Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[Berzerker]

GP -

Berz, you're such a weasel. You make a big todo about WHO you talked to about lotteries.

I made a big "todo"? You accused me of chopping up your posts and ignoring the thrust of your argument. It's disingenuous for you to make an unsupported accusation and then complain about me defending myself. In response, I mistakenly said Agathon and I were discussing lotteries, not you and me, and we weren't. You didn't provide any proof and it turns out you were wrong and the other thread (p23) is the proof.

Give it up. It is really silly. You were part of that discussion that Floyd and I had.

You responded to David, not me. And I didn't respond to your "rebuttal" of David's post about casinos, so your accusation was false. But instead of admitting it, you claim I was part of that conversation? Where did I respond to your argument about David's post? Where did I chop up your post and ignore your argument? I didn't, so naturally you insult me for proviong you wrong.

I bet you get all worried someone is after your dope. I met lots of dopers in Breck. I'm used to the paranoia

I've already told you I don't smoke dope, but why stop your streak of making false accusations now.

Dave, you didn't cut or paste anything. And you wrote in paragraphs. And you advanced a cogent thought and listened to what your opponent was saying.

I'm sorry, you will have to leave the libertarian cell. Berz can go mad in there on his own.

David responded to a one sentence question, not several paragraphs making multiple points. Sheesh!


Kon tiki -

OK, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this anymore. I'll respond to your last post and that's it, because you seem incapable of looking at an entire arguement instead of taking single points out of context.

You have proof for that accusation?

And, as I'm sure you'll respond to this, try reading the whole thing first before you attack a single sentence.

It's funny how some of you complain about me trying to respond to your points and missing the thrust of your posts when not once have any of you supported your accusations.

I'm impressed that you found four seperate things to argue about from one, very clear point.

I addressed what you said, and you didn't make one point, you made multiple points hence, multiple responses.

Let me spell it out for you again: THE NON-TAX FUNDED REVOLUTIONARIES DID NOT FIELD AN ARMY THAT COULD DEFEAT THE BRITISH ALONE.

Let me spell it out for you, I NEVER SAID IT DID. I'd have to examine every battle and know everything about how the revolutionaries were funded, information you don't have either, yet you make the assertion when you lack that information too.

WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN.

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?

Which part of this are you not understanding?

THE PART WHERE YOU CLAIM THE REVOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN. Actually, I don't recall you claiming the Revolution would have been put down. only that outside intervention was a factor, now you're expanding your argument.

Does it matter if they were funded by lotteries alone, lotteries, private donations and other "non-coercive" forms in combination, or by green monkeys living on Mars?

Fact: the Revolution was funded by lotteries and donations. Fact: the Revolution was fought by volunteers. Assertion: the Revolution would have failed if not for Europe. Assertion: green monkeys live on Mars.

Not quite correct. The Netherlands declared war on Britain in 1780 (you're right about France declaring war in 1778).

Britain declared war on the Netherlands in Dec 1780 followed by Britain's attacks on the Netherland's Caribbean ports in 1781. My statement was accurate.

I'm not even sure why you are arguing the rest here - France and the Netherlands got involved purely out of self-interest, and not out of any sense of altruism to help out the revolutionaries. They simply seized an opportunity. As far as I can tell, you are agreeing with this.

Excuse me, I'm the one who said they acted out of self-interest. The chronology is important, the Netherlands waging a war with Britain in 1781 was hardly crucial to the Revolution's success. In fact, Britain declared war on Holland to take their Caribbean ports. France's declaration in 1778 would have been more important, but by then, the Revolution had survived the crucial period of it's infancy.

Had there not been outside distractions in the form of a rather major war in Europe and in the seas against other naval powers, the British could easily have put enough forces in North America to put down the rebellion.

France's actions actually had a negative effect, it brought the hawks to power in England which is why England later declared war on Holland. But you cannot prove your assertion and I cannot prove mine, but nothing you've said convinces me England could have won with her logistical problems of transporting the troops and supplies needed to win across the Atlantic.

