Why are you a libertarian?

[Victor Danilchenko]

While I meant to ask this question of Shane specifically, I think it would be interesting to get answers from others as well. i didn't make this a poll, because the issue is relatively complex, and a poll would trivialize the answers into near-uselessness. I would much rather see verbal responses.

Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends.
You believe in natural rights theory.
You think that humans are endowed with natural rights, which supercede everything else. Any non-libertarian state is morally wrong, regardless of its other properties.

You are a utilitarian, and reject the idea of 'social justice'.
This means you are an "empirical" libertarian. You maintain libertarian ideals because you are convinced, based on empirical data, that market is indeed almost always superior to government intervention in terms of economic efficiency, and that, given the major (but not all-overriding!) role of liberty, the government role should be absolutely positively minimal.How mind you, both "natural rights" libertarians and empirical libertarians would give a primary role to individual rights. However, to a "natural rights" libertarians, nothing beyond this point matters -- even if hypothetically the state intervention was indisputably proven superior in a given domain, this wouldn't make any difference to the former type: such a state intervention would be fundamentally unethical. Contrawise, an empirical libertarian who was proven that the state intervention leads to improved efficiency in a given domain (e.g. if the standard assumptions are false, and the state intervention can correct that failure), would be bound to agree that, under such conditions, the state intervention would be justified.

An example of "natural rights" libertarian would be Nozick; empirical libertarians are famously represented by Hayek and Friedman. Empirical libertarians often support very minimal taxation and an extremely austere (but extant) welfare state -- only to relieve utter destitution for example.

So, which one are you -- natural rights, or empirical libertarian? Are you somewhere in between (i.e. an empirical libertarian who given a nearly-1.0, but not quite 1.0, normalized weight to liberty)? Do you have some other reason altogether to be a libertarian?

[shanek]

I'm both. And if you'll look at the nature of my arguments, you'll see that they encompass both the principled and the practical.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

I'm both.As I thought I made rather clear, you cannot be both, although you can give different non-zero weights to efficiency considerations. However, you cannot both give empirical factors a non-zero weight (as an empirical libertarian), and not give them a non-zero weight (as a natural-rights libertarians). The two states are mutually-exclusive (fuzzily so).

And if you'll look at the nature of my arguments, you'll see that they encompass both the principled and the practical.The fact that you argue for efficiency of markets, does not imply that the said efficiency matters to you in determining your views.

So, a simple lithmus test, which I outlined in my previous post: hypothetically, had you been proven that the state intervention leads to increased efficiency in a given domain, would you then support the said state intervention? It's a simple question: a natural-rights libertarian would answer "no" (because such intervention violates natural rights, regardless of efficiency); and an empirical libertarian would say "yes", provided the efficiency difference would be great enough.

Remember, an empirical libertarian does give great weight to liberty -- it's just not the normalized weight of 1.0, the liberty considerations don't override all economic considerations. If your reasons are both principle-based and economic, then you would be an empirical libertarian; if you are a natural-rights libertarian, then empirical considerations are not relevant to determining your beliefs about libertarianism, and only matter as evangelizing tools.

[Cain]

A truly informed, well-written post, Victor. In other threads I've attempted to ask similar questions for the purposes of distinction. Unfortunately, non-responses like the following are typical:

Originally posted by shanek
I'm both. And if you'll look at the nature of my arguments, you'll see that they encompass both the principled and the practical.

[Agammamon]

I'm more of the second type. Free market forces generally respond faster to changes (social, technical/whatnot) than centralized control and provide greater options than the more normal one-size-fits-all solutions most governments prefer to reduce management overhead.
Granted, its not perfect. Sometimes it runs roughshod over a minority, but then that is where a little bit of centralized government comes in handy.

Actually this sort of encompasses both options.
I believe that individuals have "natural rights" and that while the free market normally serves best, sometimes the totality is best served by curbing the rights of the individual.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As I thought I made rather clear, you cannot be both,

Screw you. I can be both, and I am both. Deal with it.

The two states are mutually-exclusive (fuzzily so).

Not at all. I have successfully been both for years.

[Libertarian]

I was drawn to a libertarian-like philosophy when I took econ 101 in college, though at the time I didn't even know there was a name for it (I blame government schools for that -- the ignorance of the existence of the philosophy, not the being drawn to libertarianism!)

However, when I learned more, I found that I was definitely a "natural rights" believer. I understand your thinking here, i.e. "would you be a natural rights libertarian even if it meant a less wealthy society?" My answer today is, "yes."

However, the beauty of libertarianism, as Shane says, is that not only does the philosophy respect natural rights, but "luckily" it also results in the maximization of wealth. While I would now support libertarianism regardless of its utilitarianism, and Shane (and others) may or may not, we believe we'll never have to make that decision in the real world. I think that's the point Shane is making above.

As a postscript, I'd like to add that finding this world of skepticism in the last couple of years (primarily through randi.org) and atheism as well, has been very welcome, as I find that these philosophies seem to mesh rather well. I take that easy dovetailing as evidence that each has a firm foundation without contradictions. It's like finding the last pieces to a jigsaw puzzle.

And, like skepticism, I can put on my "libertarian" glasses when confronted with a new issue, and I can almost always find -- without forcing reality to fit my paradigm -- that libertarianism has a just AND utilitarian solution.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
Screw you. I can be both, and I am both. Deal with it.

Not at all. I have successfully been both for years. I don't see why you couldn't be both.

[Cain]

Screw you. I can be both, and I am both. Deal with it.

*Sigh*. You misunderstood the question, as usual. These misunderstandings have a way of propagating themselves.

Witness:
RichardR wroteI don't see why you couldn't be both.

No, the parent post refers to the foundation upon which your libertarian beliefs rest: "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism."

Certainly an advocate of the natural rights view could believe (mistakenly, in my opinion) that those rights entail a market system consistent with Utilitarianism.

Some Utilitarians (e.g. Milton Friedman, son David) believe that natural rights are a useful, if imaginary, construct for maximizing utility. They begin by asking, "how do we accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number?" And conclude by answering that humans endowed with "economic freedoms" best accomplishes that moral goal. "Natural rights" are a means to an end.

The opposite view has been taken by Ayn Rand, the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

At least "Libertarian" understood the question, but I think he errors here:

As a postscript, I'd like to add that finding this world of skepticism in the last couple of years (primarily through randi.org) and atheism as well, has been very welcome, as I find that these philosophies seem to mesh rather well.

Thomas Nagel's review of _Anarchy, State and Utopia_ was titled "Libertarianism without foundations," and for good reason. Natural rights theory is consistent with pre-Darwinian enlightenment philosophy because those thinkers believed a God endowed us with rights. But for the atheist, where do these rights come from?

Robert Nozick begins his most famous work as follows:

"Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)."

That's all well and good, but to whom, or what, do we owe the existence of these rights? It only makes sense in a religious framework. As Bentham declared, "Nonsense on stilts."

[RandFan]

For what it's worth I am libertarian. Small "l". I believe firmly in capitalism and I believe that less regualtion is better than more. That is not to say that there should be no regulation. I also believe that government has no place in our personal lives. That said I am off topic and wondering why I responded. :D

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Cain


That's all well and good, but to whom, or what, do we owe the existence of these rights? It only makes sense in a religious framework. As Bentham declared, "Nonsense on stilts."

Isn't this the same thing as saying morals only make sense in a religious framework? I disagree!

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
A truly informed, well-written post, Victor.

:rolleyes:


In other threads I've attempted to ask similar questions for the purposes of distinction. Unfortunately, non-responses like the following are typical:

Originally posted by shanek
I'm both. And if you'll look at the nature of my arguments, you'll see that they encompass both the principled and the practical.

Um ... how does his response qualify as a "non-response"? For some real "non-responses", you ought to take a look at the posts of some libertarian critics. In fact, I just reviewed our exchanges from a few months ago on this topic, and you really don't have much room at all to be commenting on anyone else's lack of responsiveness. In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the bullsh*t you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness. Two peas in a pod.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by shanek
Screw you. I can be both, and I am both. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Cain
*Sigh*. You misunderstood the question, as usual.

*Sigh* Telling people they've misunderstood things is also a hallmark of libertarian critics. Well, get ready for a taste of your own medicine later in this post.


No, the parent post refers to the foundation upon which your libertarian beliefs rest: "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism."

What a surprise that you'd share Victor's assessment of what the two choices should be.


The opposite view has been taken by Ayn Rand, the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians:

Well, I guess she might be the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians who are influenced by philosophers. But for most of us, she is completely irrelevant.


Thomas Nagel's review of _Anarchy, State and Utopia_ was titled "Libertarianism without foundations," and for good reason.

Nope, not so much. As we'll see, pretty much the only "good reason" you're able to come up with is just a reflection of your own inability to comprehend a basic concept.


Natural rights theory is consistent with pre-Darwinian enlightenment philosophy because those thinkers believed a God endowed us with rights.

:rolleyes:

Some people are waaaaay too full of themselves, and of all the stuff they've read. I'm not sure who you think you're talking about, but, as with our discussion a few months ago, most of this stuff is irrelevant to the views of most libertarians anyway.


But for the atheist, where do these rights come from?

Where do they "come from" for anyone?


Robert Nozick begins his most famous work as follows: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)." That's all well and good, but to whom, or what, do we owe the existence of these rights?

For most of us who are able to formulate ideas about such things on our own, the answer is nobody. In my own case, the primary foundation for recognition of these rights is a profound respect for individual sovereignty.


It only makes sense in a religious framework.

That you may be incapable of comprehending it without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation. However, if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?


As Bentham declared, "Nonsense on stilts."

Kind of reminds me of just about all criticisms of libertarianism.


Finally, I'm sure everyone is impressed with how much you and Victor can read, and quote authors. Sadly, you both should probably devote a bit more attention to thinking for yourselves, and questioning some of those things you think you know.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Isn't this the same thing as saying morals only make sense in a religious framework? I disagree!

It's not the same thing. Morals can have justifications based on many things besides appeals to religious authority: Logic, experience, etc... "Natural rights" are supposed to exist as a basis for morality, or at least, before questions of morality can even be asked (or so I gather). If they exist independently then, they demand an external source for their existence. That source could be god, it could be the nature of the universe, or it could be something I can't think of. That said, is there any evidence to suggest that "natural right" are anything more than a convenient fiction (not to say they're an alltogether bad fiction, but a fiction nonetheless)?

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
"Natural rights" are supposed to exist as a basis for morality, or at least, before questions of morality can even be asked (or so I gather).

I disagree. I don't see how the concept of natural rights has anything to do with morality. Natural rights doesn't say anything about how you get involved in others' lives; morality is about exactly that.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


I disagree. I don't see how the concept of natural rights has anything to do with morality. Natural rights doesn't say anything about how you get involved in others' lives; morality is about exactly that.

My point was that natural rights are supposed to be pre-existing, independent of human affairs, correct? And any truly ethical moral system must respect them, right? So in that sense, natural rights define morality, in part at least. If your behavior violates someone's natural rights, it's probably not moral, and vice versa. I don't see the problem with using natural rights as a basis for a moral code IF it can be shown that natural rights do exist, OR it's understood they are merely assumed/accepted as a basis for said morality.

Mike

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WMT1


*Sigh* Telling people they've misunderstood things is also a hallmark of libertarian critics. Well, get ready for a taste of your own medicine later in this post.


Victor was not criticising Libertarianism in any way, he was asking a question on the belief in libertarianism.

Victor's question seems to have gone over the heads of all the libertarians here.

[Cain]

Um ... how does his response qualify as a "non-response"? For some real "non-responses", you ought to take a look at the posts of some libertarian critics. In fact, I just reviewed our exchanges from a few months ago on this topic, and you really don't have much room at all to be commenting on anyone else's lack of responsiveness.

Oh, I reviewed that thread before posting. Good times. Your "responses" were funny. Hilarious. I see nothing has changed. Shanek's comments amount to a "non-response" for reasons already explained: Victory asked Libertarians* about the *foundation* for their beliefs, and it's only one or the other. Indeed, as I said in a previous post, I attempted to ask for similar distinctions. Instead I got posts like his (and posts like yours).

In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the bullsh*t you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness. Two peas in a pod. [/B]

Ah, yes, more of the same vague references. You mean how in those previous threads I quoted the Libertarian Party's platform several times (and provided links numerous times) and you just plugged your ears, closed your eyes and changed "Na na na na na na." Yeah, that was also funny -- painfully so.

OTHER POST:

What a surprise that you'd share Victor's assessment of what the two choices should be.

Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark. To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers. But seeing as how you don't have the slightest grasp of these elementary issuses, and will avoid at all costs my challenge to show where Victor's analysis errors, this is a moot point.

Well, I guess she might be the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians who are influenced by philosophers. But for most of us, she is completely irrelevant

I don't know who "most of us" speaks for, but that's fine. I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious. However, inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically, she's always a subject of discussion. Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and others found her inspirational, but reject many of her ideas.

Where do [rights] "come from" for anyone?

I'm lumping this with another poster's comments on morality. Rights, which are predicated on preferences, come from our interactions with other human beings. But they're hardly "natural" in any meaningful sense of the word (as any first year anthropology student knows). This introduces potential complications for clear discussion: do we regard everything as "natural"? So the computer that I'm using to type this message natural? I can agree to these terms, but it changes perspective.

For most of us who are able to formulate ideas about such things on our own, the answer is nobody. In my own case, the primary foundation for recognition of these rights is a profound respect for individual sovereignty.

That's fine, but it's hardly "natural." Natural would be deriving an "ought" from an "is" and I cannot readily agree that a respect for individual sovereignty -- though I may agree with those aims -- is easily integrated into the Dariwnian paradigm. Nature doesn't care about rights. It doesn't care if you're happy, and it certainly has no respect for the individual. Selfish genes are only using you as a way of propagate themselves, which we might disagree with, or even judge tyrannical. "Natural" is not to be confused with "good".

That you may be incapable of comprehending [natural rights] without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

Certianly, but that requires an argument (obviously).

However, if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?

This sentence is quite confused. First, define rights (and use the term consistently). If, suppose, we define "right" in the negative sense -- freedom from (human) intereference -- then there is no "violation"of "sovereignty" because those words *assume* checks against force/interference/non-consent. This person would say "sovereignty" is an illusion and they couldn't be "violating" anything.

Here's your trash. Keep it to yourself next time. Thanks.

*Sigh* Telling people they've misunderstood things is also a hallmark of libertarian critics. Well, get ready for a taste of your own medicine later in this post.

Nope, not so much. As we'll see, pretty much the only "good reason" you're able to come up with is just a reflection of your own inability to comprehend a basic concept.

Some people are waaaaay too full of themselves, and of all the stuff they've read. I'm not sure who you think you're talking about, but, as with our discussion a few months ago, most of this stuff is irrelevant to the views of most libertarians anyway.

Kind of reminds me of just about all criticisms of libertarianism.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
Victory asked Libertarians* about the *foundation* for their beliefs, and it's only one or the other.

