Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[Ben Kenobi]

GP- "You're like a little kid or something"

I'm enjoying discussions with Berzerker as we seem to be making some progress. Why don't you can the insults? It doesn't help your case.

"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. "

Berzerker-

Your analogy is fine, except that brain death is generally referred to the irreversable cessation of brain activity. People who are in comas are still persons even though they do not have current functioning brain capacity. The important word is irreversable. The same is true for heart functioning. People who have open heart surgery can have their heart stopped and restarted, yet they do not cease to be persons.

From both these examples, personhood consists of inherent capacity to function, rather than current capacity. Thus, while the zygote may not currently function as a newborn; as a human being, the zygote retains an inherent capacity to function.

Thanks for reminding me of CS Lewis. In the Abolition of Man, CS Lewis notes that while other religions contain variations of the Golden Rule, Christianity was the first to state the rule in the positive form. Instead of, "do not to do others what you would not have done to you, Christianity insists on the positive version, 'do unto others what you want to have done to you.' The difference is that Christianity desires a positive improvement, rather than a modicum of respect.

[Berzerker]

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.

Where did I say ONLY lotteries funded the American Revolution? I've repeatedly said voluntary donations were given too.

[TCO]

Yes. You are a self-parody. Very clever.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kontiki -

Where did I say ONLY lotteries funded the American Revolution? I've repeatedly said voluntary donations were given too.

Yahoo for private donations. The point is that the American Revolution would have been easily put down by the British had other states not intervened (and not in funding the revolutionaries) because they saw an opportunity to undermine British strength. If you think that any combination of lotteries, voluntary donations, etc. would have won the Revolution without outside help, you're seriously deluding yourself.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Why don't you can the insults? It doesn't help your case.

He seems to think so, I guess if you don't have an argument, insulting people often enough will convince some people you do have an argument.

Berzerker-

Your analogy is fine, except that brain death is generally referred to the irreversable cessation of brain activity. People who are in comas are still persons even though they do not have current functioning brain capacity.

The comatose still have brainwave activity. Usually their brains are still running most of the body while the brain tries to heal.

The important word is irreversable.

Agreed, which is why I referred to "the element of potential". Brain"death" lacks that potential where as the zygote is gaining brain capacity.

The same is true for heart functioning. People who have open heart surgery can have their heart stopped and restarted, yet they do not cease to be persons.

True, I said there were a number of bodily functions that have to cease before one is legally dead. It may be limited now to just brainwaves though.

From both these examples, personhood consists of inherent capacity to function, rather than current capacity.

Agreed.

Thus, while the zygote may not currently function as a newborn; as a human being, the zygote retains an inherent capacity to function.

Can't argue with that.

Thanks for reminding me of CS Lewis. In the Abolition of Man, CS Lewis notes that while other religions contain variations of the Golden Rule, Christianity was the first to state the rule in the positive form. Instead of, "do not to do others what you would not have done to you, Christianity insists on the positive version, 'do unto others what you want to have done to you.' The difference is that Christianity desires a positive action to improvement, rather than a modicum of respect.

Good point. I can't remember exactly how Buddha put it, maybe I'll look into one of my many books on religion.

[Berzerker]

GP -

Yes. You are a self-parody. Very clever.

Gee, you're so brilliant you can't even come up with your own jokes.

Kontiki -

Yahoo for private donations.

Is that your way of admitting you ignored what I said and attributed your fabrication to me?

The point is that the American Revolution would have been easily put down by the British had other states not intervened (and not in funding the revolutionaries) because they saw an opportunity to undermine British strength.

The French intervened at Yorktown by preventing the British from escaping from a battle they already lost. Now, you could argue Britain's other wars and concerns diverted resources away from the colonies, but to suggest the British would have won without those diversions is unsupportable. Their logistical problems were far too great to win the war once they failed to put down the rebellion when it was just starting up.

If you think that any combination of lotteries, voluntary donations, etc. would have won the Revolution without outside help, you're seriously deluding yourself.