Again, you seem to acknowledge the role other nations played, so why do you doubt this?

I doubt the leap you are making from European distractions to a failed Revolution.

Well, some of us are, and some of us seem to keep flipping back and forth between the real world and some libertarian fantasy world.

Feel free to support that accusation. There are always distractions in the real world, even if France did not declare war on britain in '78, Britain still could not commit to an all out war with the colonies because the mere presence of humans across the channel posed a potential threat. Your argument is meaningless, no power could attempt to invade and conquer the USA free from distractions and without allies and friends of the USA attacking the invader.

There are also always other states who wouldn't follow the libertarian ideals and who would be quite willing to attack a poorly defended country.

Now you're assuming the USA would be poorly defended. Inspite of the mighty military we have now, the lack of libertarian ideals has made us enemies abroad. To paraphrase the Founders' views, free trade with all, but mind our own business.

Irrespective of what you may believe, it is fairly well acknowledged that foreign intervention was critical in securing an American victory.

It helped, it wasn't the decisive factor.

For example, in the Battle of Yorktown, the majority of the soldiers in the Continental Army were French, the weapons were from France, and the wages were paid by France. But I'm sure you're right. Without this kind of assistance, the "non-coercively" funded Americans would have been just fine.

Were those French soldiers in the same Continental army that chased the Brits up the peninsula to be surrounded at Yorktown? Nope, they joined the Americans for the battle just as the French navy prevented the Brits from escaping. And the colonies traded with Europe, are you now claiming the fruits of that trade should be considered coercive?

Here's where you seem to be switching back and forth between your libertarian dream world and reality once again.

"Again"? I'm still waiting for proof I did this before.

If the US had been a libertarian country from day one, it would not have become a continent-wide superpower. Policies by a strong government funded by "coercive" taxation built the United States into what it is today.

You're assuming a libertarian system could not produce enough wealth to become a "superpower". Why are my assertions some fantasy world when your assertions are in the real world? This is the difference betwen left and right wingers, you think politicians spend our money more efficiently than the people who own it.

You developed nukes in the first place thanks to a massive and incredibly expensive government program.

During a war in which we were attacked.

You're taking over of the west, killing off/internment of the natives certainly flies in the face of libertarian values - hell, David has gone so far as to argue that the US should not be in the west at all.

And I would have opposed the slaughter of Indians, that doesn't mean the colonies would not have expanded westward, just that it would have been done relatively peacefully.

If you had followed this path, you would have been surrounded by other countries (from other colonial powers that didn't have such reservations about conquest) and most likely wouldn't have enjoyed the glorious isolation that's allowed the US to escape from a major war on its own soil (save for the civil war) and avoid the need to consistently have a major fighting force on hand - that's only been the case since the end of WWII.

Russia and France sold us their "holdings". Mexico broke a deal with Texans and attacked them.

So, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that the US would have an even bigger economy, or even look anything like it does today had it followed a libertarian path.

I didn't say the US would look like it looks today, only that our economy would be even bigger because freedom is more efficient than statism.

Which snide remarks would those be?

Read your posts.

The only thing I said was that if you think the revolutionaries could have won without outside intervention, you are deluding yourself.

That wasn't all you said, but why ask where these remarks are when you obviously recognised one?

You're the one that has so far accused me of fabricating things, putting words in your mouth, being unable to make my own arguements and, more recently, of being a whiner.

After you attributed your fabrications and words to me and whined about me chopping up your posts and ignoring your main argument, I've heard that nonsense before but still don't see the proof. I try not to insult people, but when they start insulting me, I'm not obliged to remain silent.

[TCO]

You ARE a piece of work, Berz. I think even the other libertarians are laughing at you now.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Oh jeez. What's the point?

Berzerker. You are just thick.

Ah, another post from the tolerant liberal.

Please accept this: there is nothing morally wrong with being thick, but it does impose some obligations on you - like going to school and learning how to if you want to engage in debate. If you don't you will just stay the boring and confused individual you are.

Yup, it's still all my fault you cannot produce a "prisoner's dilemma" to prove your original assertion that libertarianism is contradictory.

