Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I don't - your attempted refutations consist of a ham fisted understanding of the argument and the first sentence you can think of.

Accusing me of ignorance has been your pat response to my rebuttals, but you haven't been defending your PD's. Where was your defense of your guns PD?

I'm not feeling refuted, just bored.

That's your problem.

Your last example was the American revolution - I fail to see what this has to do with it.

It has to do with your claim that free riding prevents a system of voluntary taxation. If that was true, there would have never been a revolution.

Everyone knows that people tend to behave altruistically in moments of community crisis, but that once things return to normal they return to their self interested ways.

Did it ever occur to you that these people are acting in their self-interest when the "community is facing a crisis"? The American Revolution was fought by people who wanted to be free from their government - self-interest.

If you want some proof of this assertion look up news reports of human behaviour when such disasters strike - everyone chips in while the crisis lasts (which led some communists to believe that they could behave this way all the time).

I want proof your PD's show libertarianism is contradictory. I want proof your PD's even fit the definition you gave for PD's. Which PD shows a worse situation for everyone resulting from people acting out of self-interest?

Well there have been several.

Don't give me that crap, none of the "PD's" you've provided prove your assertion about libertarianism, in fact, they don't even fit your definition of a PD. Your coats and guns "PD's" did not leave everyone worse off as a result of self-interest and I explained why.

I gave several instances of behaviour that exhibits a PD like structure, including market behaviour, which is one of the most common.

Oh, now your PD's only exhibit PD like structure?

Tax avoidance is another.

You never did explain why we have any taxation now if everyone (or most) would avoid voluntary taxation. Claiming that people won't pay a smaller voluntary tax based on the current efforts of some people to avoid paying much higher forced taxes is illogical. But that's where social sanctions enter the picture...to deal with the small minority who may not pay the smaller voluntary taxes.

Your refutations consist of variations on the assertion "no it will work", which just disputes the conclusion rather tha attacking the reasoning behind it.

Hehe, I explained how social sanctions work and you're the one who keeps claiming, "no they won't work".

I've said that voluntary altruism only seems to work in these cases when there is corresponding trust - do you care to dispute this.

Wtf, I've been disputing that all along. I don't need every person in my community to pay a voluntary tax to support the local sheriff before I'm willing to pay the tax. I want the service regardless of your actions. Do I need this trust when donating to charities? Of course not.

words to the effect that he understood the econ point of the PD enough to know that you didn't. Ned actually said that he was reassessing his committment to Ayn Rand.

Then quote him? The only criticism I saw from GP was about lotteries, not your ridiculous coats "PD". And where was Ned's endorsement of your PD's? I sure know he never proved the validity of your PD's, saying "I agree with Agathon" doesn't mean you've offered valid PD's.

But that's what they say: "Being able to do what I want with my life..."

Do "they" say that to bears or to people who aren't letting them live their life? What if they want to murder people, is that part of liberty? No, because liberty is about freedom from the coercion or constraints imposed by other people.

Why should something I believe be raised in disagreement with me?

Because you said the consequences of the hurricane and drunk teens knocking down your shed are identical.

Like who?

The Founding Fathers and the people who influenced them, like Locke. When they spoke of liberty, did they mean freedom from nature or did they mean freedom from other people? If you need to ask "like who", then that explains why you are ignorant of the meaning and context of liberty. I just figured with all your name dropping you'd know about these philosophers.

This is dumb. Here's why: say I have a right to property. What this means, when cashed out is that I ought to be able to control the things that I have received in vountary exchanges with others. "things I have received in voluntary exchanges with others" describes something real, a natural fact. My "ability to control my life..." also describes a natural fact about the world. All that Libetarianism prohibits is other people violating my rights so as to change the facts so that they are in control of my life.

I agree, that is dumb. "A natural fact" Are there un-natural facts? Libertarianism is about liberty - FROM OTHER PEOPLE! Sheesh...

No, because bears and hurricanes cannot violate rights because they are not moral agents.

And liberty is about the relationships between moral agents - people.

However, bears and hurricanes can effect consequences which are identical with those of rights violations - but the fact they aren't caused by moral agents means that there can be no blame attached to them and no compensation sought.

Which means they aren't identical.