No, it isn't. I am both. I have been both. And I have argued for both throughout the history of this forum. I am walking, talking, posting proof that this is a false dichotomy.

And if you'll read Victor's latest, you'll see he redefiened it to be, not empirical vs. principled, but empirical AND PRINCIPLED vs. just principled. Once again, he backpedals when he's shown to be wrong.

It's a false dichotomy, and a Victor has already admitted it is possible for a Libertarian to be both empirical and principled. Get over it.

Indeed, as I said in a previous post, I attempted to ask for similar distinctions. Instead I got posts like his (and posts like yours).

And if you continue to ask it, you will continue to get such posts because it will continue to be a false dichotomy.

[Cain]

Shanek,

I love these comical "proofs": "I have successfully been both for years."

*Sigh*, I guess you're just blinded by ideology:

Here's a statement from _The Ethical Spectacle_ making the same elementary distinction:

Libertarians can be divided into two primary groups: natural rights libertarians and utilitarian libertarians. Natural rights libertarians, such as Boaz(2), Nozick, Rothbard(3), and to a large extent the Libertarian Party(4)defend private property and laissez-faire markets on moral grounds based on ideas of natural law. Such libertarians usually regard taxation as theft and/or slavery(5). Utilitarian libertarians(sometimes referred to as empirical libertarians), such as Hayek(6), and the Friedmans (7) (8), argue that libertarianism will maximize the total personal liberty and prosperity in a society. Additionally, libertarians define freedom as "the absence of coercion or restraint; it includes political liberty, free speech, and economic freedom."(9)

Once again, anyone who does political philosophy, including ALL prominent libertarian thinkers, observe this distinction. Anyone passingly familiar with the (vast) literature on these matters recognizes what is obvious to a fifth grader.

Feel free to explore the relevant foot-notes in this article: http://www.spectacle.org/0403/loo.html#a3


I am both. I have been both. And I have argued for both throughout the history of this forum. I am walking, talking, posting proof that this is a false dichotomy.

Yeah, maybe if you repeat it enough times it will come true. Ooh, magic. I'm sorry if I don't find this "argument" convincing. Lots of people have inconsistent belief systems -- and inconsistent belief systems are irrational. Suppose I have gone on believing (for years!) that the Reds were the MLB world champions for 1975. Further suppose that I believe Red Sox won game 7 in the 1975 world series. Clearly, that can't be correct, but it's certainly possible for a person to believe it. You just happen to be one of those persons.


And if you'll read Victor's latest, you'll see he redefiened it to be, not empirical vs. principled, but empirical AND PRINCIPLED vs. just principled. Once again, he backpedals when he's shown to be wrong.

Well, guess what: I am capable of disagreeing with Victor (assuming you've accurately characterized this "latest" post, which, if past experience is any indication, is questionable).

For the purposes of our argument, I believe the quoted passage above.

We're talking about *foundations*. A natural rights proponent could very well believe that their position leads to the greatest good for the greast number, but that's a secondary, non-foundational consequence.

How does Libertarian (poster) understand this and you don't?

[Libertarian]

Frankly, I'm not sure that I do understand the question.

The cite above uses the distinction as a way of categorizing libertarians. That's fair. But I don't see the words "mutually exclusive" there.

You could probably ask a Democrat if he's a Democrat because he believes in civil rights or because he believes in social welfare. You might get him to answer with one or the other, but try to tell him the two are mutually exclusive, and you're likely to get an argument.

I think getting ANYONE to admit that they believe in the UTILITY of their belief system REGARDLESS of it's morality would be next to impossible.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

Well, guess what: I am capable of disagreeing with Victor (assuming you've accurately characterized this "latest" post, which, if past experience is any indication, is questionable).Well, I did say what Shane says i said -- but I did so as a means of simplifying the problem maximally, so that he would actually understand it. The devil is of course in the details.

Hayek and Friedman are "principled" WRT liberty -- as a consequence of the utilitarian stance; and so was Mill (who founded modern utilitarianism, and also wrote the seminal work "On Liberty", defending liberty as the greatest utilitarian good). This sort of utilitarian/empirical libertarianism is a self-consistent position. Being principled doesn't imply that the said principles must be axiomatic rather than theoremic, after all.

Now my nagging suspicion is that Shane is "principled" based on natural rights arguments rather than utilitarian arguments, and gives weight to empirical data. This would make him an empirical libertarian, but a philosophically illiterate and logically inconsistent one. Given the number of inconsistent and irrational beliefs people hold, I wouldn't be greatly surprised; and Shane has never shown any signs of philosophical sophistication.

We're talking about *foundations*.You are getting too complex for shane. He likes his ideas simplistic, and doesn't understand nuances... That was why I had to reduce things to trivialities for him -- "yes, honey, empirical libertarians believe in liberty too".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
Here's a statement from _The Ethical Spectacle_ making the same elementary distinction:

Libertarians can be divided into two primary groups: natural rights libertarians and utilitarian libertarians. Natural rights libertarians, such as Boaz(2), Nozick, Rothbard(3), and to a large extent the Libertarian Party(4)defend private property and laissez-faire markets on moral grounds based on ideas of natural law. Such libertarians usually regard taxation as theft and/or slavery(5). Utilitarian libertarians(sometimes referred to as empirical libertarians), such as Hayek(6), and the Friedmans (7) (8), argue that libertarianism will maximize the total personal liberty and prosperity in a society. Additionally, libertarians define freedom as "the absence of coercion or restraint; it includes political liberty, free speech, and economic freedom."(9)

And what is it, exactly, that stops someone from arguing both? And since I have argued both over the history of this forum, how does that not make me both?

That the two exist, I have never denied. What I have denied, and continue to deny, is that there is a dichotomy between the two.

Suppose I have gone on believing (for years!) that the Reds were the MLB world champions for 1975. Further suppose that I believe Red Sox won game 7 in the 1975 world series. Clearly, that can't be correct, but it's certainly possible for a person to believe it. You just happen to be one of those persons.

Oh, I get it. I'm wrong because you say Im wrong. :rolleyes:

Well, guess what: I am capable of disagreeing with Victor (assuming you've accurately characterized this "latest" post, which, if past experience is any indication, is questionable).

Why don't you actually READ his post and see for yourself?

For the purposes of our argument, I believe the quoted passage above.

We're talking about *foundations*.

But foundations don't just appear out of nowhere. They're built up over a period of years, or at least they were in my case. And in my case, I found both the arguments for principled libertarianism and utilitarian libertarianism equally compelling. They both grew together, and complemented each other. The utilitarian arguments led me to conclude that the principled arguments were right, and the principles inspired me to seek out utilitarian effects. Remember that we're talking about a philosophy that encompasses quite a broad range. Liberals are (generally) civil libertarians but not economic libertarians, for example.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a unique person
Victor was not criticising Libertarianism in any way, he was asking a question on the belief in libertarianism.

First, my comment was directed at Cain, not Victor. Second, Victor qualifies as a libertarian critic anyway, based on previous discussions, and he, too, has demonstrated a habit of attributing his failures to someone else's lack of understanding.


Victor's question seems to have gone over the heads of all the libertarians here.

Baloney. Some are simply taking issue with how he's presented it.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
Oh, I reviewed that thread before posting. Good times. Your "responses" were funny.

My responses? The conversation I reviewed was characterized by you talking out of your ass about libertarians, and becoming insulting when you couldn't back up your claims, or answer some of the tougher questions about some of the statements you were making. Now, if that's not your take on that conversation, then how about providing an example or two of those "funny" responses?



Hilarious. I see nothing has changed.

Yes, libertarian critics continue to try to spin their own failures as someone else's, and to be condescending and insulting in the process.



Shanek's comments amount to a "non-response" for reasons already explained: Victory asked Libertarians* about the *foundation* for their beliefs, and it's only one or the other.

Yeah, and that last part reflects the arrogance that's causing the problems. You might as well ask "what's your favorite color, purple or orange?", and accuse someone who says "green" of a "non-response". A meaningful attempt to explore the foundation for libertarians' beliefs is not served by telling libertarians what they must choose from.



Indeed, as I said in a previous post, I attempted to ask for similar distinctions. Instead I got posts like his (and posts like yours).

Did you attempt to confine those doing the responding to your pre-defined choices, like Victor has done? If so, that could explain the problem.



In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the bullsh*t you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness. Two peas in a pod.

Ah, yes, more of the same vague references.

Um ... it wasn't intended to be specific at this point, but I'm more than willing to discuss it at that level as soon as you say the word. Incidentally, does the absence of actual quotes from your accounting of things in the next point make it a "vague" reference too? Hmm?



You mean how in those previous threads I quoted the Libertarian Party's platform several times (and provided links numerous times) and you just plugged your ears, closed your eyes and changed "Na na na na na na." Yeah, that was also funny -- painfully so.

Okay, apparently you do need to be reminded of how that conversation actually went. This is yet another example of spinning your own failure as someone else's, because while you demonstrated that you could quote something from the platform, where you failed miserably was in quoting something from it that actually has some direct relevance to the claims in dispute. I pointed that out at the time, of course, which I'm guessing is what you're spinning here as the "just plugged your ears ..." part.

And that wasn't your only failure. Like most other critics of libertarianism, you also failed to answer questions about the statements you were making. In fact, you were the one who abandoned the conversation when those questions got too tough, remember?

Like I said, we can revisit it all here if you like, direct quotes and all. Either you can provide an example of something you posted which I took issue with, and to which you were then able to respond with something from the platform that actually supported your claim, or if you prefer, I'll be more than happy to quote some of the claims you made which were in dispute, and you can try again to back them up. Take your pick. Or, if you've got a different suggestion for establishing whose memory on that previous discussion is more accurate, I'm open to that, too, as long as it will actually serve that purpose.



Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark.

I didn't say it "misses the mark", but if being unnecessarily limiting qualifies, then I will say so now. There is something kind of silly and presumptuous about asking a "why" question about someone else's views, then presenting them with only two options, and expecting them to pick one or the other. And covering his bases with stuff like "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends." does not make those options any more useful, or necessary to exploring the question reflected in the title of the thread. For instance, while I agree to some extent with the statements in both of his options, neither is an accurate characterization of the foundation for my views, nor the views of many (possibly most) other libertarians. (And if you like, we can discuss the foundation for my views in greater detail, once the rest of this stuff is out of the way.)



To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers.

So what? I thought the thread was about libertarians in this forum. And most of the libertarians out here in the real world couldn't care less about being pigeonholed by philosophers, even libertarian philosophers.



But seeing as how you don't have the slightest grasp of these elementary issuses,

Sorry, but you're confusing a lack of understanding with a lack of interest. Victor has made similar mistakes too. You guys really do have to rely an awful lot on that thing of accusing others of a lack of understanding, don't you?



and will avoid at all costs my challenge to show where Victor's analysis errors, this is a moot point.

Damn.You simply don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Not only have I never run from a discussion about anything, making your implication totally baseless (and yet another case of trying to create the impression of failure where none has actually occurred), but given the evasiveness you demonstrated in that previous discussion, for you to be making a comment about anyone else avoiding challenges is ... how shall I put this? Oh yeah ...

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif



I don't know who "most of us" speaks for, but that's fine.

That would be most libertarians. You couldn't even figure that out?



I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious.

First, regarding the "party hacks" thing, thanks for continuing to demonstrate not only the tendency of libertarian critics to be insulting, but also their disregard for accuracy. (This isn't going to be one of those things where you make a claim, and ask me to disprove it, is it?)

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Now, if all you're talking about is studying the works of people who have written about various philosophies, then I'm guilty as charged. I've never found reading about someone else's philosophy particularly useful or enlightening in terms of formulating my own. I find dialogue and debate much more helpful toward reaching conclusions that will withstand scrutiny. And since I consistently do a much better job of defending my philosophy than those who disagree with me do of defending theirs, why the hell should I care what some author thinks who isn't even around to engage in any dialogue about whatever he's written? Such reading usually just ends up being like a one-sided conversation, or listening to a sermon.

Moreover, with my approach, I don't have to point to someone else's opinion and say "see, they agree with me". When you base your views on the opinions of authors rather than doing your own thinking, you run the risk of getting backed into corners when someone asks you questions that you forgot to ask when you were doing all that reading. This has caused problems for Victor, among others. That's usually about the time they start telling someone else what they don't "understand". The similarity to Bible-thumpers is worth noting.



However, inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically, she's always a subject of discussion. Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and others found her inspirational, but reject many of her ideas.

You guys really need to get out more. Sorry if the rest of us aren't "inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically". :rolleyes:



I'm lumping this with another poster's comments on morality. Rights, which are predicated on preferences, come from our interactions with other human beings. But they're hardly "natural" in any meaningful sense of the word (as any first year anthropology student knows). This introduces potential complications for clear discussion: do we regard everything as "natural"? So the computer that I'm using to type this message natural? I can agree to these terms, but it changes perspective.

...

That's fine, but it's hardly "natural." Natural would be deriving an "ought" from an "is" and I cannot readily agree that a respect for individual sovereignty -- though I may agree with those aims -- is easily integrated into the Dariwnian paradigm. Nature doesn't care about rights. It doesn't care if you're happy, and it certainly has no respect for the individual. Selfish genes are only using you as a way of propagate themselves, which we might disagree with, or even judge tyrannical. "Natural" is not to be confused with "good".

I'm not sure who the above comments are meant for, but I am pretty sure I haven't mentioned the word "natural" even once in this discussion, unless I was quoting someone else. Another problem you guys seem to have is a need to say a lot of stuff that's not particularly relevant. Is it to compensate for the stuff you get wrong?



Posted by Cain, presumably quoting WMT1
That you may be incapable of comprehending [natural rights] without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

There again, you've inserted the word "natural" into something where it wasn't there originally. Allow me to refresh your memory regarding the actual exchange. You posted:

Robert Nozick begins his most famous work as follows:

"Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)."

That's all well and good, but to whom, or what, do we owe the existence of these rights? It only makes sense in a religious framework.

And to the last statement, I responded:

That you may be incapable of comprehending it without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

So, to set the record straight, the "it" I was referring to was the concept of Nozick's statement, which did not include the word "natural".



However, if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?

This sentence is quite confused.

Now who's having trouble understanding things? It's actually pretty f*****g straightforward. But then, the ones designed to pin someone down on consistency are often among the ones that give libertarian critics the most trouble.



First, define rights (and use the term consistently).

"Rightful claim" sounds good to me.



If, suppose, we define "right" in the negative sense -- freedom from (human) intereference -- then there is no "violation"of "sovereignty" because those words *assume* checks against force/interference/non-consent. This person would say "sovereignty" is an illusion and they couldn't be "violating" anything.

Great. You ask me to define it, then immediately put forth your own convoluted idea when a fairly simple one will suffice. That's another problem with you guys. You tend to equate complexity with merit. And here I think it's because you probably know the question creates problems for any approach that does not recognize rights.

In any case, since you did ask me to define it, how about answering the question based on my definition, not yours? Or, if it will make things easier for you, simply replace the words "to violate anyone else's sovereignty" with "to do anything to anyone else".



