Why are you a Libertarian? Cont'd.

[Victor Danilchenko]

original thread can be seen at http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18921 . It seems to have bit the bucket. :(

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 see my explanations went into the wild blue yonder -- and unsurprisingly, you failed to answer my simple question.

here we go again...

Empirical libertarians do place very high value on liberty; it's just not the all-overriding factor. if your views are based both on belief in natural rights and liberties, and on efficiency of markets, then you are an empirical libertarian. Empirical libertarians aren't such only because they regard markets as more efficient -- they are such because they care about both liberty and economic efficiency. They follow John Stuart Mill in regarding Liberty as the highest good (Mill is the utilitarian), but they don't regard it as the one factor that overrides everything else.

In a way, empirical libertarianism supercedes natural-rights libertarianism. "Yes, liberty is critically important, but let's also consider the pragmatic matters of economic efficiency" kind of thing.

So, my question again; if it was proven to you, indispuitably and beyond reasonable doubt, that a given domain can be more efficiently run with government intervenbtion, would you agree that such intervention is then justified, provided the efficiency gain is sufficiently high? A "natural rights" libertarian would say "no" -- no matter the efficiency gain, such intervetion is unethical. An empirical libertarian would say "yes", provided the efficiency gain was high enough to offset the liberty infringement inherent in government intervention.

Just answer the question, Shane; and no, you cannot be both.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Libertarian,

While I disagree with your position, it's a pleasure to see that one of the libertarians at least understood the question. You are the first one, of all who posted in this thread...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I see my explanations went into the wild blue yonder -- and unsurprisingly, you failed to answer my simple question.

I did answer your question. You just hate the answer. I reject your false dichotomy and state that one can certainly be a libertarian on an empirical level and also be a principled libertarian. And I'm completely baffled as to how anyone can claim mutual exclusivity between the two.

In a way, empirical libertarianism supercedes natural-rights libertarianism.

No, it doesn't; although it can complement it.

So, my question again; if it was proven to you, indispuitably and beyond reasonable doubt, that a given domain can be more efficiently run with government intervenbtion, would you agree that such intervention is then justified, provided the efficiency gain is sufficiently high?

Yes. I've done so several times in this forum. You were there for it. But the times when there is such an efficiency is the time when force is warranted, like with the military or a justice system.

Keep in mind that even a principled libertarian would agree to this. You're just surreptitiously trying to reintroduce your old libertarian=anarchist BS.

Just answer the question, Shane; and no, you cannot be both.

I'm both, you twit. Fsck you.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

I did answer your question. You just hate the answer. I reject your false dichotomy and state that one can certainly be a libertarian on an empirical level and also be a principled libertarian. And I'm completely baffled as to how anyone can claim mutual exclusivity between the two.Boy, you are dense...

No, it doesn't; although it can complement it.Empirical libertarians are liberty-principled -- they just don't adhere to the principles to the exclusion of all practical considerations. You keep ignoring the point that 'empirical libertarian' is someone who both believes in primacy of individual rights, and evaluates socio-economic policies based on pragmatic considerations (with some set of weights given to each factor).

Yes.This is the first time you have given a straight answer. this means that you are an empirical libertarian, being which does not exclude being a believer in individual rights and liberty.

I've done so several times in this forum. You were there for it. But the times when there is such an efficiency is the time when force is warranted, like with the military or a justice system.OK, suppose it was proven that such government intervention would also increase efficiency in some other domain -- say, local roads. Would I be correct in assuming that you would still support it?

Keep in mind that even a principled libertarian would agree to this. You're just surreptitiously trying to reintroduce your old libertarian=anarchist BS.As I said, boy, are you dense... either that, or you just can't be bothered to read what i wrote for all the assumptions you are making.

I'm both, you twit. Fsck you.he is a floor cleaner! -- No, a desert topping! -- No, wait, he is BOTH!

Dude, you are a living proof for the fact that reams of data don't compensate for lack of intelligence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Boy, you are dense...

Empirical libertarians are liberty-principled

Then how on Earth can it be inconsistent with libertarianism based on principle? And you call me dense!!! :rolleyes:

they just don't adhere to the principles to the exclusion of all practical considerations. You keep ignoring the point that 'empirical libertarian' is someone who both believes in primacy of individual rights, and evaluates socio-economic policies based on pragmatic considerations (with some set of weights given to each factor).

Now you've just gone and restated it to be a choice between:

1) Libertarians that are both empirical and principled
2) Libertarians that are principled only, with no empiricism

IOW, now you're saying that all libertarians are principled, just that some use empiricism and others don't. So why didn't you just say that to begin with?

If that's the case, then I'm the former and not the latter. But earlier, you presented empirical libertarians and principled libertarians as diametric opposites. Now you're changing the goalposts, as you usually do when you're caught.

OK, suppose it was proven that such government intervention would also increase efficiency in some other domain -- say, local roads. Would I be correct in assuming that you would still support it?

As long as it preserves liberty too, sure. I wouldn't go as far as to give the government a monopoly on roads, though.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Now you've just gone and restated it to be a choice between:

1) Libertarians that are both empirical and principled
2) Libertarians that are principled only, with no empiricismThat's what i have been saying from th every beginning, you fscking moron!!!

