Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[David Floyd]

Just a quick point before I have to go to bed.

In an earlier PD, Agathon stated, and used as a major argument, that if I buy a gun, the overall safety of everyone decreases.

This is absolutely not true. I know that I am responsible, I know that I would handle my weapon safely, and most of all, I know that I would not murder people with it or wave it around in public for no reason.

From my perspective, that argument simply doesn't work - the safety of everyone is not in any way affected by me purchasing a firearm.

Actually, even if everyone buys a firearm, the fact that they own a firearm does not affect anyone's safety. Only their actions affect their safety and that of others.

But even if I accept your argument that gun ownership is a safety issue, it is absolutely clear that it is far more unsafe for you to own one than for me to own one. The proof of that is that you have stated multiple times that, in certain circumstances, you would commit murder, while I have stated just as many times that I would never commit murder.

So it comes down to this - either your PD is false for everyone, because inanimate objects do not affect safety, or your PD is false as it applies to me but true as it applies to you, because of your stated support of murder in some circumstances and my stated opposition to murder and my stated position that I would store my gun safely, etc.

Either way, your PD breaks down - and if it isn't true for everyone, it is not a valid argument to begin with. Rather, it's a silly attempt to, once again, shift responsibility from where it belongs - in this case, from criminals onto firearms.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

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.

I didn't make my comment about life and the right to life or liberty and the right to liberty being synonymous within the context of medieval peoples, hurricane damage or bears. I said they were synonymous because you cannot violate one without violating the other. And you still haven't shown how you can violate one without violating the other. Instead, you diverted the discussion away from the context of human interaction to hurricanes and bears. If you want to discuss hurricanes and bears, fine, but don't act like that was part of the original question and answer.

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 "right to life" is a statement that your life rightfully or morally belongs to you, in that context, they are synonymous.

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.

One can understand the concept of life and still be a slaveowner. The right to life is an understanding that your life belongs to you, not others.

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

That would be relevant if I made that equation, I didn't. You asked the following 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?"

"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?"

And I said life and liberty were synonymous with the rights to life and liberty because you cannot violate someone's life or liberty without violating their rights to life and liberty - and you can't. That's when you changed the context of human interactions to hurricanes and bears.

[Berzerker]

GP -

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!

Another accusation without proof. I was debating the issue of lotteries with you and Agathon, and one of you claimed government lotteries could not compete with private lotteries. I don't recall seeing proof for that assertion, but I did explain that there was no evidence to support the assertion. The reason being people choosing between a private lottery and a government lottery designed to pay for services they wanted from government would naturally lean to the government lottery. That explanation was ignored...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

Another accusation without proof. I was debating the issue of lotteries with you and Agathon, and one of you claimed government lotteries could not compete with private lotteries. I don't recall seeing proof for that assertion, but I did explain that there was no evidence to support the assertion. The reason being people choosing between a private lottery and a government lottery designed to pay for services they wanted from government would naturally lean to the government lottery. That explanation was ignored...

1. "another accusation without proof" You are a self-parody.

2. I responded to the problem with government lotteries by discussing several things. See the thread. (Examples of government failure in other nationalized industries, government efforts against private lotteries, and lack of volunteer payments to the government under current schemes, and also example of lower, higher taxed goods) Go back to the thread.

[Berzerker]

GP -

2. I responded to the problem with government lotteries by discussing several things. See the thread. (Examples of government failure in other nationalized industries, government efforts against private lotteries, and lack of volunteer payments to the government under current schemes, and also example of lower, higher taxed goods) Go back to the thread.

I did, and you're full of sh!t like usual. On page 23 you responded to David, not me. And I never chopped up one of your posts and ignored the "thrust" of your argument. You made maybe 6 posts in the thread and they were all insults directed at libertarian posters or libertarians in general. I have to correct myself, I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.

and lack of volunteer payments to the government under current schemes

And you call me a nitwit? Under current schemes we have massive forced taxation and people still play government lotteries. Why would I voluntarily give government money when I'm already being taxed at more than %50?

[Ben Kenobi]

-Berzerker

"Any decent books on him and his philosophy?"

- Try Written on the Heart, a case for Natural Law by J. Budziszewski
IVP, (Downer's Grove Illinois, 1997.

"The fact you exist and we or the majority did not create you means we don't have a claim over your life."