Here's your trash. Keep it to yourself next time. Thanks.

That kinda sums up my impression of your criticisms of libertarianism.

[Cain]

And what is it, exactly, that stops someone from arguing both? And since I have argued both over the history of this forum, how does that not make me both?

That the two exist, I have never denied. What I have denied, and continue to deny, is that there is a dichotomy between the two.

No, you don't understand. There's nothing preventing a Libertarian missionary like yourself (or WMT1) from proselyting both the Utilitarian and natural rights view in order to gain converts. Indeed, it's perfectly okay for a person to be compelled to libertarianism for a bit of both reasons, but remember, the ideas are mutually exclusive (as every single important libertarian thinker recognizes).

Jeremy Bentham, the Father of Utilitarianism, the person who made the "nonsense on stilts" comment can be described as a libertarian.

Perhaps yet another simple example will allow you to see the distinction (unfortunately, this requires a bit of philosophical sophistication).

Suppose that overwhelming empircal evidence from economists demonstrated that minimum wage laws lead to better living standards, especially for the poor. That is to say, minimum wage produces the "greatest good for the greatest number." Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and Hayek, all once libertarians, but convinced by this evidence, would be (morally) required to espouse the view that minimum wage laws are good (because they maximize utility).

A natural rights proponent, say Nozick, would nevertheless object to minimum wage laws as a restriction of liberty (specifically the violation of freedom to contract). Even if it is economically inefficient, he doesn't care.

I hope you now understand.

Originally posted by WMT1


My responses? The conversation I reviewed was characterized by you talking out of your ass about libertarians, and becoming insulting when you couldn't back up your claims, or answer some of the tougher questions about some of the statements you were making. Now, if that's not your take on that conversation, then how about providing an example or two of those "funny" responses?

Anyone even slightly interested in this "conversation" can see it here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8780

Your lies on these exchanges in a minute.

Yes, libertarian critics continue to try to spin their own failures as someone else's, and to be condescending and insulting in the process.

The fact that you cannot grasp the most elementary distinctions is not a failing of "libertarian critics." As I have said (multiple times), all philosophers and economists accept the dichotomy presented. The only people who don't are you and Shanek. For just one second can you at least reflect on these issues and briefly consider the remote possibility that people much, much smarter than you might be correct?

Yeah, and that last part reflects the arrogance that's causing the problems. You might as well ask "what's your favorite color, purple or orange?", and accuse someone who says "green" of a "non-response". A meaningful attempt to explore the foundation for libertarians' beliefs is not served by telling libertarians what they must choose from.

*Sigh* it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute. Explore the (vast) literature from natural rights theorists (starting with Locke) and compare it to the intellectual history of Utilitarianism (preferably starting with Mill, but you can go back to Benthem).

Did you attempt to confine those doing the responding to your pre-defined choices, like Victor has done? If so, that could explain the problem.

Actually, there's a third choice for libertarians: Social Contract Theory (see Jan Narverson _The Libertarian Idea_). But their numbers are small.

In my previous post, yes, I made nearly the same exact distinction as Victor (and the same one the article, and the same one that informs debates in all academic circles). I distinguished between the "more philosophical" natural rights crowd and the "more sophisticated" utilitarians.

Um ... it wasn't intended to be specific at this point, but I'm more than willing to discuss it at that level as soon as you say the word. Incidentally, does the absence of actual quotes from your accounting of things in the next point make it a "vague" reference too? Hmm?

No, it was a vague one-sided, falsehood and I asked (due to the lack of focus), if you meant how I constantly had to repeat the same thing over again (sort of like what I'm doing right now).

Your modus operandi, it seems, is to smother others in meaningless verbiage. (see "trash" quote in previous thread).

Okay, apparently you do need to be reminded of how that conversation actually went. This is yet another example of spinning your own failure as someone else's, because while you demonstrated that you could quote something from the platform, where you failed miserably was in quoting something from it that actually has some direct relevance to the claims in dispute. I pointed that out at the time, of course, which I'm guessing is what you're spinning here as the "just plugged your ears ..." part.

Again, quite funny. There's no point repeating here (once again!) dismal failure to grasp fundamentals. This thread is yet another demonstration...

I'm not even a third of the way through with your fatuous post and still not a significant idea of merit has come up. Not surprising.

And that wasn't your only failure. Like most other critics of libertarianism, you also failed to answer questions about the statements you were making. In fact, you were the one who abandoned the conversation when those questions got too tough, remember?

For the sake of truth, we can reverse the first sentence. There's no possible way anyone can meaningfully reply. The second sentence is more interesting, only for the pure comical value. Oh, yes, I "abandoned" that conversation, so you're the "winner." Good stuff. Anyone who even glances at that thread will see it drones on for six pages. I did not "abandon" it because you made some spectacular, irrefutable point. You're just a wall, and I chose to stop talking to a wall. It's foolish for me to even indulge your shameful meandering on this point because it accomplishes your most important goal: to never discuss the philosophical ideas relating to libertarianism.



You're the one who brought it up. If you see a relevant point, then bring it up, don't vaguely refer "To that one thread where... ."

Unfortunately, it seems we're picking up where we left off.

[quote]I didn't say it "misses the mark", but if being unnecessarily limiting qualifies, then I will say so now. There is something kind of silly and presumptuous about asking a "why" question about someone else's views, then presenting them with only two options, and expecting them to pick one or the other. And covering his bases with stuff like "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends." does not make those options any more useful, or necessary to exploring the question reflected in the title of the thread. For instance, while I agree to some extent with the statements in both of his options, neither is an accurate characterization of the foundation for my views, nor the views of many (possibly most) other libertarians. (And if you like, we can discuss the foundation for my views in greater detail, once the rest of this stuff is out of the way.)

I love that first sentence -- "I didn't say..." Well, um, I never said you did.

Anyway, this entire paragraph contains not a single argument, just simple assertions. Demonstrate how, contrary to all discussion of these matters among all intellectuals, natural rights does not, in principle, find itself in conflict with Utiltarianism. Oh, and if you will be so kind as to reply to this paragraph before the rest of my post, I will be forever in your debt. (Suggestion: it might be wise to attack my comments to Shanek on minimum wage laws in this context).

Let me state for the record, without ambiguity, that this is the CENTRAL topic (indeed, it's what set off this thread). A cogent reply is absolutely necessary.

So what? I thought the thread was about libertarians in this forum. And most of the libertarians out here in the real world couldn't care less about being pigeonholed by philosophers, even libertarian philosophers.

*Sigh* then prove them wrong. I hope there are more than three libertarians on this forum. Judging by the threads, one might suspect there are dozens of you... but then, judging by Shanek's presence in these threads, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no more than a handful.

So two of you view this as a false dichotomy, and one understood the question.


Sorry, but you're confusing a lack of understanding with a lack of interest. Victor has made similar mistakes too. You guys really do have to rely an awful lot on that thing of accusing others of a lack of understanding, don't you?

Another meaningless comment (for irony, refer to "abandon" comments).

Damn.You simply don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Not only have I never run from a discussion about anything, making your implication totally baseless (and yet another case of trying to create the impression of failure where none has actually occurred), but given the evasiveness you demonstrated in that previous discussion, for you to be making a comment about anyone else avoiding challenges is ... how shall I put this? Oh yeah ...

Again, more verbiage. This will be proven, simply and triumphantly, once you attempt to answer the question (or fail to do so).

That would be most libertarians. You couldn't even figure that out?

Incredible. You do realize the non-initation of force principle, the one thought we can reliably find in common to nearly all members of the Libertarian Party, was popularized by Ayn Rand. Indeed, it's informally known as the "Objectivist Oath."

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Now, if all you're talking about is studying the works of people who have written about various philosophies, then I'm guilty as charged. I've never found reading about someone else's philosophy particularly useful or enlightening in terms of formulating my own. I find dialogue and debate much more helpful toward reaching conclusions that will withstand scrutiny. And since I consistently do a much better job of defending my philosophy than those who disagree with me do of defending theirs, why the hell should I care what some author thinks who isn't even around to engage in any dialogue about whatever he's written? Such reading usually just ends up being like a one-sided conversation, or listening to a sermon.

Your anti-intellectualism and egoitism is noted. Thanks for being so bluntly honest.

Moreover, with my approach, I don't have to point to someone else's opinion and say "see, they agree with me". When you base your views on the opinions of authors rather than doing your own thinking, you run the risk of getting backed into corners when someone asks you questions that you forgot to ask when you were doing all that reading. This has caused problems for Victor, among others. That's usually about the time they start telling someone else what they don't "understand". The similarity to Bible-thumpers is worth noting.

More comedy gold. No one says reading the fine works of others is a useful substitue to real-world debate. On the contrary, it *informs* discussion. Where do you think any of these ideas originate? Moreover, scholarly works do not take place in a vacuum. If you bothered reading Rawls (Theory of Justice), you'd see he's replying to Utilitarian arguments. Then, if you had an inkling of interest, you could pick up Nozick (ASU) and see it as a reply to Rawls. And so on.

I'm not saying any on person has a monopoly on truth (as the false comparison to "bible-thumpers" implies. These paradigms are useful for meaningful discussion and debate. It clarifies issues in ways you do not (yet) understand.

You guys really need to get out more. Sorry if the rest of us aren't "inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically". :rolleyes:

Why bother?

I'm not sure who the above comments are meant for, but I am pretty sure I haven't mentioned the word "natural" even once in this discussion, unless I was quoting someone else. Another problem you guys seem to have is a need to say a lot of stuff that's not particularly relevant. Is it to compensate for the stuff you get wrong?

Did anyone catch the non-reply here? The context is conspicuously missing, and his failure to say the word "natural" is taken as indication that he never implied it.

Recall, my argument was that natural rights owes its intellectual heritage to theism. I asked, "Where do these rights come from?" assuming WMT1 is an atheist.

The response was a rhethorical question.

Where do they "come from" for anyone?

Then asked for clarification on what he means by natural, and he says that he never said it (which he didn't), but it's just a play to avoid, again, the main issues. Curiously, anyone interested could compare his rantings on past threads, which go on and on, to any ideas (which often consist of only short sentences).

Oh, but he's not beyond harping on this point. He needs to misconstrue it in the opposite direction:

On my comment to Nozick's statements, he wrote:

That you may be incapable of comprehending it without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

But what does that mean?

He clarifies ("clarifies")

So, to set the record straight, the "it" I was referring to was the concept of Nozick's statement, which did not include the word "natural".

Oh, and anyone with tunnel vision sees exactly that: Nozick never used the word "natural". Silliness.

That statement, nonetheless, is the consequence of a natural rights view! Just because he didn't use the word "natural" doesn't mean it's not natural. Any literate person following the conversation so far knows to make the connection.

His "set the record straight" only muddies the water.

But it gets better (if that's the right word):


[i]Now who's having trouble understanding things? It's actually pretty f*****g straightforward. But then, the ones designed to pin someone down on consistency are often among the ones that give libertarian critics the most trouble.



On defining rights:

[quote]"Rightful claim" sounds good to me.

No, that's a loaded phrase without meaning (as mentioned earlier). I offered an example (negative rights) which caused you to go into an apoplectic rage.

If someone has a "rightful claim" than they're right. That's a truism. Do you believe in murdering 20 million people when it's necessary? I do. Do you believe you have a right to kill another person when it's justified? I do. Do you disagree with an unimpeachable, perfectly rational, theory of rights?

Great. You ask [i]me to define it, then immediately put forth your own convoluted idea when a fairly simple one will suffice. That's another problem with you guys. You tend to equate complexity with merit. And here I think it's because you probably know the question creates problems for any approach that does not recognize rights.

I'm dying to know -- who is "you guys". I know Victor's one of them (good company as far as I can tell), but who else is in the club? That whole "complexity" thing as another throwaway comment that belongs in the garabage can. The final sentence is a straightforward mischaracterization. Oh, I believe in rights, but not "natural" rights.

EDIT: argh, somehow the enter key got hit while I was talking on the phone.

Let's just insert "rightful claim" to see how it works:

However, if someone taking the position that there are no [rightful claims] wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no [rightful claim] to [do anything to anyone else]?

See, this is where a negative understanding of rights could come in handy.

Nobody takes the position that there are no 'rightful claims', period. If John says there are no "rights", then that doesn't mean
John needs a "right" to interfere with others. There are no rights! You're using rights inconsistently (or "righful claims", if you prefer), and that's the fallacy of equivocation.

But, of course, I'm talking about "natural rights" (the same thing Victor is talking about. The same thing Shanek and you both agreed does not conflict with Utilitarianism. Utilitarians believe in rights, as imaginary constructs, that can be taken away at any time for the purposes of the greater good. However, most Utilitarians, if they are remotely sophisticated, believe that hindering rights could, in the long term, do much more harm than good. Natural Rights people say "you can't take away rights, regardless. They're absolute).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
No, you don't understand. There's nothing preventing a Libertarian missionary like yourself (or WMT1) from proselyting both the Utilitarian and natural rights view in order to gain converts. Indeed, it's perfectly okay for a person to be compelled to libertarianism for a bit of both reasons, but remember, the ideas are mutually exclusive (as every single important libertarian thinker recognizes).

You have yet to quote one of these "every important Libertarian thinkers" actually saying it's mutually exclusive. Besides, that's nothing but an en masse argument from authority. I have shown you that I am both, I have explained in great personaly detail how I can be both, and to this very moment that stands unrefuted.

The fact that you cannot grasp the most elementary distinctions is not a failing of "libertarian critics."

We grasp the distinctions; we've refuted the distinctions. The one Libertarian you said understood the distinction corrected you. And now it seems that you understand a completely different distinction from what Victor originally posited.

Is it possible, just possible, that the fault is in you and not in all of us?

As I have said (multiple times), all philosophers and economists accept the dichotomy presented.

You've never quoted anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive. And again, you have been provided with DIRECT EVIDENCE that they are not.

*Sigh* it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute. Explore the (vast) literature from natural rights theorists (starting with Locke) and compare it to the intellectual history of Utilitarianism (preferably starting with Mill, but you can go back to Benthem).

Not all natural rights theorists are libertarians. Not all utilitarians are libertarians.

*Sigh* then prove them wrong.

Already have.

Incredible. You do realize the non-initation of force principle, the one thought we can reliably find in common to nearly all members of the Libertarian Party, was popularized by Ayn Rand. Indeed, it's informally known as the "Objectivist Oath."

So what? It's a Libertarian idea, it's a good idea, we adopted it. BTW, Objectivism ≠ Libertarianism.

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Far more time than the average person...but how much more time than the average JREF Member?

BTW, in future could you please put your replies to separate people in separate posts? It makes it easier to go through and respond.

[Cain]

Shanek,

If you prefer separate reply posts, then I will oblige.