There is no point in debating with you because you refuse to follow the rules of debate, which is to be charitable to your opponent and to actually take their arguments as they make them - instead of ignoring the hard bits and pouncing on irrelevant details.

You've been offering irrelevant details? Kudos for noticing. But go right ahead and prove your accusation that I've been ignoring your arguments as you make them. You're the one who keeps avoiding my rebuttals as you've done here.

In your own sick mind you no doubt think you are some great intellectual, but I can assure you that this is not the case.

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who entered the other thread to everyone how smart I was and how my opponents were intellectually challenged, you did. I've seen your demeaning comments to David and he still refrains from insulting you back. Kudos David, I wish I had your patience.

Look it's my job to teach people how to argue properly - I get paid to do it. I spent most of this last weekend grading philosophy papers - most of them weren't that good but I realised that all of them displayed a much higher degree of competence than your illiterate ramblings.

See? Another lesson in how smart Agathon is and how dumb I am. If you're paid to teach people to debate, why can't you provide a PD to support your claim that libertarianism is contradictory?

Does this mean you won't support your claim that more people are killed by criminals with the victim's guns than criminals killed by the law-abiding?

[TCO]

Originally posted by orange


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.

He often ignores parts of a post. Especially the stronger ones. Even if he hits all the text in his cut and pastes (and don't ask me to go back and check on that...it is silly), he gripes about trivial matters instead of engaging on the main issue. I don't mind his take on the issues. Heck, I'm probably pretty close to his point of view. (Just don't want to let the libs know that....they are so fun to troll.) But I think he's got a miserable discussion style. He's like a cornered rat at this point. Just fighting for his piece of rug with no idea of thinking about the issues in play.

[Berzerker]

Tiny -

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

Prove it. And don't offer up a quote to someone who began insulting me first.

[Berzerker]

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.

THANK YOU!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The reason that there were no monopolies before the Civil War was because mass production and economies of scale didnt exist. These huge monopolies were formed when they either 1. bought off other competitors, or 2. ran them into the ground with low prices. This worked especially well during bust times because the bigger companies had enough capital to sustain, and thus bought the little ones for cheap prices

As soon as the competitors are gone, the monopoly jacks the price up as far as it can. THis depends on the elasticity of the good. Something like Gasoline can go a lot higher then say fruit juice, because there is no cheap and readily avaialable substitute for gasoline.

Now lets say a new company joins to add 'competition' First of all, having only two suppliers is essentially the same as a monopoly, except that they call it an Oligarchy. They will usually divide up the market and charge whatever they want in their respective zones, or will conspire to keep the prices high. (remeber, there is no government controls) And now what? People can't go without gasoline, and everything that depends on gasoline will see its price rise. And there you have it, a shock on the supply curve, and you have prices and unemployment rising

Something which Keynes didn't expect.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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...

Yeah, that was his argument, but it was also his response to my counterargument regarding the special circumstances of crises (floods, wars, etc.).

I also saw the part where he repeated himself. I didn't know what he meant by that either

If you'd read the previous thread (all 500 posts of it) you would have seen that this is all he does. After a while I got tired of wasting my time composing replies just for that. He never changes his mind either. I've changed mine at least once since this started. I am now convinced that David's version of Libertarianism is not in fact incoherent (although the others still seem to be). Having said that I think the price of making it consistent is a huge metaphysical extravagance.

...but then again I don't know what you're referring to with this quote either:

It's from the other thread. The basic point of it is that Libertarians think that violating rights is wrong - they also think that you can't violate rights to ensure the greater good.

I argued that there are cases where we have to make unfortunate choices between more or less violations. Cases like having to kill one person to prevent five others being killed.

The argument against the Libertarian is that if they refuse to kill and thus allow more killings to occur it is hard to see why they objected to killing in the first place. The usual response is that rights mean that we shouldn't kill anyone, no matter what the consequences.

My counterargument is: do Libertarians care more about people's lives or their own moral purity. I care more about lowering the overall killing rate than preserving my own moral purity - David disagrees.