What about parents? Are parents allowed to kill their children?

"A person's life begins at conception, but I wouldn't argue that a fertilised egg is equivelant to a new born baby."

Why not, how do these differ? If life begins at conception, why isn't the zygote (BTW, that's the scientific term), equivalent to the
baby? The baby born is the same person, regardless.

Agathon-

Please answer my question. Berzerker was kind enough to do so.

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

I'm going to need more facts on this bald assertion. What do you mean by 'intellectually prestigious?'

As for Aquinas, I can neither confirm or deny. I'll have to go and read up some more.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

I did, and you're full of sh!t like usual. On page 23 you responded to David, not me. And I never chopped up one of your posts and ignored the "thrust" of your argument. You made maybe 6 posts in the thread and they were all insults directed at libertarian posters or libertarians in general. I have to correct myself, I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.



And you call me a nitwit? Under current schemes we have massive forced taxation and people still play government lotteries. Why would I voluntarily give government money when I'm already being taxed at more than %50?

1. Berz, you say that we debated lotteries (and than correct yourself and say you were talking to someone else) and get mad at me because my comments were addressed to Dave in the same thread we were all talking in? Regardless, those posts responded to your points.

2. Leaving aside the question of wether people would donate money to the government if there were no taxation (you can claim that they will but have no evidence of it. I can claim that they don't right now. Why should it bve different with no taxation) --> But to your last point, people playing government lotteries only shows that there is demand for lotteries, not that there is a desire to contribute to the government (your thesis). I can point to examples of people playing illegal numbers games or of crossing state lines to py the lottery. Clearly they are not supporting their government than. They just want that particular good. And will go to real efforts to get it. even if it is illegal where they live. Pointing to people using current government lotteries as proof of people's willingness to play for worse odds for the government is absurd. they have no legal choice now. All it shows is that they like to gamble. Look at state liquor stores. It's completely analagous. People go there cause they like to drink and its the only place to get booze (in some states).

(Are you really that THC-impaired that I have to spell this all out to you?)

[TCO]

crap...I replied when I meant to edit

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

What about parents? Are parents allowed to kill their children?

No, parents are only the "mechanism" by which offspring come about. Parents owe their existence to this primogenitor too.

Why not, how do these differ? If life begins at conception, why isn't the zygote (BTW, that's the scientific term), equivalent to the
baby? The baby born is the same person, regardless.

Just biological differences - brain waves, heart, etc. A zygote is better classified as a potential human IMO, but I haven't come to a hard conclusion about when a person becomes a person with regards to the law. I figure that if I'm legally dead when I cease having certain bodily functions, then the same would apply on the other end, except of course for the element of potential.

Agathon -

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

It's difficult to find a religion that didn't borrow from predecessors or contemporaries. I consider the Golden Rule to be Christianity at it's most fundamental, and I believe Buddha offered a very similar concept to the Golden Rule before Jesus. But I believe there is something in the Old Testament that echoes the Golden Rule too. The Greek religion was not invented by Greeks, they borrowed heavily from Mesopotamia/Anatolia. As for Greek philosophy, can you identify the Greek who expressed the concept of the Golden Rule (not that the Golden Rule is some mysterious doctrine only a handful of people could ever come up with).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GP
crap...I replied when I meant to edit

Stoner!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sikander


Stoner!

Nah. I was one of the 10% of non-dopers working in Breckenridge. I do like my CH3CH2OH though...

[Berzerker]

GP -

1. Berz, you say that we debated lotteries (and than correct yourself and say you were talking to someone else) and get mad at me because my comments were addressed to Dave in the same thread we were all talking in? Regardless, those posts responded to your points.

You accused me of chopping up your posts and ignoring the thrust of your argument in the process. When I asked you for proof, you said you wouldn't bother with my request. So I looked at the thread. I didn't even respond to your post from what I can see, and you didn't address either of your posts to me. The first was to David and the following post was addressed to no one, just a generalised insult directed at libertarians. And you didn't respond in either post to my rationale for why a government lottery can raise money even when competing with private lotteries. As I pointed out to Agathon, the American Revolution was funded via lotteries and voluntary donations at a time when private lotteries were legal.

2. Leaving aside the question of wether people would donate money to the government if there were no taxation (you can claim that they will but have no evidence of it.

How would you know? You obviously haven't been reading my posts to Agathon which is where I've been supporting my arguments.