Curiously, you don't even pretend to answer my example involving the minimum wage law:

Suppose that overwhelming empircal evidence from economists demonstrated that minimum wage laws lead to better living standards, especially for the poor. That is to say, minimum wage produces the "greatest good for the greatest number." Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and Hayek, all once libertarians, but convinced by this evidence, would be (morally) required to espouse the view that minimum wage laws are good (because they maximize utility).

A natural rights proponent, say Nozick, would nevertheless object to minimum wage laws as a restriction of liberty (specifically the violation of freedom to contract). Even if it is economically inefficient, he doesn't care.

Originally posted by shanek
You have yet to quote one of these "every important Libertarian thinkers" actually saying it's mutually exclusive. Besides, that's nothing but an en masse argument from authority. I have shown you that I am both, I have explained in great personaly detail how I can be both, and to this very moment that stands unrefuted.

These are universally agreed upon distinctions. I'm sure I could find open find the relevant passage in Narveson, Nozick or D. Friedman, but you obviously won't find it convincing (and you shouldn't. These views are not correct because every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so; rather, every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so because they're correct.)

See for example: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

We grasp the distinctions; we've refuted the distinctions.

Where? Show me where? You've only stated over and over again that you've "succesfully" been both "for years".

The one Libertarian you said understood the distinction corrected you. And now it seems that you understand a completely different distinction from what Victor originally posited.

No he didn't. He confessed that he was uncertain whether or not he understood the question (his first post got it correct).

he writes:

You could probably ask a Democrat if he's a Democrat because he believes in civil rights or because he believes in social welfare. You might get him to answer with one or the other, but try to tell him the two are mutually exclusive, and you're likely to get an argument.

That's a false analogy, though. A belief in civil rights is not an essentially criterion for being a Democrat. Indeed, many Republicans believe in both civil rights and (very limited) social welfare. Libertarianism, though, is a highly axiomatic philosophy.

Is it possible, just possible, that the fault is in you and not in all of us?

Yep, it's possible. Highly improbable, but possible.

You've never quoted anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive. And again, you have been provided with DIRECT EVIDENCE that they are not.

What evidence do you want me to provide for a contradiction? If someone states, "I believe A and not-A," how can I provide "evidence" that this is wrong?

Not all natural rights theorists are libertarians. Not all utilitarians are libertarians.

Re-read what you're replying to (in the context of this entire discussion): I never said or implied that all natural rights theorists and all utilitarians are libertarians. To the contrary, the percentage of utilitarians that are libertarians must be small, indeed.

So what? It's a Libertarian idea, it's a good idea, we adopted it. BTW, Objectivism ≠ Libertarianism

Sigh, here you go pulling that crap again. I've merely claimed Ayn Rand is highly influential in these circles. I never stated anything resembling "Objectivism = Libertarianism".

Far more time than the average person...but how much more time than the average JREF Member?

Depends how you define average. But I assure you, you're definitely not average.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

it's pretty simple. The idea is that if you believe in natural-rights ethics, then anything that contradicts your principles is by definition unethical -- any minimum-wage law is by definition unethical, for example, unless it's explicitly axiomatized in your NR formulation. A utilitarian defines ethicality in terms of utility, and thus for a utilitarian efficiency to a certain extent definmes ethicality; but not for NR supporter. The two are directly in conflict because importing utilitarian justifications into NR worldview renders them fundamentally unethical.

Suppose you are proven that roads are most efficiently run by government; or that minimum wage improves society's efficiency. If you are, as you claim, both NR and empirical, then you will accept government intervention in these areas -- and your NR beliefs will automatically render them unethical. In effect, you will be consciously implementing an unethical policy. Why?

The purpose of ethics is to guide our public actions. It is therefore inconsistent for you to publicly support actions which are rendered unethical by your ethical beliefs. Given that NR and utilitarianism lead to directly contradictory results, it's irrational to hold both (in that a contradiction entails an inconsistent and undefined theorem space).

Mind you, this is different from accepting NR-like principles based on utilitarian considerations; that would be consistent -- but you support NR principles themselves, not their utilitarian derivation. This is inconsistent with giving weight to empirical considerations at the expense of natural rights.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
If you prefer separate reply posts, then I will oblige.

Thank you. It makes things easier to reply to.

Curiously, you don't even pretend to answer my example involving the minimum wage law:

Because weve discussed the minimum wage to death on other threads and I'm trying to focus my time on presenting new arguments I haven't before.

These are universally agreed upon distinctions. I'm sure I could find open find the relevant passage in Narveson, Nozick or D. Friedman, but you obviously won't find it convincing

Obviously not; it's kind of hard to find something you won't post convincing.

See for example: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

Interesting essay, but I think he splits the wrong hairs. The idea, at its core, is noninitiation of force. I think even the most extreme Libertarian would be hard-pressed to understand how a single photon "trespassing" on one's property constitutes force. The laser he mentioned does, because the laser can do damage to the property. That's what it's about, as I've continually said—force; restraint; coercion.

Where? Show me where? You've only stated over and over again that you've "succesfully" been both "for years".

No, I gave a detailed description of how I came to that position and how both the principled and the pragmatic arguments played equal roles and fed off each other. So far, that message of mine has gone ignored by both you and Victor.

What evidence do you want me to provide for a contradiction? If someone states, "I believe A and not-A," how can I provide "evidence" that this is wrong?

Well, at the very least, you could acknowledge my earlier post where I gave a very personal description of how I came to this belief.

Re-read what you're replying to (in the context of this entire discussion): I never said or implied that all natural rights theorists and all utilitarians are libertarians. To the contrary, the percentage of utilitarians that are libertarians must be small, indeed.

Sigh, here you go pulling that crap again. I've merely claimed Ayn Rand is highly influential in these circles. I never stated anything resembling "Objectivism = Libertarianism".

Both of these were for the sake of clarification, more for the lurker than for you. I'm sorry if it came across as an attack on you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Suppose you are proven that roads are most efficiently run by government; or that minimum wage improves society's efficiency. If you are, as you claim, both NR and empirical, then you will accept government intervention in these areas -- and your NR beliefs will automatically render them unethical.

Not necessarily. Even if roads are more efficiently run by government, that doesn't mean they should be given a monopoly on them. It's not government running roads that I find repugnant (although it would be better if there were a good way of charging only those who used the roads instead of taxing everybody), it's the fact that only government is allowed to do so. And if a minimum wage really is sufficient, there are other methods—such as voluntary agreements with corporations—of implementing them such that natural rights are not abrogated.

It's not that one contradicts the other; it's that the reality of the situation makes the distinction unnecessary.

The purpose of ethics is to guide our public actions. It is therefore inconsistent for you to publicly support actions which are rendered unethical by your ethical beliefs.

Right. And so the solution is to find a method of achieving the goal practically while maintaining the principle of sovereign rights. This is hardly a hypothetical distinction. In another thread, we're discussing the Patriot Act and how we could all be made safer if the government installed video cameras in our homes and monitored us 24/7, but that is obviously a completely unacceptable solution even for the most pragmatic of us.

I just don't see any indication that reality actually prevents the merging of these ideals being theorized as mutually exclusive.

that would be consistent -- but you support NR principles themselves, not their utilitarian derivation.

Again, I support both, and I have never encountered a situation where the two are at odds with each other.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Not necessa

rily. Even if roads are more efficiently run by government, that doesn't mean they should be given a monopoly on them. It's not government running roads that I find repugnant (although it would be better if there were a good way of charging only those who used the roads instead of taxing everybody), it's the fact that only government is allowed to do so. And if a minimum wage really is sufficient, there are other methods—such as voluntary agreements with corporations—of implementing them such that natural rights are not abrogated.Suppose the situation was such that only government intervention, financed by taxation, would be an efficient solution; that various voluntary agreements were inadequate. Which way would you go?

It's not that one contradicts the other; it's that the reality of the situation makes the distinction unnecessary.Well, that's the point of the hypothetical: suppose the distinction was necessary -- suppose the empirical solution was in contradiction with NR principles. What would be your answer?

I just don't see any indication that reality actually prevents the merging of these ideals being theorized as mutually exclusive.Well, that's because you refuse to consider, as a class, situations where the NR and utilitarian conclusions would contradict each other; but if they do, how would you respond?

Again, I support both, and I have never encountered a situation where the two are at odds with each other.And if you do encounter such a situation in the future, which way will you go? Will you compromise your ethics for the sake of efficiency, or will you compromise efficiency for ethics?

P.S. Note, shane, that NR supporters would obviously wish to improve efficiency in ways that don't contradict NR principles -- just as empirical libertarians support liberty as a mean of maximizing utility. The practical distinction between NR and empirical libertarianism comes into play precisely when the two do contradict, though; and it it this hypothetical contradiction that makes them mutually incompatible by definition, and it is this contradiction resolving which will tell us which side of the libertarian fence you are on.

[WMT1]

Not that anyone who isn't already posting in this thread is paying any attention, but just in case ...

Since I intend to give Cain's condescending blather the usual thorough treatment, I may not get to it before next week. But in the meantime, if anyone out there with any credibility seriously thinks Cain made any valid points in response to my last post, please identify them, and I'll try to get to those more quickly.

[Cain]

Because weve discussed the minimum wage to death on other threads and I'm trying to focus my time on presenting new arguments I haven't before.

Use your imagination; I'm not asking for a debate on the merits of the minimum wage in terms of efficiency. It's a smiple hypothetical question.

Interesting essay, but I think he splits the wrong hairs. The idea, at its core, is noninitiation of force. I think even the most extreme Libertarian would be hard-pressed to understand how a single photon "trespassing" on one's property constitutes force. The laser he mentioned does, because the laser can do damage to the property. That's what it's about, as I've continually said—force; restraint; coercion.

I'm not referring to that part: search for "natural rights". You'll find this example:

A madman is about to open fire on a crowd; if he does so numerous innocent people will die. The only way to prevent him is to shoot him with a rifle that is within reach of several members of the crowd. The rifle is on the private property of its legitimate owner. He is a well known misanthrope who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he is opposed to letting anyone use his rifle without his permission, even if it would save hundreds of lives.

Two questions now arise. The first is whether members of the crowd have a right to take the rifle and use it to shoot the madman. The answer of libertarian rights theory, as I understand it, is no. The owner of the rifle is not responsible for the existence of the madman, and the fact that his rifle is, temporarily, of enormous value to other people does not give them a right to take it. (cont->)

Well, at the very least, you could acknowledge my earlier post where I gave a very personal description of how I came to this belief.

I have acknowledged these postings repeatedly -- and dismissed them; they don't count. One principle must supercede the other. As I said many times, a belief in both is not necessarily inconsistent (natural rights could quite possibly lead to the greatest good for the greatest number; alternatively, Utilitarianism could lead to the prescription of rights identical what philosophers call "natural rights"), but the direction matters.

1. Natural Rights --------> Utilitarianism

2. Utilitarianism --------> Natural Rights

One must be a premise, and the other can be the conclusion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
I'm not referring to that part: search for "natural rights". You'll find this example:

A madman is about to open fire on a crowd; if he does so numerous innocent people will die. The only way to prevent him is to shoot him with a rifle that is within reach of several members of the crowd. The rifle is on the private property of its legitimate owner. He is a well known misanthrope who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he is opposed to letting anyone use his rifle without his permission, even if it would save hundreds of lives.

Two questions now arise. The first is whether members of the crowd have a right to take the rifle and use it to shoot the madman. The answer of libertarian rights theory, as I understand it, is no. The owner of the rifle is not responsible for the existence of the madman, and the fact that his rifle is, temporarily, of enormous value to other people does not give them a right to take it. (cont-> )

Well, a member of the crowd certainly has the right to shoot the madman. But they don't have a right to use the man's gun without permission. So, you're really talking about two different things. Saying they have a right to shoot him does not give them carte blanche to take whatever gun they wish to do it.

I have acknowledged these postings repeatedly -- and dismissed them; they don't count.

Why? Because YOU say so?

One principle must supercede the other.

I described in my case how they complemented each other. You have done NOTHING to refute that.


One must be a premise, and the other can be the conclusion.

Then refute my description of how I came to be both at the same time. Until you do that, there's really nothing more to say.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Suppose the situation was such that only government intervention, financed by taxation, would be an efficient solution; that various voluntary agreements were inadequate. Which way would you go?

You're describing an impossible scenario. Even if it's something only government can do, there are still other ways of paying for it than taxation and ways of implementing it that do not initiate force.

If you can think of one REAL-WORLD example showing otherwise, by all means present it.

Well, that's because you refuse to consider, as a class, situations where the NR and utilitarian conclusions would contradict each other;

Because I have yet to run into any.

but if they do, how would you respond?

Probably the same way I would respond if the sun appeared to reverse its direction in the sky...with extreme disbelief, demand sufficient evidence that this is actually happening, and go from there.

And if you do encounter such a situation in the future, which way will you go?

Why do I have to make such a decision NOW??? If I were to encounter such a situation, it would obviously cause me to more closely examine this (hence my constant demand for real-world examples), but isn't the proper thing for a skeptic to do to wait until confronted with such a situation and then decide based on the evidence? Why should I have to play my hand before the cards have been dealt?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You're describing an impossible scenario.I described the situation where government intervention is the only efficient solution. You didn't read my words correctly.

Assume the forcible government invervention is more efficient by an order of magniture (or some other arbitrarily large number) than any available voluntary solution. Would you agree that, at certain efficiency differential, such government intervention becomes justified? if so, what efficiency differential (approximately) would be enough -- two-fold? ten-fold? hundred-fold? or would it vary depending on domain, or some other factor?

If you can think of one REAL-WORLD example showing otherwise, by all means present it.You are missing the point. Before I try to demonstrate that government is more efficient in some respects, I want to know that you will even care about such facts. I first want to know that if certain conditions of evidence are met, you will concede to advisability of forcible government intervention.

So entertain this hypothetical for me, please. Suppose government intervention such as I described is provably more efficient than any voluntary alternative by some arbitrary factor X such that X > 1. Would you agree that in such a case government intervention would be justified, and if so, what approximately would you expect the said X to be?

Probably the same way I would respond if the sun appeared to reverse its direction in the sky...with extreme disbelief, demand sufficient evidence that this is actually happening, and go from there.OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's say the evidence is provided that the said government intervention is indeed sufficiently more efficient than any voluntary alternative. Would you then compromise you NR beliefs by supporting the said government intervention -- or would you even revise you NR beliefs?

Why do I have to make such a decision NOW???First of all, aren't you yourself curious about where your beliefs really stem from? take them to extreme and figure out.

Secondly, I want this answer because I want to know if conversing with you about matters of economic fact and theory in in principle pointless.

but isn't the proper thing for a skeptic to do to wait until confronted with such a situation and then decide based on the evidence?Not necessarily. NR beliefs are epistemically equivalent to "1+1=2" -- they are a-priori, analytic rather than synthetic. As such, practical matters of experience shouldn't matter when examining NR beliefs in and of themselves. Only if you hold a broadly pragmatic philosophy like utilitarianism can you legitimately say that your specific beliefs do indeed depend on particular empirical data.