Isn't not being able to fly a restriction on my choice or action?

Yes, but the inability to fly (like a bird) is not a violation of your liberty. If you have the ability to fly and I prevent you, that is a violation of your liberty.

You keep saying this without support. Liberty is about having control of my own life.

I've supported it, the people who came up with the concept of liberty and rights never claimed liberty meant an exemption from the physical laws or being eaten by lions or bears, oh my.

The bear effects the same consequences as the jailor, but the bear is not a moral agent so there is no moral wrong committed when he does it. The moral wrong is not the consequence, it is the violation of rights by the person, which causes harm to me.

And you don't think liberty involves morality?

Are you going to defend your guns "PD"?

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Free Market economics, by its nature, involves constraint on choice or action . If you don't have money, you are constrained from buying things. It is inherant in the theory, you know allocation of scarce resources and all that?

Was your lack of money a result of someone else imposing a constraint on you? Liberty means I can't steal your money - theft being a constraint - it doesn't mean I have to give you my money - a constraint on me. Freedom of religion means you get to pray, not that I have to build you a church.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Was your lack of money a result of someone else imposing a constraint on you?

The system is imposing a constraint on me. If I am not able to purchase something I am constrained from doing so. You did not specify that SOMEONE had to constrain you, but merely constraint in general.

[Az]

Wow, thank god I don't have to participate in these threads anymore. The realization that libertarians do not believe in the public good has left us with absolutely no common ground to argue about, politically, phylosophically, and socially. They're still good guys, mostly.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

Wow, thank god I don't have to participate in these threads anymore. The realization that libertarians do not believe in the public good has left us with absolutely no common ground to argue about, politically,

You don't consider freedom a "public good"? That's the problem I have with "utilitarianism", they seek the "public good" by sacrificing our freedom.

"The good of society must prevail over the the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

[Az]

"the sky is blue" -Benito Mussolini, aged 5.
1)just because benito mussolini said it, doesn't make it wrong, or evil. In any case, my morals are... well, you've read the thread. . "public good" is just another slogan, much like "rights",etc. but I've used it to demonstrate that utilitarians don't care about what happens to other people. I didn't want to be so harsh.

You don't consider freedom a "public good"? That's the problem I have with "utilitarianism", they seek the "public good" by sacrificing our freedom.

so, if a giant comet would fall on the planet, which society would cope with it better? a rather authoritarian society, where people are taxed and have many duties, or a libertarian society. I am here to maximise utility, and if under a certain condition of manking fascism/libertarianism would maximise utility I'd be all for it. It's generally happiness we strive for, not freedom. This is the real question, right? what do humans want?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

Accusing me of ignorance has been your pat response to my rebuttals, but you haven't been defending your PD's. Where was your defense of your guns PD?



That's your problem.



It has to do with your claim that free riding prevents a system of voluntary taxation. If that was true, there would have never been a revolution.



Did it ever occur to you that these people are acting in their self-interest when the "community is facing a crisis"? The American Revolution was fought by people who wanted to be free from their government - self-interest.



I want proof your PD's show libertarianism is contradictory. I want proof your PD's even fit the definition you gave for PD's. Which PD shows a worse situation for everyone resulting from people acting out of self-interest?



Don't give me that crap, none of the "PD's" you've provided prove your assertion about libertarianism, in fact, they don't even fit your definition of a PD. Your coats and guns "PD's" did not leave everyone worse off as a result of self-interest and I explained why.



Oh, now your PD's only exhibit PD like structure?



You never did explain why we have any taxation now if everyone (or most) would avoid voluntary taxation. Claiming that people won't pay a smaller voluntary tax based on the current efforts of some people to avoid paying much higher forced taxes is illogical. But that's where social sanctions enter the picture...to deal with the small minority who may not pay the smaller voluntary taxes.



Hehe, I explained how social sanctions work and you're the one who keeps claiming, "no they won't work".



Wtf, I've been disputing that all along. I don't need every person in my community to pay a voluntary tax to support the local sheriff before I'm willing to pay the tax. I want the service regardless of your actions. Do I need this trust when donating to charities? Of course not.



