Ayn Rand

[Wraith]

--"Why would a wheelchair bound officer be in a boat guarding a convict?"

That's what I was wondering.

Still, there is an interesting justice in the basic idea. It's rather hard to make a murder give restitution for his crime, since the victim is dead. Getting him to risk his life to help save another might be as close to a real restitution as is possible.
Doesn't really wash, however. Force is only acceptable when it's in retaliation.

--"The Libertarians haven't put forward any case at all,"

You haven't made a case yourself. The only reason I'm in this argument is because of some vicious misrepresentations of Objectivism and Libertarianism that I've been attempting to correct. You continue to ignore these corrections.

As I said before, I will no longer address your strawmen arguments. This leaves little for me to say, since the only other argument you've made is an appeal to authority.

--"Surely you supposed Libertarians can give some answers to these queries without begging the question."

Your question contains an invalid assumption, that is, a strawman. If you understand the philosophy as well as you claim you do, then you are doing this out of spite or malice. If not, you merely do not understand as well as you think you do. Either way continuing this is pointless unless you're willing to acknowledge that you do not know as much as you think you do.

"Liberty" is not where these rights derive from. All rights derive from the most fundamental right, the right to life.

The rational behind the right to life is quite simple. Rights, by definition, are things that apply only to humans in a social context. A social context requires more than one person. If you go around killing everyone you meet, there is soon no social context.

The full argument goes into more detail, but that's a quick summary. The right to property, etc, are all derived from the right to life, not this liberty you keep bringging up as a shibolleth.

--"because the robber doesn't interfere with your choicemaking"

This is your fundamental error, and you refuse to be corrected on it.
It's like claiming that someone building a road through your house without your consent isn't violating your property rights because you've still got the house.

Wraith
"Everybody has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, lets the crackpot in. But if you can't tell a crackpot when you see one, then you ought to be taken in."
-- Harry Truman

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wraith

You haven't made a case yourself. The only reason I'm in this argument is because of some vicious misrepresentations of Objectivism and Libertarianism that I've been attempting to correct. You continue to ignore these corrections.

I've given an argument multiple times now and all you have done is counter with mere assertion.

As I said before, I will no longer address your strawmen arguments. This leaves little for me to say, since the only other argument you've made is an appeal to authority.

You sound like you've been reading some introduction to logic book. None of my arguments is a strawman. You show me where I misinterpret Rand - I lifted that stuff straight from "The Virtue of Selfishness".

Your question contains an invalid assumption, that is, a strawman. If you understand the philosophy as well as you claim you do, then you are doing this out of spite or malice. If not, you merely do not understand as well as you think you do. Either way continuing this is pointless unless you're willing to acknowledge that you do not know as much as you think you do.

There is no straw man. Why do Libertarians always accuse people who argue with them of this? I suppose because it is the easiest response to an argument you don't understand.

"Liberty" is not where these rights derive from. All rights derive from the most fundamental right, the right to life.

Nope. I know for a fact that not all Libertarians think this way. John Hospers in the "Libertarian Manifesto" certainly does not. In any case this is a laughable assertion since as everyone knows Libertarians think that suicide is morally permissible and the reason it is, is because individual liberty trumps any reasons we might have for thinking that life is sacred. Similarly the right to life derives from the right to liberty because if I kill someone without their consent I have violated their liberty; but if I kill someone with their consent Libertarians think there is nothing wrong. This shows that Liberty is doing all the work here and not some independently established right to life.

The rational behind the right to life is quite simple. Rights, by definition, are things that apply only to humans in a social context. A social context requires more than one person. If you go around killing everyone you meet, there is soon no social context.

That's an absolutely terrible argument for the existence of rights. The fact that rights require a social context to accrue to persons does not entail that the existence of a social context entails that people have rights. A social context is necessary for rights to exist, but it is not sufficient (now that's real logician's talk).

The full argument goes into more detail, but that's a quick summary. The right to property, etc, are all derived from the right to life, not this liberty you keep bringging up as a shibolleth.

I'm afraid you are mistaken here, since as I've just explained to you the right to liberty does a good job of justifying the Libertarian attitude towards the right to life whereas the right to liberty cannot be derived from the right to life without making certain other claims.

This is your fundamental error, and you refuse to be corrected on it.

Because, evidently, I am not the one in need of correcting. Here's hoping that some Libertarian will jump in and show you the error of your ways.

It's like claiming that someone building a road through your house without your consent isn't violating your property rights because you've still got the house.

It is not like that at all. If someone builds a road through your house without your consent then he has violated your rights. That isn't equivalent to my robber situation at all. What would make it equivalent is if the person gave you the choice of having the road built or being run over. Admittedly, that's not much different in practice, but it does show how silly the notion of negative liberty is.

[Wraith]

--"You show me where I misinterpret Rand "

You've yet to quote her, so I can't. Most of what you've said was about Libertarians, not Rand. You don't seem to understand that the two are not equivalent.

--"Why do Libertarians always accuse people who argue with them of this?"