IOW, now you're saying that all libertarians are principled, just that some use empiricism and others don't. So why didn't you just say that to begin with?I did!!! In my very first post, I wrote (note the emphases):

2. 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.Now mind you, both "natural rights" libertarians and empirical libertarians would give a primary role to individual rights.And in further posts, i also wrote, repeatedly and explicitly:
Remember, an empirical libertarian does give great weight to liberty -- it's just not the normalized weight of 1.0Empirical libertarians do place very high value on liberty; it's just not the all-overriding factorif your views are based both on belief in natural rights and liberties, and on efficiency of markets, then you are an empirical libertarian.I don't know how much more fscking explicit I could get! You simply went ahead and assumed that I was talking about something you thought I would be talking about, without bothering to understand what I actually said.
If that's the case, then I'm the former and not the latter. But earlier, you presented empirical libertarians and principled libertarians as diametric opposites.Yes, they are -- but not along the axis you think. They are diametrically opposed in that one gives role to empirical data, and the other one doesn't.

Now you're changing the goalposts, as you usually do when you're caught.As it your usual want, you cover up your lack of understanding by accusing the other of changing the goalposts. You have done so numerous times -- jumping to a conclusion about what I was saying instead of actually understanding what i was saying, and then, when the matter is finally (after a lengthy struggle) clarified to you, you accuse me of moving the goalposts.

As long as it preserves liberty too, sure.That's what I wanted to know.

And just FYI, you got my motivation for this thread totally wrong. I wasn't trying to draw any parallels with anarcho-libertarianism. Instead, my goal was to determine whether arguing with you about libertarianism is pointless. If you are a natural-rights believer, then any arguments of fact are basically as irrelevant to you, as arguments about geology are to someone who accepts bible axiomatically. If you were a natural-rights libertarian, arguing with you would be a complete and fundamental waste fo time.

As an aside, natural-rights position does not preclude minarchy -- it's possible to define natural rights in a manner that would specifically allow certain government function. However, NR position would preclude a change in which functions are considered appropriate to the government -- you couldn't simply proclaim that since domain X would be made more efficient by government intervention, such intervention whould be enacted; any such act would be immoral, regardless of the efficiency gain. The valuation of efficiency gain is itself a utilitarian factor.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
That's what i have been saying from th every beginning, you fscking moron!!!

No, you fscking moron!!! What you have been saying is a chicken-or-the-egg thing, and as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, it's more complex than that! See my latest post back in the original thread. You've got this malfunction in your brain which makes you think that you just someday *pop* become one kind of libertarian and this is the basis that leads you to the other.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!! It's not as simple as your tiny little brain wants it to be!!!

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

No, you fscking moron!!!yes, I have -- and I have given you quotes of my earlier posts to prove that this is indeed what i have been saying all along, you lying, faith-blinded fool.

[Ian Osborne]

Shane: you fscking moron!!!

Victor: you lying, faith-blinded fool.

Maybe it's time you two took this debate to email. You're both respected posters here, but you're doing your reputations no good at all by ripping at each others' throats like this. Over the last couple of months your discussions have gone beyond healthy debate, and descended into name-calling, and that's bad for the forum.

I don't care who started it - can at least one of you be man enough to finish it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Shane: you fscking moron!!!

Victor: you lying, faith-blinded fool.

Maybe it's time you two took this debate to email. You're both respected posters here, but you're doing your reputations no good at all by ripping at each others' throats like this. Over the last couple of months your discussions have gone beyond healthy debate, and descended into name-calling, and that's bad for the forum.

I don't care who started it - can at least one of you be man enough to finish it?

Your words are well considered, my friend. I stand humbled.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ian Osborne

Maybe it's time you two took this debate to email. You're both respected posters here, but you're doing your reputations no good at all by ripping at each others' throats like this. Over the last couple of months your discussions have gone beyond healthy debate, and descended into name-calling, and that's bad for the forum.

I don't care who started it - can at least one of you be man enough to finish it?Well, I've been considering putting Shane on ignore, but I have been reluctant to do so for obvious reasons. perhaps it's time for that, however.

Bye, Shane. If you want to talk to me, send me e-mail.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, I've been considering putting Shane on ignore, but I have been reluctant to do so for obvious reasons. perhaps it's time for that, however.

Bye, Shane. If you want to talk to me, send me e-mail.

Victor, I'd thought you'd be above this. As much as we've fought and argued in the past, you never put me on ignore (that I'm aware of... ;) ). Shanek commonly has something worthwhile to offer this forum, and you're only hurting yourself by censoring your world view by ignoring him.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

Victor, I'd thought you'd be above this.I made that decision not because I don't want to hear what Shane says, but because our communication seems to constantly devolve into a shouting match. As it is, I kept him on my ignore list for 1 day, enough to cool down.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Kodiak

I made that decision not because I don't want to hear what Shane says, but because our communication seems to constantly devolve into a shouting match. As it is, I kept him on my ignore list for 1 day, enough to cool down.

Oh...that seems reasonable now that you've explained it. Thanks.


:)