Ayn Rand

[SirTweek]

I'd rather not go through the libertarian parties website. The reason some enviromental lawsuits have been dragged out has nothing to do with drug lawsuits clogging up the system but with the system itself. I could cite a few of these cases if you really want me to. Public defenders being a joke in prisons is sometimes true since I deal with some of them at my work, besides without the public defenders to defend these people they would have no one. Typical case of a criminal whining about something they got for free they do this while they whine about the lack of golf courses and colour TVs in every room. I won't argue against drug laws, prostitution laws, ect... since I also believe they should be repealed. Oh, and I wasn't complaining I was simply asking if that was how it worked, that's why that sentence ended in a question mark.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo
There are a number of things that are inconsistent about Randism (and many of which carry over to other variants of libertarian capitalism).

For instance, the idea of a prison. In these institutions, the the liberties of people are taken away to an incredible degree, particularly in more authoritarian states (the US, for instance). Rand would say that this can be justified from the "natural right" to self-defense. But this is a logical fallacy, for it is not strictly self-defense, just as if I were hit, went home, and then hit that person in retaliation is not strictly self-defense. Prison is a pre-emptive denial of one's liberties to protect society in the event of future crime through exluding these people from free society and ideally rehabilitating them (and prison often degenerates into a state-sponsored revenge, but I doubt she would try to justify that). This cannot be justified under a Randist ethics system, just as drug prohibition or gun control cannot be justified under a Randist ethics system. These are all pre-emptive actions intended to protect society (and often do more harm than good).

Another case in point is the idea of "natural rights." The idea of natural rights is that there's an absolutely good ethical metric independent of person. But ethical systems are philosophical systems, and as such, can be constructed arbitrarily within the human mind. The only way you get an absolute ethical metric is if you start with assumptions about what which ethical metrics are best, or if you are theologically inclined, you believe everyone actually has the same ethical metric, and people who disagree are lying or something like that.

Then, there's property. Which I'll get to later.

I agree wholeheartedly: the whole system is just a huge toilet. Offhand I can think of at least four fatal objections to it, and that's without trying too hard.

[Hobbes]

Just a little something from a guy who hasn't read the thread...!!

Ayn Rand sucks!! Woo!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wraith

In any case, the basic argument is laid out here.
I'll see if I can find a better presentation online, though.

Keep in mind this is the Objectivist argument, not necessarily the Libertarian one. The two will likely be different, depending on whom you ask.

Fair enough. I already gave an outline of my reasons why I disagree with Rand. The main one is that there is an illegitimate move from the rationalty of means to the rationality of ends made by an argument that appears to commit a version of the naturalistic fallacy.

Because you are still ignoring one of the main points. If you wish to continue harping on your liberty argument, how is what the robber doing not infringing on your liberty? He has artificially narrowed your range of choices down to two, which are both detrimental to you.

Yes, but so does the boss who offers his secretary the choice of sleeping with him or being fired. What you need to show, I'll say it again, is how this case is different. By doing that you need to show how one's liberty is violated in one and not the other.

But you still have to live in reality. It's this disconnect of yours that causes the problem. All you have to do is ground your ethics system in objective reality, which is what Rand attempts (whether or not she suceeded is something you can decide for yourself).

The problem is that she appears to commit the naturalistic fallacy (inferring a value from a fact).

I can't infer from "X has natural property Y" to "X is good" without ultimately having a premise along the lines of "natural property Y is the good" and that is always an open question.

[tinyp3nis]

Which post of mine here is a troll?


There are the thread's. Nobody is going to read them anyway but since I promised.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72705

continued in

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73676

You entered that thread to insult me because of my politics and no other reason.

To insult You? Or to insult your politics? That's a lie.

Do you have proof for that? Of course not, why break a string of unsupported accusations by actually providing proof...

Like I said from the start, only reading those threads and desiding for oneself is proof. The rest are just opinions or believing in opinions which is not proof. However you allready illustrated your lack of skills in debating in this thread too, the same old style that you use in those threads.

