9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah
I can't.

[rah]

Yep, what I see is that he doesn't like berz's method is that it doesn't allow him to be inconsistent or modifying his arguement when it gets shot down.

[Agathon]

Yep, what I see is that he doesn't like berz's method is that it doesn't allow him to be inconsistent or modifying his arguement when it gets shot down.

Why don't you take it up then, Mr Smarty-pants?

What I don't like about it is that it's a waste of time. It's very easy to slash any article into small pieces and then post irrelevant objections whilst ignoring the remarks in context.

If you think my argument has been "shot down" then you need to go back to school.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah
Yep, what I see is that he doesn't like berz's method is that it doesn't allow him to be inconsistent or modifying his arguement when it gets shot down.

I guess it should have nothing to do with the arguments at all.

[rah]

Nope, too old to fight battles like this against people that refuse to self reflect.

While I am not the smartest person in the world. Many years ago I did graduate with honors with a poly sci degree, so I'm not totally ignorant And it's my personal opinion that he got the best of you. But then we all know about opinions.

[Kidlicious]

rah,

It seems that you have never 'debated' with Berzerker.

[Agathon]

Nope, too old to fight battles like this against people that refuse to self reflect.

While I am not the smartest person in the world. Many years ago I did graduate with honors with a poly sci degree, so I'm not totally ignorant And it's my personal opinion that he got the best of you. But then we all know about opinion

How so? Please elaborate. Your personal opinion is worthless unless backed up with reasons.

Berz talked a load of crap about something he doesn't even appear to understand (contractarianism). What's worse is that it involves a political theory he claims to endorse.

[Agathon]

In short he's refused to even contemplate the problem, which is what justification do Libertarians give for legal authority.

"Natural rights" is not an answer to that question, since we can have natural rights in a state of nature and it won't make an iota of difference to whether or not there is a legal authority empowered to punish people for violating them.

It's not about a contractarian understanding of natural rights, but a contractarian understanding of who holds the legal authority to punish people for violations of them.

This is the admitted function of the Libertarian minimalist state. That's what Libertarians are claiming when they say that the state only exists to punish people for violating the rights of others and to enforce contracts.

Saying "we have natural rights" does not answer the question of why such an authority is legitimate for Libertarians - it merely provides the content of the laws that the authority will enforce.

It's not a question of what laws there are, but who enforces them.

If you want to say that anyone can enforce the law, there will be the crushingly obvious problem that bad indivduals will not only take the law into their own hands, but interpret it as it suits them.

[Berzerker]

Kid

Berzerker,

Insert jerk off for murder, and there shouldn't be a problem.

Okay, so why is the person who opposes murder responsible for the person who says they oppose murder and then murders people?

Thx Rah

Cya Aggie, you can now win the debate by speaking for both of us

[Agathon]

Yeah right. Some Libertarian you turned out to be.

Rah doesn't know jack about it anyway, and he ran away. Rather like you.

[Kidlicious]

...

[Berzerker]

I'm running away? You were the one who decided to stop responding. I sure as hell wont waste my time addressing your arguments when all you can do is throw hypocritical insults back at me.

[Agathon]

You don't address arguments. You cut and paste into fragments without any sense of the overall argument, often coming up with bizarre one liners that have no relevance to the passage you are quoting.

You still haven't answered the question: what justification do Libertarians give for legal authority?

"Natural rights" is not, and cannot be the answer, for the reasons stated above.

[Kidlicious]

Come on Berzerker. What is the problem with providing an argument with context?

[Agathon]

I can recognize that people have natural rights, but nothing in that recognition requires me to recognize any particular group of persons as having the authority to drag me in front of a court to answer charges.

What endows the courts with their legitimacy in a Libertarian minimalist state?