Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Agathon,

You asked me why it is wrong for you to harm someone - ie, violate their rights.


I guess at this point, we need to stop and ask the question: Do you believe in or accept the existence of natural rights, in any form?

You mean that we magically have your conception of rights just because we are human, like we have eyes?

Nope.

Prove they exist. If they are supposed to be self evident, why weren't they to anyone that lived before Locke or the other early NR theorists?

Do you think that God gave them to us? That's just supporting the obscure by the still more obscure.

It's incumbent on you to provide some sort of proof - otherwise I think I'd be justified in claiming that it is mere prejudice.

[David Floyd]

You mean that we magically have your conception of rights just because we are human, like we have eyes?

Actually, I didn't ask if you agreed with my conception of natural rights, I just asked if you thought any existed.

As to the argument for them, yes, we can go into that - of course, as I'm sure you know, natural rights aren't something that can be "proved" in the sense that we can prove gravity, so I suspect the argument is largely pointless.

However, we can give it a go. I'll spell out my beliefs a little later (going to eat and then work out here in a few minutes).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

As to the argument for them, yes, we can go into that - of course, as I'm sure you know, natural rights aren't something that can be "proved" in the sense that we can prove gravity, so I suspect the argument is largely pointless.

Proving gravity exists involves hypothesis and experiment so it is a different sort of example. I'd be happy with any compelling reason to believe that there are such things as natural rights.

I think I'm in a better position so far since it is far easier to prove that suffering exists, even though everyone agrees that it does.

[orange]

Agathon - I'm not overly inclined to agree with Berzerker, let alone David Floyd, on Libertarianism, but I've followed this thread and the last one and you've done nothing but act as a hypocrite. He makes an argument, you answer it. You make an argument, he answers it. Then you claim he didn't answer it. He asks for clarification, you don't give it to him. You continue to call him names for not answering your questions, he fires back, and you say he's not being polite.

If anyone needs to be taught the rules of debate, it's you. I've seen him give an answer, whether you agree with it or not, to every question you've posed.

[TCO]

Booshwa. He's a miserable cut and paster. He ignores the main thrust of an argument and cut and pastes on the peripharies. He doesn't come to grips with fundamental issues. (Plus he's thick. No offense.)

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by orange
Agathon - I'm not overly inclined to agree with Berzerker, let alone David Floyd, on Libertarianism, but I've followed this thread and the last one and you've done nothing but act as a hypocrite. He makes an argument, you answer it. You make an argument, he answers it. Then you claim he didn't answer it. He asks for clarification, you don't give it to him. You continue to call him names for not answering your questions, he fires back, and you say he's not being polite.

If anyone needs to be taught the rules of debate, it's you. I've seen him give an answer, whether you agree with it or not, to every question you've posed.

I'm not ****ing with you... but uh did you read the last thread...Berz did to Agathon what he did to everyone else. If you have too much spare time, why don't you read it again and try to understand the points people are trying to make and the responses they get from berz. Nothing but punch in the face. It seems like this guy doesn't understands anything or is just annoying on purpose

[Sava]

I'm sorry, but when someone takes the time to write some long ass post, they have problems.

[orange]

Originally posted by GP
Booshwa. He's a miserable cut and paster. He ignores the main thrust of an argument and cut and pastes on the peripharies. He doesn't come to grips with fundamental issues. (Plus he's thick. No offense.)

Hey I don't agree with the guy on much, but at least I can say that he's answered each and every post I've seen to the letter. Implying otherwise is a joke - and even if he has missed something, he seems willing to comment if you just show him what he missed.

Thick maybe, but he's not dodging anything.

[orange]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

I'm not ****ing with you... but uh did you read the last thread...Berz did to Agathon what he did to everyone else. If you have too much spare time, why don't you read it again and try to understand the points people are trying to make and the responses they get from berz. Nothing but punch in the face. It seems like this guy doesn't understands anything or is just annoying on purpose

Like I said, I don't agree with him, but I don't think he's being purposely obtuse. You ask a question and he gives you his reasoning - you may not agree with him, but I don't think it's difficult to understand his point at very least. I've read the thread in question many times.

Oh, and even I wouldn't agree to kill 10 million people if it meant saving 10 million and 1, and I've been on the opposing 'side' of Berzerker and Floyd the whole time.

[MRT144]

his points arent difficult to understand because they are dismissive one liners. i was the first to point out his lack of tact in debating...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by orange
Agathon - I'm not overly inclined to agree with Berzerker, let alone David Floyd, on Libertarianism, but I've followed this thread and the last one and you've done nothing but act as a hypocrite. He makes an argument, you answer it. You make an argument, he answers it. Then you claim he didn't answer it. He asks for clarification, you don't give it to him. You continue to call him names for not answering your questions, he fires back, and you say he's not being polite.

If anyone needs to be taught the rules of debate, it's you. I've seen him give an answer, whether you agree with it or not, to every question you've posed.

Did I imply that Berzerker hadn't given answers, no. He gives tiresome and irrelevant answers.

Did I imply that he'd ignored points, misunderstood them and given irrelevant answers, yes. But I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Do I accuse David of being a bad debater, no. Why would I - he at least understands the questions that are asked and doesn't post irrelevant replies. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't wilfully misinterpret his opponent's arguments.

nuff said.

[orange]

I don't think that's true though. I've understood his answers just fine, I just don't agree with them. I don't think he's misunderstood much that you've said either...or given irrelevant answers. I've been over the thread...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by orange
I don't think that's true though. I've understood his answers just fine, I just don't agree with them. I don't think he's misunderstood much that you've said either...or given irrelevant answers. I've been over the thread...

OK - here's an example. I argue that social sanctions aren't enough to sustain voluntary taxation - citing various examples where they don't work: tax avoidance, littering, etc. and the fact that market behaviour is explained by the prisoner's dilemma - to show that altruism isn't all its cracked up to be.

His answer is: "what about the American revolution?" No context, no explanation, no real attempt to counter the examples, nada.

It turns out that seems to mean that it was funded by private donation (I'm not sure if he means this, but it would be a response of sorts).

My response is that altruism tends to come to the fore in times of crisis (revolutions are an obvious sort of crisis) and that it recedes in times of no crisis. Thus, it won't be of much use in ordinary times.

His response is essentially: "What about the American Revolution?"

Here's another one: David and I are arguing about whether rights should be respected in themselves or because of their consequences. I argue that if it's by their consequences (Liberty, Harm, etc.) there is a problem for David's brand of Libertarianism.

Berzerker interrupts by saying something like "Liberty has to do with human interactions and nothing else".

I provide a counterexample with the point of showing that property and liberty can be compromised by natural forces (remember this originates not as an attack on Libertarianism per se, but from an attempt to clarify David's position).

Berzerker's response is essentially to repeat: "Liberty has to do with human interactions and nothing else".

Wouldn't you get bored by this time? This is so dumb, if he was right then a corpse enjoys liberty as long as no one is interfering with it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ah, a philosophy prof...interesting.

No, but not far off.

[orange]

his argument being that the American revolution was financed and won without direct taxation of the people under the AoC i take it...though i don't agree with it, i'm on your side in that lotteries and fines for crimes cannot fund a nation...

I also saw the part where he repeated himself. I didn't know what he meant by that either...but then again I don't know what you're referring to with this quote either:

I argue that if it's by their consequences (Liberty, Harm, etc.) there is a problem for David's brand of Libertarianism.

Clarification?