I can claim that they don't right now.

Because we have forced taxation now, sheesh. Why would I want to donate money to government when I'm paying more than %50 in taxes now? Geez, I just said that in my last post. Try reading before typing for a change. Answer this question, Agathon keeps ignoring it: if people would not voluntarily fund government, why don't people just do away with all taxation now?

But to your last point, people playing government lotteries only shows that there is demand for lotteries, not that there is a desire to contribute to the government (your thesis).

When lotteries are proposed, we are told they will exist to fund schools, etc. You don't think that's a selling point? And if we didn't have forced taxation and no governmment services at all, you don't think a government lottery to pay for the military or police would be a MAJOR selling point?

I can point to examples of people playing illegal numbers games or of crossing state lines to py the lottery.

Many people like to gamble.

Clearly they are not supporting their government than.

They do when they play government lotteries. The fact so many people like to gamble and do so under different venues doesn't mean they won't or don't play government lotteries. Why do you think those government lotteries get so big? Because millions are playing them already even with massive forced taxation.
The lotteries to raise money for the Revolution sure made it clear people who bought lottery tickets were funding the Revolution.

Pointing to people using current government lotteries as proof of people's willingness to play for worse odds for the government is absurd.

Where did I say the willingness to play the lottery was proof people prefer worse odds? You just make crap up. You can't deny that millions of people in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut region play the lottery even with plenty of casinos in the area where they can get better odds.

they have no legal choice now.

Private lotteries may be illegal, but gambling is legal within range of tens of millions of people. We have both a Kansas lottery and multi-state lottery here and we live close to Indian and riverboat gaming. The lotteries here are doing quite well inspite of the competition. With those worse odds come the big payoff, you can't get 20 million from a poker/numbers game.

All it shows is that they like to gamble.

Many people do like to gamble.

Look at state liquor stores. It's completely analagous. People go there cause they like to drink and its the only place to get booze (in some states).

State liquor stores are a relic of the puritanism that gave us prohibition, so what's your point?

(Are you really that THC-impaired that I have to spell this all out to you?)

I doubt it, I haven't smoked pot for more than a decade. What's your excuse? You're the one having the trouble with facts.

[TCO]

Jeez, Berz, in all seriousness, I'm running out of energy to spell out basis points any more to you. It's just not fun tallking to you. You're like a little kid or something. You don't THINK.

You can complain about me dismissing you, but that's too bad. I don't mind if you disagree with me. I just find your style annoying and blockheaded. What is so hard to see about the analogy between (current, exisiting, non-hypothetical) state lotteries and state liquor stores. The funny thing about this whole discussion is that Rex or Ramo would back me up. I am having to explain some basic incentives of human free behavior to you...the libertarian.

[Kontiki]

Am I the only one enjoying the whole "American Revolution was funded by lotteries" bit? Without assistance from other, extremely non-libertarian states, the lottery-funded revolutionaries would have been crushed by the British. That hardly seems like a good success story for the ability of non-taxation to fund an effective military.

[Berzerker]

GP -

Jeez, Berz, in all seriousness, I'm running out of energy to spell out basis points any more to you. It's just not fun tallking to you. You're like a little kid or something. You don't THINK.

It's my fault you keep making stuff up.

You can complain about me dismissing you, but that's too bad.

Just stating facts, give it a try sometime.

I don't mind if you disagree with me.

You mean I have your permission?

I just find your style annoying and blockheaded.

I saw your posts in that thread, all you did was insult people. So why should you start trying to debate now?

What is so hard to see about the analogy between (current, exisiting, non-hypothetical) state lotteries and state liquor stores.

What does your analogy supposedly show? State liquor stores were not created to eliminate private competition due to revenue, they were created because prohibitionists didn't want alcohol sold privately. They didn't want liquor stores on every corner. Don't "economists" have to take history courses at some point in their education?

The funny thing about this whole discussion is that Rex or Ramo would back me up.

First Agathon claims you supported the logic of his PD's, and now you are name-dropping too. Yeah, what's funny is that you have to allege support where none has been offered just as Agathon alleged support where none existed.

I am having to explain some basic incentives of human free behavior to you...the libertarian.

Let us know when you start since I'm the one explaining incentives and behavior to you guys. God, you almost make Agathon look like Einstein...