Can you make your own arguments without putting words in my mouth? Where did I say we had no outside help and what makes you think the US would have no help today if North America was invaded? Tell us why another country would want to invade another country that is heavily armed with nukes and 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms. Sorry Kontiki, but I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the other thread here as new questions pop into your head. Go read the other thread first. Last I looked, it was on p3 under Speer ("The Problem with Libertarians").

[Lawrence of Arabia]

alright alright
enough bickering
Heres an issue

Monopoly

True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed. We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it.
With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies.

(*oooh dramatic*)

[GeneralTacticus]

The typical Libertarian response seems to be that monopolies only arrise through government interference (and as we've never had an environment completely without government interference, it can't be proven on eway or the other).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course the truth is somewhere in between as it always is .

Unbridled capitalism will allow for some monopolies (like Microsoft), BUT governmental interference ALSO causes monopolies (Postal Service, Amtrack). Governmental laws may also cause monopolies by favoring a certain industry and giving those industries subsidies to allow it to sustain its position.

Capitalism by itself isn't the only impetus for monopoly. Not by any means.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

But every clown says this and yet the statisticians have it the other way. Perhaps you are telling the truth about yourself, but how am I supposed to trust you or know that?

The rest is too funny. The first would have us not opposing nuclear proliferation because nuclear weapons are inanimate objects. Get real man - bad people exist - this is why your trust in people's moral purity will lead us all to ruin.

Anyway, where is your answer to the question I asked you yesterday?

"Given that violating people's rights is not wrong because of the consequences, what makes violating rights wrong?"

If you can't answer this question then you are admitting that you have no reason for believing in your moral theory (no good reason anyway).

[Berzerker]

LoA -

True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed.

Monopolies are rare and short lived in a free market because as soon as a producer starts screwing consumers, if they do that is, someone else will start producing the product to take market share. The only monopolies I know of that can survive more than a few years are government created and protected monopolies.

We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it.

Huh? No monopoly caused (one of the causes) the Depression, unless you want to include the Federal Reserve and government control of the money supply as a monopoly.

With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies.

LOOK OUT! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

General T -

The typical Libertarian response seems to be that monopolies only arrise through government interference (and as we've never had an environment completely without government interference, it can't be proven on eway or the other).

Yes we did, the non-slave states up to the Civil War had largely free markets but you'd be hard pressed to identify any monopolies worthy of the title. It was only after the Civil War and the government's creation and special treatment of corporations that a few monopolies came into existence.

Agathon -

But every clown says this and yet the statisticians have it the other way.

Are these the same "statisticians" who told you more people die from their own guns than the guns of others, but neglected to tell you they include suicides in their stats? Did these analysts tell you how many times each year law abiding people use their guns to thwart criminals? Did they explain to you why most criminals try to avoid the armed police and look for unarmed citizens instead?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.

Liar.

I've never debated government lotteries with you or anyone else on this forum to my knowledge, mainly because I don't know what they are and why they would be relevant to anything I'm interested in.

Is all you mean that the state runs a lottery? What's so weird about that?

And it isn't even relevant if the said statisticians include suicide, the statement I made is still true - more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them.

Look here's an interesting statistic. In Toronto, where I live, you are about as likely to get into a fight as you are in Buffalo. However, you are at least 150 times more likely to die as a result in Buffalo than in Toronto - the reason? Guns.

And there is an easy answer to why people don't stop paying tax and establish a voluntary system - it is that, unlike in a Libertarian system, the state has the legal right to take coercive measures against individuals that try it.

Of course you might retort that everyone might try it at once. They have no reason to - as long as the state ensures that everyone complies most people are happy to pay their share (because trust is no longer an issue) - but they will try to pay as little as the law allows because they know everyone else will as well. If one can be sure that others will pay and that coercive sanctions will be taken against oneself if you don't, the prisoner's dilemma no longer applies in the situation of taxation - because state coercion has changed the options.