Then quote him? The only criticism I saw from GP was about lotteries, not your ridiculous coats "PD". And where was Ned's endorsement of your PD's? I sure know he never proved the validity of your PD's, saying "I agree with Agathon" doesn't mean you've offered valid PD's.



Do "they" say that to bears or to people who aren't letting them live their life? What if they want to murder people, is that part of liberty? No, because liberty is about freedom from the coercion or constraints imposed by other people.



Because you said the consequences of the hurricane and drunk teens knocking down your shed are identical.



The Founding Fathers and the people who influenced them, like Locke. When they spoke of liberty, did they mean freedom from nature or did they mean freedom from other people? If you need to ask "like who", then that explains why you are ignorant of the meaning and context of liberty. I just figured with all your name dropping you'd know about these philosophers.



I agree, that is dumb. "A natural fact" Are there un-natural facts? Libertarianism is about liberty - FROM OTHER PEOPLE! Sheesh...



And liberty is about the relationships between moral agents - people.



Which means they aren't identical.



Yes, but the inability to fly (like a bird) is not a violation of your liberty. If you have the ability to fly and I prevent you, that is a violation of your liberty.



I've supported it, the people who came up with the concept of liberty and rights never claimed liberty meant an exemption from the physical laws or being eaten by lions or bears, oh my.



And you don't think liberty involves morality?

Are you going to defend your guns "PD"?

I would make a parody of your cutting and pasting. But it is too much of a self-parody.

[Az]

What's wrong with replying to points, point by point?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Azazel
What's wrong with replying to points, point by point?

well. When combined with ignoring the main thrust of someone's argument...it's pretty silly.

Learn to use PARAGRAPHS, dopers!

[Ben Kenobi]

"If the right to life stems from life itself then they cannot mean the same thing. If they did mean the same thing then someone who knew what "life" meant would automatically know what "right to life" meant. This excludes everyone who lived prior to the creation of the concept of rights (in the late Middle Ages) from knowing what "life" was. Again worms and trees are alive, but Libertarians don't think that they have rights to life."

Agathon

"Their ignorance or non-belief in rights has nothing to do with the right to life stemming from life itself."

Berzerker

In order to answer the question, of does the right to life stem from life itself, we must first answer the question of where do rights come from?

There are two ways of answering this question, I'm curious as to which branch all you libertarians favour. One explanation is to use the concept of Natural Law, that the right to life originates from God, and therefore, men must respect this right.

Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. If men can decide who the right to life applies to, then it is the same as saying, "whomever has the power can strip anyone with lesser power of their right to life," or simply, "might makes right."

Does not the declaration of independence claim that these rights cannot be taken away by men? "endowed by their creator, certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

Secondly, to whom does the right to life apply? Agathon, Berzerker, I am very interested to hear what you both have to say about this.

BTW- your logic is false, Agathon.

If life = right to life, this does not prevent people from before the middle ages from knowing what life is. It does prevent them from knowing what the right to life is, at least how you have presented the right to life.

I would argue that any Christian, including those prior to the French Revolution, did know what the right to life meant, at least to some extent.

Thomas Aquinas formulated natural law, and would have clarified what the right to life meant, but it would not have altered Christian application of the right. They knew it was there, but Aquinas helped show them why.

[Az]

So? what do humans want?

[Berzerker]

GP -

I would make a parody of your cutting and pasting. But it is too much of a self-parody.

well. When combined with ignoring the main thrust of someone's argument...it's pretty silly.

Learn to use PARAGRAPHS, dopers!

I chop up paragraphs when they make several points and want to reply to each of the specific points. There is a difference between my posts and yours and Agathon's, I actually respond to the points being made while you guys respond to maybe 2 or 3 (although Agathon does a better job than you ) and ignore the rest. Btw, I do use paragraphs when the paragraph contains only 1 point I want to discuss. Do you have proof I ignored the thrust of someone's argument by using my method of responding? If so, post your proof...

Obiwan -

In order to answer the question, of does the right to life stem from life itself, we must first answer the question of where do rights come from?

Agreed, the right to life comes from life itself. The fact you exist and we or the majority did not create you means we don't have a claim over your life.

There are two ways of answering this question, I'm curious as to which branch all you libertarians favour.