Why should I have to play my hand before the cards have been dealt?You shouldn't have to; but i want to know if you are even playing by the same rules as I.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I described the situation where government intervention is the only efficient solution. You didn't read my words correctly.

Well, if you're asking me if I would be willing to sacrifice at least some measure of efficiency for the sake of freedom, I would say yes. I honestly can't say at what level I would consider an abridgement of freedom to be worthwhile, because I've never seen an instance like that. I suppose there might be a situation so drastic that it might lead even me to agree to it, btu I have no idea what that might be.

You are missing the point. Before I try to demonstrate that government is more efficient in some respects, I want to know that you will even care about such facts.

Of course I care; just don't assume that I will agree or that I will be willing to give up some freedoms for that efficiency.

OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's say the evidence is provided that the said government intervention is indeed sufficiently more efficient than any voluntary alternative.

Sufficient by whose measure?

Would you then compromise you NR beliefs by supporting the said government intervention -- or would you even revise you NR beliefs?

I'm not going to commit to saying I would or wouldn't revise them at this juncture. It would take a whole heluva lot for me to do it, though, even if I would.

First of all, aren't you yourself curious about where your beliefs really stem from?

I've already explained where my beliefs stem from.

Secondly, I want this answer because I want to know if conversing with you about matters of economic fact and theory in in principle pointless.

Of course not. I could, in theory, agree that a particular government program was more efficient than any free market counterpart if I were shown efficient evidence. That doesn't mean I'd be willing to give up my liberty because of it, but neither would it make the discussion fruitless so as to avoid reaching a conclusion.

Not necessarily. NR beliefs are epistemically equivalent to "1+1=2" -- they are a-priori, analytic rather than synthetic. As such, practical matters of experience shouldn't matter when examining NR beliefs in and of themselves. Only if you hold a broadly pragmatic philosophy like utilitarianism can you legitimately say that your specific beliefs do indeed depend on particular empirical data.

If you put it like that, it seems you're defining the NR crowd as the extremists. In that case, I'm probably not one of them.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Well, if you're asking me if I would be willing to sacrifice at least some measure of efficiency for the sake of freedom, I would say yes.I asked the opposite question -- would you sacrifice some freedom for the sake of efficiency. I assume this is what you meant.

I honestly can't say at what level I would consider an abridgement of freedom to be worthwhile, because I've never seen an instance like that.Fair enough; I realize that putting a concrete number of this is impossible. This is why I asked for a ballpark estimate.

For me personally, I would say that an efficiency differential factor of around 2 would be sufficient to justify a minor abridgement of freedom. How big a differential I would require depends on how great an abridgement of freedom it would be. I don't think any efficiency differential would justify a total abridgement of freedom of speech, for example ("better to die on your feet that to live on your knees" and all that).

Sufficient by whose measure?Your own; that was why I left it up to you to determine the efficiency differential sufficient to justify abridgement of freedom.

I've already explained where my beliefs stem from.No offense, shane, but your explanation is philosophically inconsistent. You didn't dig to the roots of your beliefs, you didn't tear them down and then build them back up from scrap with conscious understanding of what exactly you are doing -- and it shows.

Of course not. I could, in theory, agree that a particular government program was more efficient than any free market counterpart if I were shown efficient evidence. That doesn't mean I'd be willing to give up my liberty because of it, but neither would it make the discussion fruitless so as to avoid reaching a conclusion.Given that most of your posting is evangelism for libertarianism in one form or another, I approach it as such. You may have noticed that most of our exchanges are debates rather than discussions.

If you put it like that, it seems you're defining the NR crowd as the extremists.The real NR crowd (not pseudo-NR utilitarians who think themselves NR just because they agree with most of NR postulates) are extremists -- like Ayn Rand for example. Extremists are often able to conceal the true extent of their beliefs, especially from those who lack the philosophical werewithal to go to the ultimate source thereof, but such concealment only goes so far.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I asked the opposite question -- would you sacrifice some freedom for the sake of efficiency. I assume this is what you meant.

If that's the question, then most probably not. But again, I can't tell you what I'm going to have to face in the future.

The real NR crowd (not pseudo-NR utilitarians who think themselves NR just because they agree with most of NR postulates) are extremists -- like Ayn Rand for example.

Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

If that's the question, then most probably not. But again, I can't tell you what I'm going to have to face in the future.Can you make up your mind, shane? is there or os there not an efficiency differential that will cause you to forego some measure of freedom in order to improve efficiency through the government intervention?

Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian.that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come. In fact, she was the one who popularized the "non-initiation of force" principle.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come. In fact, she was the one who popularized the "non-initiation of force" principle. That was my perception. Ayn had allot to do with me moderating my conservative position and becoming more "libertarian". Somehow I get the feeling that my claiming to be "libertarian" grates on Shanek. I'm sorry, I truly wish there were another title to fit my beliefs. Mostly I'm Socially liberal and fiscally conservative with a belief that some degree of government regulation is good but I would rather have less than more.

If anyone can suggest a better label I will use it. Ok, I won't use any derogatory ones.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Can you make up your mind, shane?

Come on, Victor—the question you just posed was the opposite of the one I said!

is there or os there not an efficiency differential that will cause you to forego some measure of freedom in order to improve efficiency through the government intervention?

See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.

that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come.

Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
That was my perception. Ayn had allot to do with me moderating my conservative position and becoming more "libertarian". Somehow I get the feeling that my claiming to be "libertarian" grates on Shanek.

It doesn't; not at all. Only when you advocate something at odds with Libertarianism.

[Cain]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, a member of the crowd certainly has the right to shoot the madman. But they don't have a right to use the man's gun without permission. So, you're really talking about two different things. Saying they have a right to shoot him does not give them carte blanche to take whatever gun they wish to do it.[/quote]

Shanek, believe it or not, this implies that you follow the natural rights crowd.

I described in my case how they complemented each other. You have done NOTHING to refute that.

First, you have to understand the differences between natural rights and utilitarianism. As Victor stated, the former is a priori, while the latter is empirical. Second, given the nature of utilitarianism (as an *empirical* philosophy), it can be used to justify all kinds of political-social-economic systems. A utilitarian can be anarchist, socialist, communist, national socialist, fascist, laissez-faire, or welfare statist.

In the case of Nozick, who says we have certain rights that no one may take away under any circumstances, the effects of my hypothetical minimum wage law do not interest him. He views it as a violation to free contract, and therefore immoral. A utilitarian libertarian, however, would say, "Hmmm... let me examine the evidence. Ah, yes, you're right, that minimum wage law maximizes utility, therefore we ought to stick by it (free contract be damned)."

A natural rights libertarian doesn't have to read the newspaper or scrutinize the evidence because she views everything in terms of (her conception of) liberty.

So in the case with the mad man, a natural rights person would say that you cannot steal the gun from a third party because it violates his ownership of property. A utilitarian, under these circumstances, construes the question in terms of happiness. She allows that rights promote happiness, but perhaps a minor violation of this sort (in one particular instance), will serve the greater good.

Utiltarianism is often derided by natural rights theorists (especially Randians) as "collectivist" -- and I don't disagree with the description (their pejorative subtext notwithstanding).

Then refute my description of how I came to be both at the same time. Until you do that, there's really nothing more to say. [/B]

No you're confused for all of the reasons above. You need to distinguish between philosophical foundations and the beliefs that initially compelled you toward libertarianism.

Imagine a communist who wants to achieve her vision of equality. She views equality as the over-riding principle (and nationalization as a means to that end). But, at the same time, she believes that this equality will also result in the greatest good for the greatest number. Everyone will be happy living an idyllic Marxist paradise. She thinks nationalization will cause the economy to boom, producing all kinds of wonderful goods and services, culminating in the "greatest good for the greatest number." That is to say, she believes perfect equality maximizes utility; and any system designed to maximize utility will also involve perfect equality.

Now suppose I confront this person on the JREF forums. I say, wait a second, which principle is more important? Suppose equality does not result in maximum happiness...

If she's like you, she can't grasp that concept. "Why wouldn't it?!" she shrieks. "I've believed in both equality and utilitarianism for years!" Oh, but suppose that with a little, tiny bit of inequality, you could increase production, thus increasing happiness.

"That's impossible!"

No, just suppose... Imagine, if you can, a society that compromises equality for happiness....

"But if they're compromising equality, then they won't be happy."

No, that's an empirical claim. Just suppose that's false: are you still in favor of equality even if it means there are other systems that could better achieve maximum happiness?

And any remotely sane person would see the distinction and choose one (or neither, abandoning their belief system altogether).

A communist chooses:

I believe in utilitarianism, which just happens to instantiate a socio-economic system of perfect equality.

I believe in perfect equality, which, as a consequence, achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
Shanek, believe it or not, this implies that you follow the natural rights crowd.

Whatever. I've gotten to the point where I really don't care one way or the other. I've always hated it when people tried to categorize diverse groups anyway...and in my experience, few groups are as diverse as Libertarians.

You're pushing me into NR, Victor's pushing me into utilitarianism. I'm starting to take this as a confirmation that I am actually both and the whole thing really is a false dichotomy.

So in the case with the mad man, a natural rights person would say that you cannot steal the gun from a third party because it violates his ownership of property.

Just to clarify: I wouldn't really judge or blame the person who did take the gun; but it was, after all, an action the consequences of which he will have to be held responsible for. It would simply be a case that, in his mind, whatever punishments might be levied on him would be well worth the price of saving innocent lives. And I can respect that.

Now suppose I confront this person on the JREF forums. I say, wait a second, which principle is more important? Suppose equality does not result in maximum happiness...

If she's like you, she can't grasp that concept.

That's a mischaracterization. I do NOT react that way when someone makes such a claim; I ask for evidence. And I've said several times that I really and honestly don't know which way I'd go if I were faced with a compelling enough conundrum.

[Cain]

Originally posted by shanek
Whatever. I've gotten to the point where I really don't care one way or the other. I've always hated it when people tried to categorize diverse groups anyway...and in my experience, few groups are as diverse as Libertarians.

Yep, I'd agree with the latest statement, however, as subgroups go, the distinction makes sense.

You're pushing me into NR, Victor's pushing me into utilitarianism. I'm starting to take this as a confirmation that I am actually both and the whole thing really is a false dichotomy.

No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent. One cannot say, for example, that he believes in natural rights on the topics of taxation and and anti-minimum wage laws, but sides with utilitarianism and maximum efficiency when it comes to natural monopolies or certain government regulations.

Just to clarify: I wouldn't really judge or blame the person who did take the gun; but it was, after all, an action the consequences of which he will have to be held responsible for. It would simply be a case that, in his mind, whatever punishments might be levied on him would be well worth the price of saving innocent lives. And I can respect that.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.

It's essentially the same case here with one person seizing property by force in order to realize the greater good.

That's a mischaracterization. I do NOT react that way when someone makes such a claim; I ask for evidence. And I've said several times that I really and honestly don't know which way I'd go if I were faced with a compelling enough conundrum. [/B]

Holy-chirst-sweet-jesus-mother-of-god! If you insist on judging each policy based on the evidence, then you're a utilitarian.

EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism. Any philosophically inclined person who has ever discussed the existence of God for a fair amount of time has always done the "Okay, assuming God exists, why is there..." Philosophers have been doing this since before Socrates...

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Cain


No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.


EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism.

INCONSISTENT?!!!????!???!??
You want inconsistent, look at ANY OTHER political philosophy. Libertarianism might not be a panacea, but it is the most consistent political philosophy that's being proposed today.

Now then, when you begin talking of well-meaning bureaucrats taking money from rich old people to give to hungry kids, you are starting to leave the lofty realm of philosophy and entering the nuts and bolts of economics, including that well known buggaboo, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. For example, I imagine there are libertarians who are secretly glad that the U.S. went over and toppled an evil despot in Iraq, but were nevertheless against the war because they know that this could be a major step in the U.S proving that "power corrupts" on an international, macro scale as well as a domestic, governing scale.

Oh, and it IS very, very difficult to think of "efficient government interference." Milton Friedman has used the example of the Interstate system to show that there can be viable public works projects. But I think he errs here, and ignores not only unintended consequences (note the deteriorating neighborhoods the interstates run through), but an argument he himself has utilized (pun intended), i.e. yes, we can see that, arguably, the Interstate system is "efficient," but what would have happened if it hadn't been built? If you don't have a crystal ball, you don't know. Would the demand for transportation have caused private rail to satisfy it? Instead of 40,000 annual deaths due to car crashes, would the country now be laced with PRIVATE trains?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.if you truly don't know, then you don't even know what it is your beliefs are really based on; you then certainly have no legitimate ground on which to claim that you are both NR and empirical, since you don't know. Had you known what your beliefs are based on (and no, they cannot be both NR and empirical), you would have been able to say whether there is a sufficiently great efficiency differential which would justify an abridgement of liberty.

"I will know it when I see it" is not a solid ground to build a social or political philosophy on. It might fly with out congress, but it doesn't work when discussing philosophy.

Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian". However, while she arrives at conclusions different from LP, her principles are as libertarian as they come: individual liberty, non-initiation of force, government only existing to protect legitimate laissez-faire trading, etc.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.I had done that a long time ago, Shane -- that, and many others; and as best as I can tell, she and her worshippers are very libertarian (but not necessarily Libertarian).

Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Libertarian

INCONSISTENT?!!!????!???!??
You want inconsistent, look at ANY OTHER political philosophy. Libertarianism might not be a panacea, but it is the most consistent political philosophy that's being proposed today.it's merely the simplest. Simplicity certainly facilitates consistency, but that's not exactly a great goal when you look at the big picture. As Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler -- and libertarianism, IMO, is in the "simpler" category.

Besides, the allegged inconsistency lies not in libertarian position in general, but in philosophical justification that various specific individuals use to justify their acceptance of libertarian ideology.

[Soubrette]

This thread is fascinating :)

Libertarian I do not believe that Cain is saying that libertarianism is inconsistent (yet :p). I think both he and Victor are merely saying that Shane's reasons for following libertarianism are logically inconsistent.

As an aside, and to everyone in general, if you follow libertarianism because you absolutely believe that in all situations it is economically the best for people then does this make you by default a utilitarian libertarian? I'm wondering this because someone saying this would seems to be saying that economic results are at the forefront of being a libertarian - and it's good that lack of government intervention achieves this.

So, as I'm reading it, some libertarians with that stance will then say that even if you show me evidence of government intervention being efficient then I must assume that a libertarian policy would have been better. Conversely if a libertarian policy is shown to be poor then I can only assume that government intervention would have made that situation worse.

If that is the case then it it will useless to discuss the situation with someone who takes that stance as they have set themselves up with an unfalsifiable position. Well - useless in the sense of discussing politics but fascinating in seeing how people's minds work :)

Sou

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Come on, Victor—the question you just posed was the opposite of the one I said!



See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.



Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.

There is a big difference between what she said she stood for, what she acted like she stood for, and what the current web site claims she stood for.

If we are to take the kindest interpretation of her ideas, she was a libertarian.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian". However, while she arrives at conclusions different from LP, her principles are as libertarian as they come: individual liberty, non-initiation of force, government only existing to protect legitimate laissez-faire trading, etc.