Now I've asked him why violating rights is wrong if not because of the consequences (deaths, pain and the like).

That's about where we are now.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GP

He's like a cornered rat at this point. Just fighting for his piece of rug with no idea of thinking about the issues in play.

That's a good one.



I've thought about trying to defend Libertarianism myself (some pragmatic version of it, rather than Locke style Lib.) but Berz might think I think he knows what he's talking about. Oddly enough this started off as Locke vs. Hobbes, I think.


HEY!

What's that smell???



Oh nothing, just Berz talking **** again.

He He He

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

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.

First, "Altruism" is not what it's cracked up to be? I thought your argument was that selfishness defeats libertarianism? You kept producing PD's about selfishness, not altruism. As for tax avoidance, I already explained that it is illogical to use tax avoidance in a system of high forced taxation to draw conclusions about much lower voluntary taxation. And your argument about social sanctions on free riders not working because of litter ignores that litter would still be dealt with via government sanction, not social sanctions. The fact some people litter doesn't say anything about people funding government services they want when not funding those services means they won't have the services. And what was your PD regarding the market? "Coats"? You introduced a hypothetical where there were more coat buyers than coats and concluded this showed a PD market failure? Hell, that's a "failure" for any system in which there are more consumers wanting coats than the supply allows.

His answer is: "what about the American revolution?"

Liar. See, I'm just applying your standard to you. The question I kept asking about the Revolution was just one of several to refute your argument about free riders. Making it sound like all I did was repeat "the Revolution" to your arguments is BS.

No context, no explanation, no real attempt to counter the examples, nada.

I cited the voluntary funding of the Revolution in response to your free riders argument. You claimed selfishness/PD's showed that too may people would not voluntarily fund government and I asked why the Revolution was fought and funded by volunteers and you kept ignoring the question until recently.

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).

Donations, lotteries, with volunteers doing the fighting.

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.

To which I responded that having absolutely no government services would be considered a crisis and a reason for people to respond by voluntarily funding government. You ignored my response.

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

Liar.

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

How does one "interupt" in a forum like this? I answered your question which dealt with libertarianism even though you addressed it to David. And that wasn't the thrust of what I said, I offered that only after you tried to switch the question from people to nature - hurricanes and bears. That's when I said liberty involves human interactions, not liberty from nature and the physical laws. You ignored that and kept talking about bears. You even tried to equate hurricane damage to a shed with drunk teens destroying the shed claiming the consequences were the same, and I explained they weren't the same. You can seek compensation for what other people do to you, not hurricanes. Why? Because liberty/rights involve human interaction.

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).

That counter example changed the question. You didn't ask if a bear can take your liberty, your question and my response was about people. I then explained that the enlightenment philosophers who came up with the notion of liberty and influenced the Founders used liberty within the context of human interaction - liberty meaning the lack of coercion or constraints imposed by other people, not bears and hurricanes.

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.

One must live to have liberty.

[TCO]

Berz, you suck. You're not even interesting to read. You really kill any discussion. You just whale away with the same lame cut and paste and repeat arguments.

Here is a picture of you. http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html

Note the 4 hands typing the same crap over and over. And over and over.

[Berzerker]

GP -

He often ignores parts of a post. Especially the stronger ones.

That's hilarious coming from you. You accused me of chopping up your post about lotteries and ignoring your main point when I didn't even respond to your post in the first place. Then, ignoring the fact I never responded to your post, you tried to justify your false accusation by claiming I was part of the discussion. At least admit you were wrong for a change. Grow some balls, be a man...

[TCO]

Wait...you said we did talk about lotteries!!!

[Berzerker]

GP -

Berz, you suck. You're not even interesting to read. You really kill any discussion. You just whale away with the same lame cut and paste and repeat arguments.

Then don't read, this thread has had several hundred posts and all you've done is contribute insults and false accusations.

Orange - Mind if I use part of your analysis of Agathon in my sig?

[TCO]

You were the first one to raise the stupid we talked about lotteries thing anyway.