Unless you offer evidence for your "opinions", this'll be my last response to you, troll.

Really no need to reply at all, I won't mind. This has gone far enough allready.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Agathon

Yes, but so does the boss who offers his secretary the choice of sleeping with him or being fired. What you need to show, I'll say it again, is how this case is different. By doing that you need to show how one's liberty is violated in one and not the other.

The difference, as has been said before, is that what the robber threatens to do is a rights violation, while what the boss threatens to do is not (assuming no employment contract). I understand why you think that makes no difference, and you're. . . entitled to your opinion.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Rex Little
The difference, as has been said before, is that what the robber threatens to do is a rights violation, while what the boss threatens to do is not (assuming no employment contract). I understand why you think that makes no difference, and you're. . . entitled to your opinion.

You know maybe I should just bang my head against a wall. I'll say it again: what the robber does is threaten a rights violation rather than actually violate a right. Unless Libertarians can come up with some convincing argument that the former violates a person's liberty (i.e. is a rights violation as well) in the way the latter does, then it's all incoherent hot air.

Any attempt to say that the robber is engaged in coercive behaviour faces the problem that he actually gives the victim a choice. So does the boss. I wish that you'd get it out of your head that I think the boss is necessarily doing something bad (he would if he raped her).

The comparison is not that one is bad and the other is good, the point of comparison is intended to illustrate the fact that the Libertarian conception of liberty is absolutely neutral on what our options actually are - it only cares that we consent freely to one of them. On a Libertarian conception we aren't obliged to provide people with good choices as opposed to bad choices, we just have to obtain their consent (which is what the robber attempts to do). Merely offering a person a choice between two evils is perfectly compatible with libertarian morality.

This is why Libertarians say (but almost no one else does) that a worker who faces a choice between being sexually abused by her prospective employer and starving to death (something that happens in third world countries) satisfies the Libertarian criterion of being free, and if the said worker agreed to work and become the employer's sex slave, that there would be nothing wrong. I fail to see how this is any different from a robber offering his victim a choice. Of course if the victim chooses to resist and is then beaten and robbed, it would be a rights violation - but the latter is not what I am talking about.

In a nutshell the Libertarian conception of liberty cannot account for the wrongness of restricting someone's options per se, unless they are restricted to one or zero. Moreover, the "freedom" it promises is commensurate with a choice between starvation or enslavement (nothing in libertarianism prevents persons being sold if they consent to it - and they might if they were starving and there were no other option.).

That is not a freedom worth having.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

You know maybe I should just bang my head against a wall.

If that'll help you understand the meanings of freedom and coercion.

I'll say it again: what the robber does is threaten a rights violation rather than actually violate a right.

And freedom requires the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. And coercion includes force and the threat of force. I don't know why Rex and Wraith don't explain that to you, but I have repeatedly.

Unless Libertarians can come up with some convincing argument that the former violates a person's liberty (i.e. is a rights violation as well) in the way the latter does, then it's all incoherent hot air.

The coercion in your example of the robber violates the victim's freedom.

Any attempt to say that the robber is engaged in coercive behaviour faces the problem that he actually gives the victim a choice.

So what? Coercion is the threat of force to induce a particular response, the fact the victim has a "choice" is irrelevant to the reality that coercion is involved and influences the choice.

So does the boss.

The boss is demanding she sleep with him, but he isn't holding a gun to her head - no threat of force.

I wish that you'd get it out of your head that I think the boss is necessarily doing something bad (he would if he raped her).

You don't? I do, he's scum.

The comparison is not that one is bad and the other is good, the point of comparison is intended to illustrate the fact that the Libertarian conception of liberty is absolutely neutral on what our options actually are - it only cares that we consent freely to one of them.

"FREELY" as in FREEDOM as in the absence of coercion on choice or action. And what is coercion? Force or the threat of force.

On a Libertarian conception we aren't obliged to provide people with good choices as opposed to bad choices, we just have to obtain their consent (which is what the robber attempts to do).