Where the hell did you get the idea that that last thing was particularly libertarian? :confused:



Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

Don't assume the writings of any of those authors you like to refer to do so either.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
it's merely the simplest.

If it's not also the most consistent, perhaps you can cite one that is more so?


Simplicity certainly facilitates consistency, but that's not exactly a great goal when you look at the big picture.

Kinda depends on whose "big picture" you're talking about. It's not compatible with the "big picture" of authoritarians, that's for damn sure. But there is nothing about the consistency of libertarianism that should interfere with anyone else's "big picture".


As Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler -- and libertarianism, IMO, is in the "simpler" category.

That might have something to do with your support for the ability of the majority to bully the minority in order to achieve its goals. Yeah, I know, you don't call it that. I think the words you like to use are "implicit social contract". :rolleyes:


Besides, the allegged inconsistency lies not in libertarian position in general, but in philosophical justification that various specific individuals use to justify their acceptance of libertarian ideology.

Nice and vague. Sounds like something Huben would say.

(Or Cain :D )

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent. One cannot say, for example, that he believes in natural rights on the topics of taxation and and anti-minimum wage laws, but sides with utilitarianism and maximum efficiency when it comes to natural monopolies or certain government regulations.

You don't think there's any room at all for examining the utilitarian aspects of the policy as a means of verifying whether or not the principle is sound? You make the principle sound like a religion.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.[

And I would agree. It's not his money. If he wants to call them up and convince them to donate, that's one thing. But it's not justified to steal from someone no matter what amount of good you're going to do with the money.

It's essentially the same case here with one person seizing property by force in order to realize the greater good.

No, because in your other hypothetical, the person is taking the gun solely for the purpose of stopping the madman, and so presumably would return it afterwards.

If he doesn't return the gun, then that of course becomes a different story.

Holy-chirst-sweet-jesus-mother-of-god! If you insist on judging each policy based on the evidence, then you're a utilitarian.

Whereas, above you put me in NR. So you don't even know!

EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism.

It's not. But I can't imagine any that's efficient enough to warrant violating the rights of the people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
if you truly don't know, then you don't even know what it is your beliefs are really based on;

It just hit me. I get it. I know what you and Cain are doing.

You're trying to shoehorn principled Libertarians into a very narrow category. Cain's previous post, and now yours, make it absolutely crystal clear that you don't think there's any room for a principled person to remain open-minded.

Given the history of you both in Libertarain-based discussions, it sounds like projection to me.

Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian".

Theyre not only un-Libertarian, they're un-libertarian. She herself denied being a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

I never did that. You're putting words in my mouth again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
it's merely the simplest.

You wouldn't say that if you'd ever been involved in a debate among Libertarians. The Libertarian groups I participate in, as well as real debates like in our recent state party convention, are fierce debates that put the ones here to shame.

[heath]

Originally posted by shanek

It's not. But I can't imagine any that's efficient enough to warrant violating the rights of the people.

Um. Can you imagine pink flying fairies and how you might react if one popped up on your shoulder? Of course you can. You don't need to formulate a reason/cause just start with the supplied premise and examine how you would react to it. You are showing a remarkable inflexibility in your thinking Shane.

IF such an impossible thing DID happen, what would you do?

It's a litmus for where you belief in Libertarianism comes from.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You're trying to shoehorn principled Libertarians into a very narrow category.No, we are trying to show that the 'principled' libertarians who aren't basing their principles on empirical data and examination of reality, are indeed close-minded. The real question is how you derive your principles -- are they empirical and realistic, or rigid and dogmatic?

You simply seem to have a problem with admitting that dogmatism is dogmatism, and that empirical principles ought to be open to revision in light of new facts and discoveries. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too -- to be dogmatic, but without the ideological stigma associated with being recognized as such. I hope this appearance is deceiving.

Theyre not only un-Libertarian, they're un-libertarian. She herself denied being a libertarian. She was an objectivist.I recall her rant against being placed as a libertarian, and if my memory serves me right, she was speaking against being classified as L-Libertarian; she was denying a specific political allegiance being inherent in objectivism. She wasn't denying being a l-libertarian.

I never did that.Well, your previous post certainly sounded like you were assuming that because Rand's ideology doesn't match LP's ideology, she cannot be considered a l-libertarian. Why else would you disqualify her as l-libertarian just because she was at odds with some L-Libertarian positions?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You wouldn't say that if you'd ever been involved in a debate among Libertarians.Why not? Just because there are fierce debates, doesn't mean that libertarianism is not simple. I seem to even recall a related joke (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/86/story_8628_1.html)...

In fact, in libertarian evangelizing, simplicity and neat axiomatization seem to be key selling points for libertarianism. As you said yourself, every moral problem comes down to one question -- who initiated force?

fierce debates that put the ones here to shame.Ah, but do they call each other lying weasels and faith-blinded fools?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Soubrette
So, as I'm reading it, some libertarians with that stance will then say that even if you show me evidence of government intervention being efficient then I must assume that a libertarian policy would have been better. Conversely if a libertarian policy is shown to be poor then I can only assume that government intervention would have made that situation worse.

If that is the case then it it will useless to discuss the situation with someone who takes that stance as they have set themselves up with an unfalsifiable position. Well - useless in the sense of discussing politics but fascinating in seeing how people's minds work :)

That's the conclusion I've come to. They're setting up the "natural rights" Libertarians as basically religious fanatics. Given that their main tactic in previous threads has been the claim that Libertarians argue fanatically, this is hardly surprising. But it still doesn't mean that their definition matches reality.

[shanek]

Originally posted by heath
Um. Can you imagine pink flying fairies and how you might react if one popped up on your shoulder? Of course you can.

Okay, let me rephrase: I can't imagine a realistic example.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As you said yourself, every moral problem comes down to one question -- who initiated force?

I was referring to legal issues, not moral issues. Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

[Cain]

Originally posted by shanek
[B]
You don't think there's any room at all for examining the utilitarian aspects of the policy as a means of verifying whether or not the principle is sound? You make the principle sound like a religion.

In some ways it is. More on that in a second.

No, because in your other hypothetical, the person is taking the gun solely for the purpose of stopping the madman, and so presumably would return it afterwards.

No. The criticial parallel is whether or not both men are acting ethically. Earlier, you said the peson who seized the gun acted in a manner that you understand. Similiarly, a government bureaucrat could hold similiar aims (greater good).

Whereas, above you put me in NR. So you don't even know!

You're right -- but only because your position is incoherent. What do you think the whole point of this thread is?

Anyway, in another thread someone posted a story about William Lane Craig, the famous Christian apologetic who goes around debating atheists.

maybe everyone's already read this (if not, it's good):

In my twenty minute discussion with him, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb._
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.
Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity-_ he'd rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings- yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective reality
of the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy_ feelings. In short, in order to close his rational mind off entirely from the objective outside world, he would rather practice self-inflicted insanity- i.e. deliberately putting himself out of touch with reality.

Craig plays along and says even when confronted with strong (decisive to any atheist) that he would remain a Christian.

If he responded in the way of Shanek, though, he would deny the premise of a time machine. What is this time machine you speak of? Furthermore, he would maintain that all evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus, so it's impossible to imagine wiping that evidence clean and engaging wretched hypotheticals. "Inflexible" is a mild, understated description.

[Cain]

INCONSISTENT?!!!????!???!??
You want inconsistent, look at ANY OTHER political philosophy. Libertarianism might not be a panacea, but it is the most consistent political philosophy that's being proposed today.

As others already pointed out, I charged Shanek's libertarianism as inconsistent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
No. The criticial parallel is whether or not both men are acting ethically. Earlier, you said the peson who seized the gun acted in a manner that you understand.

AS LONG AS he returns the gun and accepts the responsibility for his actions. I cannot think of a single time where government has done anything like that.

You're right -- but only because your position is incoherent. What do you think the whole point of this thread is?

Apparently, to shoehorn me into a category so that it's easier for you and Victor to dismiss my arguments.

Anyway, in another thread someone posted a story about William Lane Craig, the famous Christian apologetic who goes around debating atheists.

This is the second good story that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about posted in this thread.

When did I EVER say there was no amount of evidence that would convince me otherwise? And since when do people who are willing to reexamine the validity of our principles in the face of compelling new evidence not principled to begin with?

The latter is the main point of contention with me, I have said it several times here in this thread, and it has yet to be addressed.

[Cain]

This is the second good story that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about posted in this thread.
When did I EVER say there was no amount of evidence that would convince me otherwise?

You still don't understand. Many Christians, including William Lane Craig, say that presented with the evidence, they'd change their ways. So someone presents a specific case of counter-evidence (of course, all of this is hypothetical), and asks if Craig still believes. Craig answers "Yes," which shows he never believed in evidence.

The whole purpose of the supposition is to test boundaries -- the extent of evidence required. But you deny that altogether, leaving non-libertarians with no idea on the steps necessary to falsify your claims.

And since when do people who are willing to reexamine the validity of our principles in the face of compelling new evidence not principled to begin with?
The latter is the main point of contention with me, I have said it several times here in this thread, and it has yet to be addressed.

Nope. Victor's original question goes to identifying those principles. How do we know what kind of evidence to present if we have no idea what will conceivably refute your belief system?

Craig's honest, in a way. He says Jesus' resurrection is a good reason for becoming a Christian. And, going in the opposite direction, if Jesus never arose from the grave after death, that's good reason for not becoming a Christian.

I cannot (and will not) explain this any better. Maybe I've just done a poor job communicating the problems with your ideology. I'd certainly like to believe no one is this dense.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
You still don't understand. Many Christians, including William Lane Craig, say that presented with the evidence, they'd change their ways. So someone presents a specific case of counter-evidence (of course, all of this is hypothetical), and asks if Craig still believes. Craig answers "Yes," which shows he never believed in evidence.

The whole purpose of the supposition is to test boundaries -- the extent of evidence required. But you deny that altogether, leaving non-libertarians with no idea on the steps necessary to falsify your claims.

And I want you to point out where I said I would not be persuaded by any level of evidence.

[heath]

Originally posted by shanek


And I want you to point out where I said I would not be persuaded by any level of evidence.

:rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

And I want you to point out where I said I would not be persuaded by any level of evidence.You didn't; instead, you said what amounts to "I will know it when i see it" -- which leaves you totally lacking comittment to actually accepting any evidence that would support government intervention, as being sufficient to alter your views. For any specific piece of evidence, you are still free to say: "Well, some other datum would convince me, but this doesn't do it!", leaving you completely free to reject all evidence, whicle not coming out and admitting to such a stance.

I don't know whether you would do that or not; and at this point, I am reluctant to take a risk to making a case, only to have you reject it -- because you have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of which evidence is sufficient, and yet you have not explicated the acceptance criteria (so we don't know if there even are acceptance criteria). In effect, you have refused to supply falsification criteria for your hypothesis. I don't want to play these head games.

Compare this to what Dr. Craig did: he said that there exists out there some evidence that might convince him; but when confronted with an actual datum, he claimed that that specific piece of evidence wasn't it. it appears as if you may be setting yourself up for a similar situation -- you say that there might be some evidence that might convince you, but at the same time you refuse to commit to accepting any specific type of evidence as mandating the abandonment of libertarian committment to some specific domain (not to libertarian ideas in general, obviously).

Don't you see how this at least makes it appear as if you are trying to pull a fast one on everyone? Why should I go out and make a sound economic case for government intervention in some specific domain, only to risk having you simply dismiss it on the grounds that in that specific case economic arguments don't over-ride your proclaimed NR principles?

I actually have a specific sich case in mind, but I don't want to make it unless I know that making it is actually worthwhile; just as I wouldn't bother making an anti-xianity case to Dr. Craig.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You didn't; instead, you said what amounts to "I will know it when i see it" -- which leaves you totally lacking comittment to actually accepting any evidence that would support government intervention,

:rolleyes:

I said, that I would have to CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE at the time. Are you REALLY saying that I should commit to what that evidence is ahead of time?

How was Newton supposed to predict the problems with the speed of light?

You're pathetic.

Don't you see how this at least makes it appear as if you are trying to pull a fast one on everyone?

What, by deferring my decision until the evidence actually comes in? THAT'S trying to "pull a fast one"??? What kind of skeptic are you???

I've made it clear where my principles lie. I also made it clear that I would consider any evidence showing that my position is in error. And you wonder why I keep calling you a weasel!

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

I said, that I would have to CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE at the time. Are you REALLY saying that I should commit to what that evidence is ahead of time?When I asked you to suppose that evidence was bulletproof, you still refused to say that such evidence would be sufficient to make you concede to advisability of gov't intervention.

You're pathetic.I see my expectations of you were unjustifiably high.

What, by deferring my decision until the evidence actually comes in?No, by refusing to commit to accepting such evidence and revising your position if the evidence is solid.

I am not asking you to say that you would change your mind upon being presented with a specific datum, such datum to be determined in the future by me; I m not asking for evidential 'blank check". Instead, I ask you to say that should the case be made beyond reasonable doubt that the government intervention improves efficiently enough (where 'enough' is defined by you) in a given domain, you would concede that government ought to intervene in the said domain; with the stipulation of course that you give us at least a ballpark idea of what would constitute "enough" of an efficiently differential.

In effect, I am asking you to make a methodological commitment, rather than an evidential one -- a commitment to accept evidence, and revise your position based on it, should the evidence meet certain criteria of soundness. I want to know that it's possible to change your mind with 'mere' evidence.

I've made it clear where my principles lie. I also made it clear that I would consider any evidence showing that my position is in error.The evidence cannot be for "error" of NR stance -- because NR stance is axiomatic and normative; no more that there can be evidence against "hooray!" or "sunsets are pretty around these parts". There in [rincple can be no evidence against a value judgement, and NR amounts to a value judgement. Evidence could potentially be presented for falsity of the position "utility is maximised by holding libertarian mores to be pre-eminent" -- but this falsifiable empirical-libertarian position is exactly what you refused to commit to, by repeatedly asserting that you in some way are an NR-libertarian.

If you truly are an NR-libertarian, then arguments of evidence are as useless as they would be against the position "Mozart's Requiem is my all-time favorite composition" or "all bachelors are unmarried men". This has been the entire point of this thread, shane.

And you wonder why I keep calling you a weasel!<sigh> In case you haven't guessed it yet, you are being as evasive as they come in this thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
When I asked you to suppose that evidence was bulletproof, you still refused to say that such evidence would be sufficient to make you concede to advisability of gov't intervention.

Because I don't believe there is such a thing as bulletproof evidence. All evidence is questionable, all evidence must be examined. And every single piece of evidence is subject to be overturned tomorrow with a contradictary observation.

I am not asking you to say that you would change your mind upon being presented with a specific datum, such datum to be determined in the future by me; I m not asking for evidential 'blank check". Instead, I ask you to say that should the case be made beyond reasonable doubt that the government intervention improves efficiently enough (where 'enough' is defined by you) in a given domain, you would concede that government ought to intervene in the said domain;

As long as it also doesn't inhibit human rights, sure. But I've been trying to get through to you that rights is a separate issue from efficiency.