In the standard dilemma I can free ride by not paying if others do. Here I can't because the only situation in which I can avoid punishment is the complete collapse of society. If I don't pay then I get sent to jail and I have to pay. I also know that if others attempt to free ride then they will be punished and fined - so I don't have to worry about trust.

Why do you think the state is so draconian about minor tax violations? Because that's what keeps us in check for our own good.



David still hasn't answered the question of why violating rights is wrong if its being wrong has nothing to do with the consquences.

Shall we label him utterly refuted, or give him another day or so?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Kontiki -

Is that your way of admitting you ignored what I said and attributed your fabrication to me?

No, that is my way of saying that it supports my arguement even more. You seem to be hung up on exact literal meanings. My point is that the non-tax funded army was not some fantastic fighting force. But is your chopping up my post your way of dodging the real point?

The French intervened at Yorktown by preventing the British from escaping from a battle they already lost. Now, you could argue Britain's other wars and concerns diverted resources away from the colonies, but to suggest the British would have won without those diversions is unsupportable. Their logistical problems were far too great to win the war once they failed to put down the rebellion when it was just starting up.



Can you make your own arguments without putting words in my mouth? Where did I say we had no outside help and what makes you think the US would have no help today if North America was invaded? Tell us why another country would want to invade another country that is heavily armed with nukes and 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms. Sorry Kontiki, but I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the other thread here as new questions pop into your head. Go read the other thread first. Last I looked, it was on p3 under Speer ("The Problem with Libertarians").

Well, let's take this a few points at a time:

1) French involvement went way further than Yorktown, as you seem to already admit. Both France and the Netherlands declared war on Britain and used their combined fleets to threaten British colonial interests unrelated (and more vital to Britain) than the American colonies.

2) Without foreign involvement, there wasn't much in the way of logistical problems. The British still held Canada, and could land whatever troops needed there, not to mention draw supplies and manpower. I fail to see how this is unsupportable - it's rather obvious. Now, whether Britain would have fully committed itself is another matter, but I don't see why they wouldn't if there weren't other distractions.

3) I'm sorry if you think I put words in your mouth - it wasn't my intention. However, it seemed to me that by invoking the American Revolution as a successful example of how a military can be raised an operated without taxation, you were claiming that it actually produced a military cabable of beating the British on its own. As for making my own arguements, can you tell me how I didn't?

4) Do you think the US would be a country heavily armed with nukes and with 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms were it not for the very system you abhor? If the US had been a Libertarian country from the get go, things would have turned out very differently - I'm sure you can admit that. Or are you arguing that the statist system was great to get the world to where it is, but now a Libertarian system should emerge?

5) I've read the whole previous thread, and I didn't see anything in there that was in any way related to this issue.

6) That's quite the high horse attitude you're slinging about. For someone who has repeatedly accused others of degenerating to insults, you do a pretty good job of it yourself.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Liar.

Oh, that's right, you never did respond to my argument that the American Revolution was funded by lotteries and voluntary donations. But now that you've establshed the standard that making an inaccurate statement is lying, I'll feel quite justified in calling you a liar every time you make inaccurate statements. Too bad I can't go back to the other thread and apply your standard to you retroactively.

I've never debated government lotteries with you or anyone else on this forum to my knowledge, mainly because I don't know what they are and why they would be relevant to anything I'm interested in.

You've never heard of lotteries? They are relevant because they are one of the potential methods of funding government in a libertarian system and I cited them several times in the other thread. So, how do free riders cause lotteries to fail? Do I need to trust my neighbors to play the lottery before I play the lottery? Lotteries are being used to fund government services yet they are voluntary. How do you explain that?

Is all you mean that the state runs a lottery? What's so weird about that?

Nothing, apparently you didn't know they could be used to fund government in a libertarian system. I thought you knew about libertarianism...

And it isn't even relevant if the said statisticians include suicide, the statement I made is still true - more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them.

Liar.

This is what you said:

Now, for the sake of argument let’s agree that this is true (ignoring the evidence that shows that people are more often killed by their own guns than they kill criminals) and watch what happens when everyone in my neighbourhood realises this.