Via the threat of force - coercion.

In a nutshell the Libertarian conception of liberty cannot account for the wrongness of restricting someone's options per se, unless they are restricted to one or zero

The number of options is irrelevant, whether or not the choice is made in the absence of coercion is.

Tiny Pen!s -

Which post of mine here is a troll?

Ahem, you're the one who accused me of "impaired" debating skills, so you go through those threads and support your accusation then I'll look for your trolls.

There are the thread's. Nobody is going to read them anyway but since I promised.

You didn't read much of them the first time, so why start now?

To insult You? Or to insult your politics? That's a lie.

You can now read my mind to know if I'm lying? Did you insult me in that thread? You've already admitted being rude. And what brought on your rudeness? Was it really because you didn't like my style of debating or was it because of my politics? A lie my a$$.

Like I said from the start, only reading those threads and desiding for oneself is proof.

No, offering examples of my "impaired" debating skills is proof, not telling others to look for the proof you won't even look for.

The rest are just opinions or believing in opinions which is not proof.

Usually people offer an explanation supported by evidence for why they have an opinion. You just keep offering the opinion...

However you allready illustrated your lack of skills in debating in this thread too, the same old style that you use in those threads.

And I suppose you'll tell readers to look for the evidence for that opinion rather than identifying examples yourself.

Really no need to reply at all, I won't mind. This has gone far enough allready.

Accusing me of telling a lie is reason enough to respond. I know you don't talk to people that way face to face, but since my debating skills are supposedly "impaired", perhaps you will analyse Agathon's argument about the armed robber and my rebuttal and tell us whose argument is impaired. Oh yeah, you don't actually analyse arguments, you just offer opinions.

[Agathon]

Vladimir: What's that smell, did somebody fart??

Estragon: Nope, it's ust Berzerker talking **** again.


You won't lure me into one of your "cut and paste irrelevancies" threads again. Sorry Berz.

[Berzerker]

Agathon - So you have read my rebuttal of your "armed robber" not violating the victim's freedom argument but don't want to debate it? Then at least do us the favor of not accusing the libertarians here of avoiding your question because it isn't true. I just enjoy refuting your arguments so others can see the nonsense you put out, I'm used to you not responding to my rebuttals, hell, you didn't respond to many of my rebuttals even when you were willing to "debate" your assertion that libertarianism is contradictory in the threads linked by your cheerleader, Tiny.

This sig's for you

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
You know maybe I should just bang my head against a wall.

I imagine that's how the Libs feel as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I imagine that's how the Libs feel as well.

I'd be happy if any of them or even you could answer the question instead of just repeating the same tired old assertion.

"Why do people have a right not to be threatened with the violation of their rights and is this right derived from the principle of liberty?"

Not hard is it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'd be happy if any of them or even you could answer the question instead of just repeating the same tired old assertion.

They have. Several times.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon - So you have read my rebuttal of your "armed robber" not violating the victim's freedom argument but don't want to debate it? Then at least do us the favor of not accusing the libertarians here of avoiding your question because it isn't true. I just enjoy refuting your arguments so others can see the nonsense you put out, I'm used to you not responding to my rebuttals, hell, you didn't respond to many of my rebuttals even when you were willing to "debate" your assertion that libertarianism is contradictory in the threads linked by your cheerleader, Tiny.

This sig's for you

As if I'm going to waste my time with you. You couldn't refute anybody if you tried - all you do is post miles and miles of cut and pasted material interspersed with irrelevancies. I haven't got a hundred years to be bored to death by you. Anyone who wants to check out your handiwork can do so.

You are always like this, not only with me but seemingly with anyone that disagrees with you, so you deserve the abuse you get.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

They have. Several times.

No they have not. They've just asserted that we have a right not to be threatened. Assertion is not argument and merely repeating the tenets of a theory that is in question is called by logicians "begging the question".

Would you care to repeat their "arguments" if you think they are so wonderful, because I haven't seen anything which leads me to think they even understand what is at stake in the debate.