Like I said, it would be very effective from a security standpoint to have the government monitor us in our homes 24/7. But no matter how efficient it could be made, the solution is unacceptable because of the abridgement of our rights to privacy.

However, the funding of a national defense, for example, is worth whatever minor levels of force are necessary to pay for it (although that should be minimized as much as possible) because the protection it offers us helps protect us from outside forces who would seek to take our liberties away. It's a similar situation with the justice system.

You know all of this. I've told you all of this before. So don't sit there acting like you have no idea.

In effect, I am asking you to make a methodological commitment, rather than an evidential one -- a commitment to accept evidence, and revise your position based on it, should the evidence meet certain criteria of soundness. I want to know that it's possible to change your mind with 'mere' evidence.

I've already given you the answer to that, and the answer, yet again, is "yes." Just because I won't play your game of making the bet before I'm dealt the cards doesn't mean I'm guilty of the kind of closed-mindedness you're ascribing to me.

<sigh> In case you haven't guessed it yet, you are being as evasive as they come in this thread.

:rolleyes: I've alswered all of your questions to the best of my ability. When I didn't know the answer, I've come out and said so. How is that being evasive?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Because I don't believe there is such a thing as bulletproof evidence. All evidence is questionable, all evidence must be examined. And every single piece of evidence is subject to be overturned tomorrow with a contradictary observation.All a given. I have made it quite clear that I am talking about evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not one that's totally unquestionably true.

As long as it also doesn't inhibit human rights, sure. But I've been trying to get through to you that rights is a separate issue from efficiency.But it's not. Government intervention will inevitably abridge human rights to some extent.

Like I said, it would be very effective from a security standpoint to have the government monitor us in our homes 24/7. But no matter how efficient it could be made, the solution is unacceptable because of the abridgement of our rights to privacy.Hence the question about sufficient efficiency differential. The problem with your example is not the trade-off of security for liberty per se, but that the tradeoff is so fscking bad; the problem is the quality of tradeoff, rather than its mere occurence.

However, the funding of a national defense, for example, is worth whatever minor levels of force are necessary to pay for it (although that should be minimized as much as possible) because the protection it offers us helps protect us from outside forces who would seek to take our liberties away. It's a similar situation with the justice system.Yes, I know that. What I want confirmed is that you would extend similar consideration to other domains -- and more importantly, that you would consider as sufficient ground not just liberty tradeoff (maintaining a justice system abridges some freedom, but preserves even more freedom), but also economic efficiency tradeoff (say, if I prove to you that government unemployment support is the only efficient solution, and greatly increases society's utility).

You know all of this. I've told you all of this before.yes, you did; but you have also been very reluctant to actually give a straight answer to the actual questions asked. The best answer I have gotten out of you so far is 'I will know it when i see it' kind of thing.

I've already given you the answer to that, and the answer, yet again, is "yes."but you keep also qualifying your answers in such a way that the 'yes' doesn't seem quite like a 'yes'. You keep alternating between 'I will accept hard evidence' and 'I will have to think about it'.

I will take this 'yes' at face value for now, although I have a bad feeling about your equivocations.

In light of this yes, can you give me a ballpark idea of what I have to shoot for in terms of demonstrating the efficiency differential? Just toss me a couple of examples of what differential would do it for you in what situation, like I did a few posts back. Just a very rough guesstimate, I simply want to have an idea of what I have to aim for.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
<sigh> In case you haven't guessed it yet, you are being as evasive as they come in this thread.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
All a given. I have made it quite clear that I am talking about evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not one that's totally unquestionably true.

Well, then if it's not unquestionably true, then what's the beef with me saying I'd question it when it comes up?

But it's not. Government intervention will inevitably abridge human rights to some extent.

BS. The purpose of government, at least under the US Constitution, is to preserve and defend human rights. As long as the government simply responds to force, and doesn't initiate force, it's not abridging human rights.

The problem with your example is not the trade-off of security for liberty per se, but that the tradeoff is so fscking bad;

It was an extreme example to make the point; but you can easily see where the conundrum lies.

Yes, I know that. What I want confirmed is that you would extend similar consideration to other domains

Sure. Why not?

yes, you did; but you have also been very reluctant to actually give a straight answer to the actual questions asked.

In those cases, I have done my best to explain why the questions were ill-formed.

but you keep also qualifying your answers in such a way that the 'yes' doesn't seem quite like a 'yes'.

It's not an absolute yes, correct.

You keep alternating between 'I will accept hard evidence' and 'I will have to think about it'.

Shouldn't one do both?

I will take this 'yes' at face value for now, although I have a bad feeling about your equivocations.

Just toss me a couple of examples of what differential would do it for you in what situation,

I've already given you a couple of situations. You acknowledged one above.

I really don't understand what there is left for me to explain!

[Victor Danilchenko]

OK, Shane, watch out for the new thread...

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, a member of the crowd certainly has the right to shoot the madman.
But they don't have a right to use the man's gun without permission. So,
you're really talking about two different things. Saying they have a right
to shoot him does not give them carte blanche to take whatever gun they
wish to do it.

No. I think the crowd has two choices: The first, line up behind the madman,
which if you think about it, isn’t all that great of an option. The second, line
up behind the misanthrope. This forces the misanthrope into quandary that
may if given enough time result into the crowd inheriting the gun.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
The conversation I reviewed was characterized by you talking out of your ass about libertarians, and becoming insulting when you couldn't back up your claims, or answer some of the tougher questions about some of the statements you were making. Now, if that's not your take on that conversation, then how about providing an example or two of those "funny" responses?

Originally posted by Cain
Anyone even slightly interested in this "conversation" can see it here:

:rolleyes: Yeah, something told me you wouldn't be able to provide any examples. Pointing to the thread is a nice way of avoiding admission of that failure. Par for the course.



Your lies on these exchanges in a minute.

I've looked ahead. You haven't identified any "lies" either. Doesn't that sort of mean your own statement qualifies as one?



The fact that you cannot grasp the most elementary distinctions is not a failing of "libertarian critics."

However, what would qualify as a failing would be to make reference to "elementary distinctions", and refer to it as a "fact" that someone else "cannot grasp" them, without being able to cite any examples which actually support your characterization. So after all that, you've unwittingly just demonstrated yet another example of a failure. Thanks for the help. And oh yeah, thanks for another demonstration of the tendency of libertarian critics to make baseless claims about what someone else can't understand, a trait I believe I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread.



As I have said (multiple times), all philosophers and economists accept the dichotomy
presented.

:rolleyes: You guys have this "appeal to authority" thing down to a fine art. You'd be lost if any of your arguments had to stand on their own merits. And given your failed attempts to support your assertions with authority in that previous discussion, I'm sure you'll understand if I don't take your word for what "all philosophers and economists" think.



The only people who don't are you and Shanek.

Wow. Not only do you speak for all philosophers, but now for all "people" too? Hell, most "people" don't give a rat's ass about this stuff. And even with regard to many libertarians, neither of the options presented is likely to be the exact foundation for their beliefs.

In any case, if you'll notice, I only reject it if you insist that a libertarian must choose only from those two options. Again, if someone honestly wants to know the basis for someone's libertarians views, why not just ask the question, and let any libertarians who choose to answer do so in their own words?



For just one second can you at least reflect on these issues and briefly consider the remote possibility that people much, much smarter than you might be correct?

Well, yeah, reflecting on these issues is pretty much what I did before posting an opinion. Am I supposed to reject conclusions about the basis for my own views, drawn from my own experiences and analysis, simply because someone you perceive to be "much, much smarter" expresses different ones? You do understand the concept of independent thought, right?



*Sigh* it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute.

Oops! Forget what I just said about independent thought. I forgot who I was posting to



Explore the (vast) literature from natural rights theorists (starting with Locke) and compare it to the intellectual history of Utilitarianism (preferably starting with Mill, but you can go back to Benthem).

And this is supposed to somehow lead me to the conclusion that my own views aren't based on what I think they're based on? Hilarious.

Allow me to refresh your memory on something. The initial questions was to ask libertarians for the foundation for their beliefs, not the foundation for Locke's beliefs, or those of Mill, Benhem, or anyone else.

In any case, for the words of all of these philosophers to provide any support for your point anyway, all of them would not only have to accept the dichotomy for themselves, but insist that every libertarian must do so as well, or they are not libertarian. Are you willing to go on record stating that this is so?



Actually, there's a third choice for libertarians: Social Contract Theory (see Jan Narverson _The Libertarian Idea_). But their numbers are small.

In my previous post, yes, I made nearly the same exact distinction as Victor (and the same one the article, and the same one that informs debates in all academic circles). I distinguished between the "more philosophical" natural rights crowd and the "more sophisticated" utilitarians.

:rolleyes:



Ah, yes, more of the same vague references.

Um ... it wasn't intended to be specific at this point, but I'm more than willing to discuss it at that level as soon as you say the word. Incidentally, does the absence of actual quotes from your accounting of things in the next point make it a "vague" reference too? Hmm?

No, it was a vague one-sided, falsehood

Damn, so much ******** to respond to from so few words. And people wonder why my responses are often so lengthy.

First, that's not an answer to the question I actually asked. Does the absence of any accurate quotes in your characterization make it "vague" or not? And if not, then what is it about mine that justifies using that term, that wouldn't also apply to yours?

Now, let's take a closer look at what you're calling a "one-sided, falsehood" ...

In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the ******** you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness.

So, is it your position that ...

... you did not become evasive?

... you were not posting ******** about libertarians?

... you did not become hostile and insulting?

Yes or no will suffice in each case. I just want to get you clearly on record expressing confidence in your own characterization before I go to the trouble to support mine.



and I asked (due to the lack of focus), if you meant how I constantly had to repeat the same thing over again (sort of like what I'm doing right now).

Something tells me that if you could clearly identify the nature of these things you're having to repeat, I'd have no problem demonstrating that it's ultimately because of stuff that I'm having to repeat, and which you keep ignoring - like pointing out how you make claims without backing them up, burden of proof issues, unanswered questions, stuff like that. For instance, it will be interesting to see how many of the questions I'm asking in this post that you actually answer. (They're the ones with the "?" at the end.)



Your modus operandi, it seems, is to smother others in meaningless verbiage. (see "trash" quote in previous thread).

:rolleyes: Yeah, I get this kind of stuff a lot from people who end up backing themselves into a corner with their own statements, and then can't handle all the questions and challenges prompted by those statements. Just another way of spinning your own failures as someone else's. In most cases, I've offered to present those questions and challenges in smaller doses, and in almost every case, the offer's been rejected or ignored. What a surprise.

In any case, for some real "verbiage", take a look at some of the nonsensical, long-winded ways in which you tried to defend you mischaracterizations in that other thread.



You mean how in those previous threads I quoted the Libertarian Party's platform several times (and provided links numerous times) and you just plugged your ears, closed your eyes and changed "Na na na na na na." Yeah, that was also funny -- painfully so.

Okay, apparently you do need to be reminded of how that conversation actually went. This is yet another example of spinning your own failure as someone else's, because while you demonstrated that you could quote something from the platform, where you failed miserably was in quoting something from it that actually has some direct relevance to the claims in dispute. I pointed that out at the time, of course, which I'm guessing is what you're spinning here as the "just plugged your ears ..." part.

Again, quite funny. There's no point repeating here (once again!) dismal failure to grasp fundamentals. This thread is yet another demonstration...

Yeah right. Repeating it (repeatedly asserting it) is the only thing you've done, and that doesn't qualify as a "demonstration". Hell, your whole participation in that other discussion was built on assertions that you couldn't back up with anything, and it's no different here. Some people never learn from their mistakes.



I'm not even a third of the way through with your fatuous post and still not a significant idea of merit has come up.

Thanks for the comic relief. I just went back and took a look at the comments of yours that I was responding to. I particularly enjoyed the self serving spin you put on my challenging you to back up your claims. Oh the irony!



And that wasn't your only failure. Like most other critics of libertarianism, you also failed to answer questions about the statements you were making. In fact, you were the one who abandoned the conversation when those questions got too tough, remember?

For the sake of truth, we can reverse the first sentence.

Stop it! You're killin' me! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif



There's no possible way anyone can meaningfully reply. The second sentence is more interesting, only for the pure comical value.

You mean the one where I pointed out that, like other libertarian critics, you failed to answer questions about the statements you were making? Something tells me you really don't want much scrutiny applied to this one.



Oh, yes, I "abandoned" that conversation, so you're the "winner." Good stuff.

Um ... did you abandon it or not? Were there several questions remaining on the table or not? Had you failed to back up your assertions or not? See, this is the stuff you don't want anyone to take too close a look at. It's apparent that you will become insulting, lay on the sarcasm, do anything you have to do in order to avoid having any scrutiny applied to the issue of whether you posted a lot of unsubstantiated ******** about libertarians, and got your sorry ass kicked as a result. For the less skeptical in this forum, that might actually work.



Anyone who even glances at that thread will see it drones on for six pages.

Hey, it takes two to tango. When you drone on for six pages with ******** about libertarians, are the rest of us supposed to remain silent to keep the thread from getting too long? Besides, anyone who does anything more than glance at the thread will see others arguing with each other, and they will notice the lengths of some of those posts too. Hell, for that matter, they'll notice the length of some of yours. Amazing what you'll bring up to try and create the impression of having a point.



I did not "abandon" it because you made some spectacular, irrefutable point.

No, you abandoned it because you couldn't handle the questions and challenges that exposed the ******** you were peddling.

You're just a wall, and I chose to stop talking to a wall.

And yet another attempt to spin your evasiveness as the high road. I'm guessing you've had a lot of practice at it.



It's foolish for me to even indulge your shameful meandering on this point because it accomplishes your most important goal: to never discuss the philosophical ideas relating to libertarianism.

No, my most important goal, as it relates to this thread, is to expose either your disregard for accuracy in discussing that topic, or your cowardice. Which one depends on whether you're willing to actually answer the questions I'm asking about that previous thread, and rise to the challenges I've presented you with here. And after all, if I'm the one whose accounting of that previous discussion is wrong, wouldn't the best way to put me in my place be to actually answer those questions, and accept those challenges? Wouldn't you want to discredit someone who's claiming you posted a bunch of stuff you couldn't back up?



Like I said, we can revisit it all here if you like, direct quotes and all.

You're the one who brought it up.

Actually, that's not exactly true. You made it particularly relevant by bringing up non-responses. And I think it's important for people to know that you have no problem accusing others of something you've made a habit of yourself.



If you see a relevant point, then bring it up, don't vaguely refer "To that one thread where... ."

In fact, you've just done it again, by repeating that "vague" characterization, which could just as easily apply to some of your comments. And regarding "mischaracterizations", don't you find it the least bit revealing which of us is prepared to closely examine who's really guilty of the "mischaracterizations", and which of us seems to want to avoid it?



Unfortunately, it seems we're picking up where we left off.