Now you are claiming:

more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them

In your first statement you said more people are killed with their own guns than armed people killing criminals. You then changed that to more people killed by criminals using the victim's guns. Do you want to clarify which statement is accurate? The first is a much broader statement including suicides (and accidental discharges), but the second includes only gun deaths perpetrated by criminals who first stole the owner's gun and used it to kill him. Btw, the laws make us financially and criminally liable for shooting criminals in almost all cases. If someone breaks into your home and you defend your family, you better make sure they don't leave the house after you shoot them or you might be charged and sued for using too much force. Secondly, your stat (the correct one, to be determined by you hopefully) ignores that armed citizens deter criminals from committing crimes. How many crimes are deterred by gun wielding citizens? God only knows, but far more than the number of people killed with their guns stolen by criminals.

Here's an interesting statistic. In Toronto, where I live, you are about as likely to get into a fight as you are in Buffalo. However, you are at least 150 times more likely to die as a result in Buffalo than in Toronto - the reason? Guns.

So tell us how many people have been killed in fights in Toronto and by guns used in similar fights in Buffalo? If you want to debate whether or not guns produce more violence, I'll be happy to debate that issue, but there are many factors to be considered. The USA has a massive black market caused by the drug war, Canada doesn't. How many of these fights in Buffalo started as arguments over drug deals? A disproportionally high number of violent crimes in the USA are committed by blacks, especially impoverished blacks involved in the drug trade. Does Canada have a similar problem? If guns were illegal here, we'd only create another massive black market with even more violence. And I'll bet the illegitimacy rate here is much higher than in Canada, and illegitimacy is linked to poverty which is in turn linked to violent crime. Those are just a couple factors to be considered, then there's border control, illegal immigration, smuggling, weather, and alcohol consumption (I imagine we use alot more strong booze).

And there is an easy answer to why people don't stop paying tax and establish a voluntary system - it is that, unlike in a Libertarian system, the state has the legal right to take coercive measures against individuals that try it.

The reason the state is using coercive taxation is because most voters want government services funded via coercive taxation. You said if they had the option of no taxes or voluntary taxes, too many would opt for no taxation even if the result was no government services. So why don't they opt for no taxes now? Can't they simply vote away all forms of taxation? They want the services, that's why they are willing to be coerced into taxes. They want the services, that's why they would pay much lower taxes voluntarily.

Of course you might retort that everyone might try it at once. They have no reason to - as long as the state ensures that everyone complies most people are happy to pay their share (because trust is no longer an issue) - but they will try to pay as little as the law allows because they know everyone else will as well.

Then no one would have funded the American Revolution, much less fought. How could those people be sure others would fight or support the fighters? They couldn't, and they didn't let a lack of "trust" stop them. This country got by without an income tax for more than a hundred years and taxes were extremely low during that time, why was massive coerced taxation required? Because social engineers saw government as a means to fund themselves and their social engineering and they finally succeeded in conning the American people into an income tax by lying about who would have to pay the tax - class warfare.

If one can be sure that others will pay and that coercive sanctions will be taken against oneself if you don't, the prisoner's dilemma no longer applies in the situation of taxation - because state coercion has changed the options.

Then that "PD" would have us believe no one would have the fought the Revolution and that no one would ever volunteer to fight wars. Your argument is that self-interest would translate into a failure to fund government voluntarily because of free riders, but that assumes people would cease funding government voluntarily and lose those services they want from government - services they want out of their self-interest. So we have a situation where people are faced with competing self-interests - pay the voluntary taxes and get services, or don't pay the taxes and lose those services. So your PD ignores this conflict between competing interests. If you were faced with having absolutely no taxation and as a result, absolutley no services, which would you choose? Hell, I'm an advocate of voluntary taxation and I'd pay voluntary taxes for services I consider important. I just reject the notion I can steal from you to pay for what I want from government.