If you're talking about in your own experience, I can certainly understand why.

--"John Hospers in the "Libertarian Manifesto" certainly does not."

I didn't realize he had an account on this forum.

You're arguing against us, not him. And arguing against positions your opponents do not take is the essence of a strawman argument.

--" This shows that Liberty is doing all the work here and not some independently established right to life."

It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that Libertarians believe that if it's your life, you can do whatever you please with it. Including end it, or ask someone to help you end it.

By the way, please define "liberty". You are not using it consistently, and you quite obviously do not mean what I mean by the word.

--"What would make it equivalent is if the person gave you the choice of having the road built or being run over."

The whole point of the passage I quoted earlier was to show that the mere existence of options is not enough for there to be no coercion. You're still falling back to your liberty argument, and it is not one that anyone on this forum has advanced.

Look, if you fall out of a plane your only option left is to fall. This doesn't mean your rights are being violated, and it doesn't mean there's some sort of moral evil going on (there could be, depending on how and why you fell out of the plane, but it isn't a requirement).

Wraith
"It is not your responsibility to extract reason from another's drivel."
-- Lucas Kovar

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This is what happens when Libertarians meet.

[Zkribbler]

I have burned one book in my life. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I didn't do it out of any futile attempt to quash her freedom of speech. No, it was symbolic revenge because I was forced in school to read that pile of drivel!

(But the way, have you ever tried to burn a book? It's really hard. The flames kept going out. I finally had to tear out all the pages in the book and burn them in small bunches.)

[Narz]

You Apolytoners are a very hypothetical bunch...

[Narz]

"Wheelchair bound police officer guarding a convict on a boat" ??

"Symbolic revenge" against your school by burning an 1000 page book? Perhaps you should just move on with your life.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wraith

You've yet to quote her, so I can't. Most of what you've said was about Libertarians, not Rand. You don't seem to understand that the two are not equivalent.

No, there are Randian and non-Randian Libertarians. The Randians argue from human nature a la Aristotle, the others, like Hospers, Nozick et al argue from moral principles.

I didn't realize he had an account on this forum.

You're arguing against us, not him. And arguing against positions your opponents do not take is the essence of a strawman argument.

So you aren't a Libertarian then?

It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that Libertarians believe that if it's your life, you can do whatever you please with it. Including end it, or ask someone to help you end it.

Yes it does, it is called a "deductive inference". You cannot deduce a right to liberty from a right to life without introducing other principles, however you can deduce a right to life from a right to liberty in the following manner.

1) Everyone is the owner of their own life, no one owns anyone else's life.

2) Ownership implies that something is mine and I can do what I wish with it if it doesn't violate the rights of another.

------------------------

C) My life is mine and I can do as I wish with it including ending it.

Quod erat demonstrandum.


Now you try to do that with the right to life without introducing further moral principles.

By the way, please define "liberty". You are not using it consistently, and you quite obviously do not mean what I mean by the word.

I'm using it in the way that Libertarians use it (although I think they abuse the word). What Libertarians mean by liberty is: being able to choose what I want commensurate with the right of others to similarly choose and not having my choices made for me. If this is true I don't have the right to expect anything from anyone else other than not to interfere in my decisions.

The whole point of the passage I quoted earlier was to show that the mere existence of options is not enough for there to be no coercion.

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. You still haven't shown me why what the robber does is wrong (and shown it in a way that doesn't undermine the Libertarian theory). You have to show me an argument from Libertarian principles that what the robber does is wrong. The whole point of the argument is that the Libertarian version of liberty (negative liberty) is so lame that the only liberty it really protects is the options one. That's my claim - you need to show me, by argument, how it is wrong.

Look, if you fall out of a plane your only option left is to fall. This doesn't mean your rights are being violated, and it doesn't mean there's some sort of moral evil going on (there could be, depending on how and why you fell out of the plane, but it isn't a requirement).

If someone pushed you out of the plane it would have been wrong, because it would violate the Libertarian principle. I already agreed to this sort of case so it can't really be used against me. If you fall out of a plane then no wrong has been done because while non-human causes can harm you they can't violate your rights.

[David Floyd]

You're a wheelchair-bound police officer of a perfect libertarian state, guarding a convicted criminal, on a boat in waters that are shallow for adults, but are deep for kids. a child is drowning near by. can you force the convict into saving the child?

Certainly not, unless of course the convict was sentenced to something like community service, to be determined by the law enforcement officer. But, if the convict would be putting his life in jeopardy, then even this would not suffice. You can't force a convicted murderer in prison to take an action that is suicidal or extremely dangerous, so why should you be able to force a prisoner on a boat to?

[DarthVeda]

The fountainhead?!?!?!?!

HOW COULD YOU LIKE THAT HORRIBLE BOOK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

(But the way, have you ever tried to burn a book? It's really hard. The flames kept going out. I finally had to tear out all the pages in the book and burn them in small bunches.)

I'd be too lazy, just throw it out .