Well, you're certainly repeating some of those same old habits, I'll give you that - most notably evasiveness. I find it particularly curious that, although you've managed to come up with some feisty if unwarranted responses to just about every one of my comments (up to this point, at least), one that could lead us to resolving a lot of this, and which you've conveniently made no mention of is:

Either you can provide an example of something you posted which I took issue with, and to which you were then able to respond with something from the platform that actually [i]supported your claim, or if you prefer, I'll be more than happy to quote some of the claims you made which were in dispute, and you can try again to back them up. Take your pick. Or, if you've got a different suggestion for establishing whose memory on that previous discussion is more accurate, I'm open to that, too, as long as it will actually serve that purpose.

And if you're afraid of cluttering up this thread, we can always go back to the other one, or start a new one. And I renew my offer to deal with it all in small doses, if that'll make it easier for you. You're not afraid of putting to the test whose memory of that other discussion is more accurate, are you?



Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark.

I didn't say it "misses the mark", but if being unnecessarily limiting qualifies, then I will say so now. There is something kind of silly and presumptuous about asking a "why" question about someone else's views, then presenting them with only two options, and expecting them to pick one or the other. And covering his bases with stuff like "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends." does not make those options any more useful, or necessary to exploring the question reflected in the title of the thread. For instance, while I agree to some extent with the statements in both of his options, neither is an accurate characterization of the foundation for my views, nor the views of many (possibly most) other libertarians. (And if you like, we can discuss the foundation for my views in greater detail, once the rest of this stuff is out of the way.)

I love that first sentence -- "I didn't say..." Well, um, I never said you did.

Gee, how could I have possibly inferred that from "Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark"?



Anyway, this entire paragraph contains not a single argument, just simple assertions.

First, the obvious. What you just described about a single paragraph of mine pretty much sums up my response to your entire approach to characterizating libertarians in that previous thread. Your approach is apparently to make a bunch of baseless assertions, and then, when challenged on them, claim that the other guy's challenges are nothing but assertions:

Cain: Libertarians believe in unicorns.
WMT1: No, they don't, and you haven't supported that they do.
Cain: That's nothing but an assertion!

And just to break it down a bit further, to see whether your attempt at a criticism has any substance regarding the particular paragraph you seem to be saying this about now ...

The first three sentences are expressions of opinion, neither provable nor disprovable, and much less hyperbolic than some of your assertions, like "it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute". That gets us more than halfway through the paragraph.

The first part of the next sentence (the one beginning "For instance ...") is where your characterization gets even more pointless, because I'm commenting on basis for my own damn views! So, yeah, I guess that's just an "assertion". :rolleyes:

Then I go on to say that this is true for "many (possibly most) other libertarians", the only thing for which the "assertion" criticism would have any relevance. But then, that particular "assertion" is just a response to the "assertions" of non-libertarians presuming to speak for libertarians, which started this whole mess. Now, do you seriously want to go on record claiming that it is not just an "assertion" to claim "it's only one or the other"?

And the final sentence, the one in parenthesis, is just an offer to discuss something. But if it helps you feel better to claim it's just an "assertion", as if you've scored some kind of gotcha, well, I guess you've got to take whatever scraps you can get, huh?

Damn, you make this too easy. Time-consuming as hell, but definitely easy.



Demonstrate how, contrary to all discussion of these matters among all intellectuals, natural rights does not, in principle, find itself in conflict with Utiltarianism.

:rolleyes:

There you go again, with your muddled understanding of burden of proof. First, I don't give a rat's ass about "natural rights" vs. "utilitarianism". That's the whole point. I'm not interested in the neat little boxes you want to put libertarians into. If you think they're mutually exclusive, it's up to you to support your position. You seem to be going for some kind of record in terms of the disparity between the burden of proof one places on everyone else, and that which he places on himself. Did you ever "demonstrate" how Ayn Rand is "the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians", or was that just an assertion? And do you suppose any of the following qualify as "assertions"?

To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers.

I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious.

However, inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically, she's always a subject of discussion.

Rights, which are predicated on preferences, come from our interactions with other human beings.

Once again, anyone who does political philosophy, including ALL prominent libertarian thinkers, observe this distinction. Anyone passingly familiar with the (vast) literature on these matters recognizes what is obvious to a fifth grader.

These views are not correct because every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so; rather, every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so because they're correct.

That last little gem is one of my favorites.



Oh, and if you will be so kind as to reply to this paragraph before the rest of my post, I will be forever in your debt.

Uh-huh. Get back to me when you've dealt with some of my requests.



(Suggestion: it might be wise to attack my comments to Shanek on minimum wage laws in this context).

Some other time. I've got my hands full trying to respond to the voluminous ******** you've been posting to me. *



(cont.)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
Let me state for the record, without ambiguity, that this is the CENTRAL topic (indeed, it's what set off this thread). A cogent reply is absolutely necessary.

:rolleyes: I guess someone forgot to tell you, but it isn't necessary to comment on a "central topic" to point out the problems in the posts of someone involved in the discussion. Moreover, your comment is like insisting that someone must answer the question "what's your favorite color, purple or orange?" before any of their comments on the problems inherent in the question itself are to be considered. Nice try.



To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers.

So what? I thought the thread was about libertarians in this forum. And most of the libertarians out here in the real world couldn't care less about being pigeonholed by philosophers, even libertarian philosophers.

*Sigh* then prove them wrong.

Sorry, but your "burden of proof" confusion is acting up again. Get back to us when you've decided to prove some of your own assertions.



I hope there are more than three libertarians on this forum. Judging by the threads, one might suspect there are dozens of you... but then, judging by Shanek's presence in these threads, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no more than a handful.

Is this argumentum ad populum, or is there some other point buried in there somewhere?



So two of you view this as a false dichotomy, and one understood the question.

And here again, someone who confuses disagreement with a lack of understanding. :rolleyes:

In any case, what is becoming increasingly clear is that, in assessing libertarianism, something that seems to be fairly low on your list of things to consider is listening to actual libertarians.



But seeing as how you don't have the slightest grasp of these elementary issuses,

Sorry, but you're confusing a lack of understanding with a lack of interest. Victor has made similar mistakes too. You guys really do have to rely an awful lot on that thing of accusing others of a lack of understanding, don't you?

Another meaningless comment (for irony, refer to "abandon" comments).

Wow, the irony of you referring to "irony" in this exchange is staggering. If ever there was a "meaningless comment", it would be either the assertion my comments were in response to, or the dismiss-criticism-at-all-costs statement you just responded to them with, take your pick.



and will avoid at all costs my challenge to show where Victor's analysis errors, this is a moot point.

Damn.You simply don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Not only have I never run from a discussion about anything, making your implication totally baseless (and yet another case of trying to create the impression of failure where none has actually occurred), but given the evasiveness you demonstrated in that previous discussion, for you to be making a comment about anyone else avoiding challenges is ... how shall I put this? Oh yeah ...

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Again, more verbiage.

Back at ya. The difference is in who's willing to back up their "verbiage", and who just responds with crap like "Again, more verbiage". So, is it your position that you are not evasive? And is it your position that you do not avoid challenges?



This will be proven, simply and triumphantly, once you attempt to answer the question (or fail to do so).

This makes no sense. What will be proven? And what question? Are you still trying to milk some kind of point out of the fact that you haven't gotten an answer from people who disagree with the premise of the question itself? Just looks like more unwarranted swagger to foster the illusion of success.



Well, I guess she might be the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians who are influenced by philosophers. But for most of us, she is completely irrelevant.

I don't know who "most of us" speaks for, but that's fine.

That would be most libertarians. You couldn't even figure that out?

Incredible. You do realize the non-initation of force principle, the one thought we can reliably find in common to nearly all members of the Libertarian Party, was popularized by Ayn Rand. Indeed, it's informally known as the "Objectivist Oath."

That's nice, but claiming that the principle was popularized by her would be another one of those assertions, and one I think you'd be hard pressed to prove. (Or is this going to be another one of those things where the burden of proof is automatically on someone else, just because?)

Now, if you want to claim she popularized the term "non-initiation of force", you might be on to something. But being libertarian in one's views requires neither the use of the term, nor awareness of it. And while some libertarians may agree with some of her ideas, for most of us, belief in the principle is not because of her. I was a libertarian long before I'd ever heard of her or the term.

Now, taking all of that into account (if that's possible for you), just exactly what were you referring to as "incredible"? Or were you just trying, yet again, to create the impression of a point where you couldn't find a real one?



I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious.

First, regarding the "party hacks" thing, thanks for continuing to demonstrate not only the tendency of libertarian critics to be insulting, but also their disregard for accuracy. (This isn't going to be one of those things where you make a claim, and ask me to disprove it, is it?)



Now, if all you're talking about is studying the works of people who have written about various philosophies, then I'm guilty as charged. I've never found reading about someone else's philosophy particularly useful or enlightening in terms of formulating my own. I find dialogue and debate much more helpful toward reaching conclusions that will withstand scrutiny. And since I consistently do a much better job of defending my philosophy than those who disagree with me do of defending theirs, why the hell should I care what some author thinks who isn't even around to engage in any dialogue about whatever he's written? Such reading usually just ends up being like a one-sided conversation, or listening to a sermon.

Your anti-intellectualism and egoitism is noted. Thanks for being so bluntly honest.

Leave it to you to mistake independent thinking for anti-intellectualism, and confidence for egotism. Just another example of your reliance on spin. You got the honesty part right, though. :D



Moreover, with my approach, I don't have to point to someone else's opinion and say "see, they agree with me". When you base your views on the opinions of authors rather than doing your own thinking, you run the risk of getting backed into corners when someone asks you questions that you forgot to ask when you were doing all that reading. This has caused problems for Victor, among others. That's usually about the time they start telling someone else what they don't "understand". The similarity to Bible-thumpers is worth noting.

More comedy gold.

Another baseless insult in response to a solid, relevant criticism. What surprise.



No one says reading the fine works of others is a useful substitue to real-world debate. On the contrary, it *informs* discussion.

Then how can you still manage to get so many things wrong?



Where do you think any of these ideas originate?

I couldn't care less. Again, my own ideas didn't need some other source from which to "originate". I've always preferred formulating my own - well, since I grew up and learned to think for myself, anyway. You ought to try it sometime.



Moreover, scholarly works do not take place in a vacuum. If you bothered reading Rawls (Theory of Justice), you'd see he's replying to Utilitarian arguments.

And for the life of me, I don't know why you continue to think this has any relevance, unless you just can't fathom the idea of someone formulating their own opinions without also relying on the opinions of authors, especially these particular authors.



Then, if you had an inkling of interest, you could pick up Nozick (ASU) and see it as a reply to Rawls. And so on.

The key words being "if you had an inkling of interest". Focus on that, and you might start to understand the irrelevance of continuing to bring up these guys.



I'm not saying any on person has a monopoly on truth (as the false comparison to "bible-thumpers" implies.

Looks like you missed the implication. It was actually a reference to the need you have in common with them to refer to some external source (in this case the words of people you've never had dialogue with, and therefore never questioned) in order to validate one's beliefs.



These paradigms are useful for meaningful discussion and debate.

Well, maybe for a discussion that is specifically about what these guys think, or specifically about these particular "paradigms". But they're probably not all that useful, and definitely not necessary, for "meaningful discussion and debate" about much of anything else. If you think otherwise, that's just an indication of how narrow your own view of the world is.



It clarifies issues in ways you do not (yet) understand.

:rolleyes: Yet again with the "understand" thing? Incidentally, your repeated use of this sentiment kind of echoes the same condescension I've heard Bible-thumpers exhibit when talking about the Bible. :D

(What the hell is the "it" that you're referring to here anyway?)


Much of the rest of your post is kind of incomprehensible. (If it makes you feel better to think of your inability to communicate effectively as a "lack of understanding" on my part, well, why stop now, right?) Some of it seems to be an attempt to make some kind of point about some imagined transgression in my last response. For some reason, your earlier characterization "smother others in meaningless verbiage" comes to mind. And you seem to have to rely a lot on stuff like "" in response to a valid point, to create the impression of having one of your own. And you made a reference to an "apoplectic rage". I have no idea where you got [i]that one. I guess it's just all part of that inability to handle criticism, and you're just lashing out.

But if you actually do have any kind of point in any of that stuff, you might want to try to make it more clearly and concisely, and I'll try to address it. (Or if anyone else out there has a clue as to what Cain's talking about, you might want to help him out with this.) But just to set a good example for you regarding evasiveness, I will at least respond to some of the questions in that section, though it's not clear what your purpose is in asking them.



Did anyone catch the non-reply here?

And yet again, irony makes an appearance.



Do you believe in murdering 20 million people when it's necessary?

Your question is incomplete. Necessary for what?



Do you believe you have a right to kill another person when it's justified?

Of course.



Do you disagree with an unimpeachable, perfectly rational, theory of rights?

Probably not, but then again, I've also probably never heard of one. So far, though, the more libertarian ones come a hell of a lot closer than anything else.



I'm dying to know -- who is "you guys".

Generally, that would be those who criticize libertarianism. Most don't know any more about it than you seem to. And as it applies to my comment, most also rely on stuff like "simplistic" to describe libertarianism, when they can't think of anything better. The consistency with which I find this tendency among them strongly suggests an affinity for complexity.



That whole "complexity" thing as another throwaway comment that belongs in the garabage
can.

Good rebuttal. :rolleyes:



And here I think it's because you probably know the question creates problems for any approach that does not recognize rights.

The final sentence is a straightforward mischaracterization.

Yeah right. Like you've got a lot of room to be talking about mischaracterizations.

In any case, I'm satisfied that my assessment is on target. To anyone with an understanding of basic logic, the answer to my question "if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?" should have been a clear "yes", regardless of the kind of rights being discussed.



Let's just insert "rightful claim" to see how it works:

However, if someone taking the position that there are no [rightful claims] wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no [rightful claim] to [do anything to anyone else]?

Did you think this was going to present a problem? However, it is worth noting that you seemed to feel the need to replace more words than necessary to make whatever point it was that you were trying to make. To test my definition, all you needed was:

"if someone taking the position that there are no rightful claims wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no rightful claim to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?"

Works for me. And if it helps, one definition I found was "A just or legal claim or title". I hope this clears things up for you.



Nobody takes the position that there are no 'rightful claims', period. If John says there are no "rights", then that doesn't mean John needs a "right" to interfere with others. There are no rights!

Then John doesn't have a "right" to complain if anyone being interfered with decides to deal with him in a way that will prevent any possibility of further interference, does he?

Besides, either you believe there are rights, or you don't. If you don't, plainly say so. But if you do, since you also seem to think they would have to come from somewhere, how about explaining, in your own words if possible, where you think they come from?



You're using rights inconsistently (or "righful claims", if you prefer), and that's the fallacy of equivocation.

Sorry, but this assertion masquerading as a valid criticism needs to be addressed. I was using the same definition for each use of the word. If pointing this out doesn't help you see your error, then find someone you trust, and get them to explain consistency to you.