Libertarians don't agree on that matter, but my view is that our rights come from that which created us - that which gave us life and liberty. I don't really care who or what did create us, only that I did not create you and you did not create me, etc.

One explanation is to use the concept of Natural Law, that the right to life originates from God, and therefore, men must respect this right.

There are two groups of natural rights advocates, one is the religious as you have identified, another is that nature or nature's creator is the origin of our rights. The former requires a "God", the latter requires only that someone or something beyond ourselves is responsible for existence.

Does not the declaration of independence claim that these rights cannot be taken away by men? "endowed by their creator, certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

Yes.

Secondly, to whom does the right to life apply? Agathon, Berzerker, I am very interested to hear what you both have to say about this.

Human beings, when one becomes a human being is another matter. Some say at conception, others say at birth, and some say somewhere in between. A person's life begins at conception, but I wouldn't argue that a fertilised egg is equivelant to a new born baby.

If life = right to life

To clarify, I said the right to life was synonymous with life with regards to human interactions. Meaning I cannot take away your right to life without taking your life and vica versa. Agathon then distorted that by replacing the human doing the taking to hurricanes and bears.

I would argue that any Christian, including those prior to the French Revolution, did know what the right to life meant, at least to some extent.

Agreed, who knows when the first person said we have a right to life, but since we don't really know, we ascribe the concept to the enlightenment philosophers who influenced the Founding Fathers who in turn embodied the concept in the Decl of Independence. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus himself believed in rights, one of the parables deals with property rights. The landowner who has the right to decide how much to pay his employees.

Thomas Aquinas formulated natural law, and would have clarified what the right to life meant, but it would not have altered Christian application of the right. They knew it was there, but Aquinas helped show them why.

Any decent books on him and his philosophy?

[Agathon]

Agathon, you logic is false

If life = right to life, this does not prevent people from before the middle ages from knowing what life is. It does prevent them from knowing what the right to life is, at least how you have presented the right to life.

No, this is just a place where intensional contexts create confusion (See: Gottlob Frege, "On Sense and Reference"; and Bertrand Russell, "On Denoting").

Berzerker said that "life" and "right to life" are synonymous. I think that's a dumb thing to say. This is why:

If it's a statement about the meaning (or sense) of the terms being the same then medieval people would have known what the concept "right to life" was, because they knew what the concept "life" was. The introduction of the notion of "right to life" would have been of no importance since, if they mean the same thing, it would be just like introducing a new vocal sign for an old concept. The only thing they wouldn't have known is the new vocal sound representing the old concept - but they still knew the concept. But then again ancient Greeks wouldn't have understood "human" even though they understood "anthropos" which means the same thing. What's weird about that?

But they also discovered (or invented) rights - hence my somewhat sarcastic claim that they couldn't understand themselves, since they would have absurdly been claiming to have discovered a new concept when on Berzerker's theory they were really discovering a new name for an old one (and we don't discover names, we invent them). In order to avoid the discovery being absurd, it would have to have been the case that they didn't understand the concept "life" before - when they clearly did.

Saying that "life" means "right to life" is about as clever as saying to oneself, "my my, a cow is a horse."

The other options is that he could have meant that they referred to the same thing. In that case one could know the meaning of "life" and what it referred to whilst not knowing that "right to life" referred to the same thing (e.g. the Cassius Clay example). But the second argument deals to that silly notion.

Enough.

[Agathon]

Thomas Aquinas formulated natural law, and would have clarified what the right to life meant, but it would not have altered Christian application of the right. They knew it was there, but Aquinas helped show them why.

No he did not. The notion of a law of nature (nomos tes phuseos) originates with the original Stoic philosophers, Zeno and Chrysippus, of the 4th century BC. There are occurences of the term before that (most notably in Plato's Gorgias) but they do not mean anything like what we mean by natural law (in the Gorgias, for example, it is used to mean "the right of the strong over the weak").

Christianity is a thieving religion - almost all its intellectually prestigious doctrines were borrowed from Greek philosophy.

[TCO]

Berzerker, you never responded to the sense of my argument in the lottery discussion. You just cut and pasted away like a little nitwit. And NO! I am not going to cut and paste that stuff and put it here as proof. There has to be some end!