[Berzerker]

Tweek -

If a oil operation sets up next to your town/home and pollutes your living enviroment are they initiating force against you?

Yes, just as I would be if I dumped my trash on your lawn or took a sledge hammer to your car. Private property is an extension of the life and liberty you've expended to acquire said property.

If they set up next to you in a attempt to get you to leave are they initiating force?

Depends on what they do.

If someone charges you a toll to get to a place you need to get to so that you will survive and you don't have the money to pay are they using force?

Depends on who owns the property you want to use for your travel. I'm sure no jury would convict you of anything serious if you ran the toll without paying in such a case, but you would still owe the toll to be paid later.

If your ancestors use force to take land from someone and him or his ancestors return and want that land back is it in your right to use force to keep them out?

Legal claims to land have to be proven, but once they are, the property belongs to the legal owner.

Is it OK for someone to get someone else to protect your 'property rights'?

Sure, we hire cops for that now.

If you owe a debt and the person you owe the debt to comes to you and tells you that you will be her slave since you will not pay the debt back then uses a gun to make you do what she wants, is she using force?

Yes, that is force, but force to take back what was essentially stolen via contract violation. The courts effectively do the same thing if she sued you to get her money back. You get a loan and won't pay it back, the court will require you to pay it back or seize your belongings. The courts do not disappear under libertarianism, but if there was no government, she could rightfully force you into involuntary servitude to pay back the loan.

If you pay a certain amount of money to receive certain services and then decide not to pay the money, should you still recieve the services and if the service giver decides that you owe them is it ok to use force to stop them?

Nope, you violated the contract with the provider of the services.

In the instances where force is used what redress do you have in a libertarian society, would there be a police system, and a court system or would it be up to you and anyone you can hire to defend your 'rights'?

Courts and police just as now.

I'm just not sure what constitutes initiation of force and what doesn't.

Try starting with a simple precept. If you and I are the only people on the planet and I walk up to you and grab your property or assault you without provacation, that is the initiation of force. Defending youself is not... Every scenario can be reduced to initiator and reactor...

[Berzerker]

Tiny Pen!s -

I was rude to David yes, but unfortunately also honest.

Honest perhaps, but inaccurate nonetheless.

I did had opinions about matters, you did reply to my post, and then we discussed /argued /debated /whatever you want to call it, about it, then you just made irrelevent remarks without touching my points really, so I told you I would give up.

You didn't engage in the debate Agathon and I were having, you trolled with insults.

I gave up after just a few posts with you so that's why maybe you don't recall it.

But I do recall, that's why I know you didn't debate the issue.

My point here was that everyone expect for Agathon did give up, and me too.

So what? That thread lasted 2 threads with ~500 posts each and Agathon never did support his original proposition that libertarianism is contradictory and that "prisoner's dilemmas" prove it. The fact he quit and I made the last post is irrelevant except to trolls who want to see something significant there as an excuse to do more trolling.

I was rude I won't deny that, but I didn't touch anything besides what the others were trying to say and what points they were making.

Nonsense! You didn't support their arguments, you trolled.

I never inverted their stuff. Quite opposite of what you did, and that's why I mentioned it about my previous post to begin with.

Whatever that means.

I believe it's called playing with semantics. Maybe you just didn't understand others, no need to explain it anymore, it was discussed to death even then.

If you understood Agathon's argument, you sure never made any indication by explaining what he was trying to say.

You did discuss with me.

We didn't debate the issue, we debated your unsupported accusations that I didn't understand Agathon's arguments.

Don't be conserned about the word "debating". Read again. So if you discuss with me, or even argue or whatever you like to call it was, then why I can't use the definiton "debating skills" about how you discuss/argue.

Use whatever you want, but when you accuse someone of lacking debating skills and don't support the accusation, your opinion carries no weight.

And what's with that remark about me lurking? Is that a wrong word to use? Ok I'll explain. I posted some, mostly observed, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

You were the one who said you were lurking. And "lurking" means reading the thread, not participating. But you claim you were lurking and debating, so pick one and stick with it.

I am not making any false claims about it. I was rude to you too (I checked it even from the threads), but I did answer everything you asked untill the point I told you I'm going to give up.

I repeatedly asked you to support your insults and you just offered more insults.

That is oranges opinion yes. I still see what he did and what you did. There were others too who didn't quite share oranges opinion.

Who? Were any of these people libertarians on my side in that debate? Orange wasn't on my side, but he still saw what Agathon was doing and he called him on it.

If anyone is interested I can dig them threads up. However I don't see need to do it unless being asked to, and who would really even care.

Go right ahead.

[Narz]

DarthVeda
The fountainhead?!?!?!?!

HOW COULD YOU LIKE THAT HORRIBLE BOOK!

Its my 2nd favorite book I've read.

I can tell by your eloquent use of over-punctuation and capitalization that you are indeed quite a literary scholar so perhaps you can share on some books you've read that weren't so HORRIBLE?!?!?!

- Narz

[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.