange view of morality. I'm of course assuming that if murdering 100 people is preferable to someone else murdering 101, then you'd murder 10 million to prevent 10 million and 1 from being murdered.

Which is worse, numbnuts? If two are worse than one, and three are worse than two, and generally speaking, x+1 murders are worse than x murders, then, by the power of mathematics, 10 million and one murders are worse than 10 million. After all, 10 million will die no matter what I do, but if I do the killing, then I've saved someone.

From the victims' point of view I also make the better choice because, other things being equal, the odds of becoming a victim are slightly less likely to die if I kill 10 million: because 10 000 000 / P is less than 10 000 001 / P (P being the population at risk of death.)

A strange view of morality would be one that preferred a worse outcome to what it admitted was better one: in other words, Libertarianism (or at least on David's view of it, which secretly smuggles a religious doctrine in the back door).

Anyway

What I really want is for David to answer me these simple questions:

"Do Libertarians think that rights-violations are bad because they cause loss of liberty; or do they think that loss of liberty is bad because it is caused by rights violations?"

And:

"Do Libertarians think that the correct explantion of the badness of murder is that violating the right to life is bad because it causes death; or because death is caused by violating a right?"

[Agathon]

And another thing, you seem to be behaving as if I were making some arcane, evil and impractical criticism of Libertarianism when the same criticism goes for any other rights based moral system.

For example, Liberals are committed to the value of tolerance. If we were to understand this according to David's model then I could never ever act intolerantly. But there is a problem which every liberal state has had to face: intolerant people. If we tolerate the intolerant and the intolerant affect the lives of others then we are compromising the value we originally placed on tolerance. In fact, if we understood rights as David understood them and behaved that way, we may well end up with a society ridden with intolerant people whom we have to tolerate to avoid being accused of intolerance. In other words our committment to tolerance, David style, is compatible with the existence of a largely intolerant society

But that's not what Liberals want - they say they want a tolerant society.

Similarly, if Libertarians want a free society in which there are a minimum of rights violations, they had better be prepared to violate the rights of a few bad people or face the prospect of a free society going down the tubes - and that's not what they want.

[MJW]

This is almost 2 500

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo


You asserted a cause-effect relationship. You've only cited a coorelation. And what game am I up to?

You're up to the game of "going around in circles" that obiwan is referring to.

You wouldn't be repeating yourself as you've never posted this information in the first place. You've posted several links, one of which might have the information you're referring to, but have never actually quoted that information.

That's not true, I cited the figure at 2,000,000 ADDICTS, and that's across ALL classes. One article even put that number at 30 million. But I think the 30 mil is an exaggeration.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Let's assume the stat is correct. What can we conclude from this statistic?

Assuming the stat is correct, we would assume that drug usage as a percentage has never changed. Like ever.

But that's assuming the stat is correct.

But where is Ramo's regression analysis with all the "proper" variables.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's hard to know the accuracy, when drugs are illegal, many drug users won't admit their behavior, and when drugs were legal, who was doing surveys? It's amazing how hard it is to even track down any numbers for that period, I'm having a tough time finding numbers for today. But I'm sure that 1.3% is an estimate and not ~exact, but the numbers for 1900 are well within range since 200,000 was roughly 1/3 of a percent of the population which would approach 1.3% as other drugs like cocaine were included. Obviously drug consumption and addiction fluctuates, but American Heritage magazine did an analysis a few years back on drugs in American history and noticed that consumption swings back and forth from one generation to the next and that social sanctions/temperence movements, not government rules, had the biggest effect. The biggest decline in tobacco use has been over the past 3 decades as people began speaking out. I guess it's the pendulum effect, one generation gets bombed so to speak, the next tempers consumption, and back to getting bombed.

I will agree that those numbers can pendulum back and forth. Though I don't think either of us have any sort of accurate statistics that prove it one way or the other.

Sometimes anecdotal and empiracl evidence can be a good measure along with other related factors such as crime, but that again is a whole other debate. Of course, I will still offer the hypothesis that crack-cocaine consumption and violent crime are very much symbiotic.

Regarding the decrease in violent crime, yes, one part of that is in fact that most of the worst offenders (crack dealers) were either thrown in jail, others were killed off. However I still feel that interdiction efforts to break the backs of some of the dealers has had a huge impact on the situation.

In LA for example, some of the gangs have made a comeback because the CRASH units aren't out there intimidating them. (That's only one factor but the CRASH guys certainly have a big impact). I'm sure you remember the purpose of CRASH when you were here. Basically they go out and harass gang bangers to keep them off the streets.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GP
Posts. Too. Long. And. Boring.

Post that USA Britney-like softcore shot, D2K.

Anything for you Navy!!!

USA! USA! USA!

[Ramo]

You're up to the game of "going around in circles" that obiwan is referring to.

I believe you're paranoid.

That's not true, I cited the figure at 2,000,000 ADDICTS, and that's across ALL classes. One article even put that number at 30 million. But I think the 30 mil is an exaggeration.

That doesn't mean anything. Are you saying that the opium users are distributed uniformly across all social classes (i.e. the propensity for the rich to use opium is the same as for the poor)? I don't recall that you posted those statistics before.

But where is Ramo's regression analysis with all the "proper" variables.

Take a probability course before you continue making an arse of yourself.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo

That doesn't mean anything. Are you saying that the opium users are distributed uniformly across all social classes (i.e. the propensity for the rich to use opium is the same as for the poor)? I don't recall that you posted those statistics before.

2,000,000 addicts doesn't mean anything? Take a basic math class and they say that 2,000,000 is a big number. By they way, the addiction again was across all classes. I haven't seen the data on the distribution of it so I can't yet say what exactly that distribution is.

[Ted Striker]

By the way, why are you quoting someone associated with a murderous bastard like Tamerlane?

Have you done the regression analysis of his death count numbers?

[Guynemer]

Just thought I'd get a post in before this thread closed... I never thought I'd see the day when Speer would start a 500+.

[Ted Striker]

Well, I am done. Berzerker if you want to have the last post feel free.

It's the weekend and I have to pick up some fly biatches. GP lets me have some of his leftovers sometimes.

[Ramo]

2,000,000 addicts doesn't mean anything? Take a basic math class and they say that 2,000,000 is a big number.

That's irrelevant. I've never disputed that there was a large number of opium users. If anything, that'd hurt your point (the proportion of opium users among the poor must've been extremely large).

By they way, the addiction again was across all classes.

And? I'm sure there are crack users among all social classes today. That doesn't mean that the distribution of users is uniform between rich and poor.

I haven't seen the data on the distribution of it so I can't yet say what exactly that distribution is.

Isn't that the whole point? You asserted you had this evidence. No wonder I couldn't find it.

[Ted Striker]

Pimpin ain't easy.


Now where is that Hot Widow?