In the standard dilemma I can free ride by not paying if others do.

Which is where social sanctions enter the picture.

Why do you think the state is so draconian about minor tax violations? Because that's what keeps us in check for our own good.

"For our own good"? We have draconian tax enforcement because politicians are greedy thieves who can't find enough ways to buy votes with other people's money.

David still hasn't answered the question of why violating rights is wrong if its being wrong has nothing to do with the consquences.

Shall we label him utterly refuted, or give him another day or so?

Shall we apply that standard to you? You still haven't offered a PD showing that libertarianism is contradictory, nor have you explained why libertarianism requires a "better" outcome for everyone when left free to live their lives and how not realising this better outcome means libertarianism is contradictory. Does that mean every political ideology is contradictory if every decision made within those systems doesn't produce a "better" outcome?

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki -

No, that is my way of saying that it supports my arguement even more.

The fact the American Revolution was funded and fought by volunteers helps your argument?

You seem to be hung up on exact literal meanings.

Does that mean you are hung up on unclear meanings?

My point is that the non-tax funded army was not some fantastic fighting force.

It was enough to win the war, a war against the greatest power on Earth by a fledgling group of colonies.

But is your chopping up my post your way of dodging the real point?

Oh brother, another whiner. Where did I "dodge" your point?

Well, let's take this a few points at a time:

1) French involvement went way further than Yorktown, as you seem to already admit. Both France and the Netherlands declared war on Britain and used their combined fleets to threaten British colonial interests unrelated (and more vital to Britain) than the American colonies.

France declared war in '78 and it was Britain who declared war on the Netherlands followed by military action in '81. As I said before, the fact Britain had an empire to protect all over the world diverted resources away from the American Revolution, but these countries were acting out of their self-interest too.

2) Without foreign involvement, there wasn't much in the way of logistical problems. The British still held Canada, and could land whatever troops needed there, not to mention draw supplies and manpower. I fail to see how this is unsupportable - it's rather obvious.

They had to transport troops and supplies thousands of miles, that's why the Brits could not maintain their hold in the colonies. Once they failed to suppress the rebellion in it's infancy, the war was lost.

Now, whether Britain would have fully committed itself is another matter, but I don't see why they wouldn't if there weren't other distractions.

We are dealing with the real world, there's always distractions.

3) I'm sorry if you think I put words in your mouth - it wasn't my intention.

Okay.

However, it seemed to me that by invoking the American Revolution as a successful example of how a military can be raised an operated without taxation, you were claiming that it actually produced a military cabable of beating the British on its own.

The help from Europe was appreciated and helpful, but I don't think it was crucial. Once the Revolution gathered enough steam, it was all but assured.

As for making my own arguements, can you tell me how I didn't?

Read my explanation.

4) Do you think the US would be a country heavily armed with nukes and with 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms were it not for the very system you abhor?

Yup. We have a $10 trillion economy, building and maintaining nukes doesn't cost much at all compared to the GNP.

If the US had been a Libertarian country from the get go, things would have turned out very differently - I'm sure you can admit that.

Yup, we'd have an even larger economy and a much more effective militia system in addition to the military (albeit much smaller than now). If China can get away with a military budget of $42 billion, I'm sure we could afford a nuclear deterence.

Or are you arguing that the statist system was great to get the world to where it is, but now a Libertarian system should emerge?

The statist system didn't create this country and didn't evolve until the 20th century (although the Civil War set a horrible precedent).

5) I've read the whole previous thread, and I didn't see anything in there that was in any way related to this issue.

I discussed the American Revolution and it's funding in the other thread. I just don't want to start answering questions posed already in the other thread.

6) That's quite the high horse attitude you're slinging about. For someone who has repeatedly accused others of degenerating to insults, you do a pretty good job of it yourself.

If you had read the other thread you would have seen it was started by someone insulting libertarians and used as a platform by others to insult libertarians. And GP has done little more that insult people, so if you want to enter this thread and start making snide remarks about my position, don't complain when I react accordingly.