Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Catastrophic Moral Horrors and Libertarianism

Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:18:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:08:02 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/20/2013 11:03:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
Utilitarianism maybe but rights theory is the epitome of social deontology. So how exactly do you come to that conclusion?

Social deontology refers to rules, laws, etc, which are entertained and enforced by the majority, not by those that hold an ethnical worldview founded on a logical ideal.

Ugh. I'm not talking about social rules, I'm talking about deontological ethics as related to society i.e., the non-aggression principle, Kantian autonomy, etc. Furthermore whatever is "enforced by the majority" is merely a descriptive account. It doesn't say anything about what's normatively valid.

I'm pretty sure rights theorists would beg to differ. While I disagree with the a posteriori nature of rights theories (based on "human nature" or whatever), I definitely don't see why there can't be some rational foundation.

Oh, there could, but they're more contingent on norms and mores than they are logic and rationality.

Consider the First World compared with the Third World.

What's that have to do with anything?

My own methodology revolves around discourse/argumentation ethics as proposed by Habermas and Hoppe. The norms presupposed by argumentation and discourse are the standard by which I generally judge and critique whatevs I'm looking at.

Justification presupposes argumentation.
Argumentation presupposes certain norms (self ownership, free speech, etc.).
Those norms are necessarily a justified ethic of interpersonal relations.

That specific ethic is contingent on those interpersonal relations, or, more specifically, the perspectives of whoever is involved in those interpersonal relations.

Ergo, if no one relating is rational, then nothing exchanged between them will be founded on reason.

It doesn't matter if the person is rational, what matters is that the only *rational* interpersonal ethic is still the aforementioned. You can drop out of rational discourse but that doesn't really get you anywhere.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:26:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Noumena, I'm not saying that you're generally wrong, I'm only stating that it's an ideal, rather than a feasible reality.

Rights in and of themselves are determines and enforced by a society, so the views of that society, which is determined by the majority, determines what those rights are.

This makes rights more relativist than they are ethical in application, despite that there may be some conception of rights that are more logically and/or ethically valid.

In terms of rights in general, such as the Right to Life, there may be some deviation from this, but in terms of taxes in specific, those are not actually an application or detraction of rights in and of themselves; they're a protection of a given set of institutionalized rights, which may or may not be ethical and/or logical, and don't necessarily have such value separate of the institution that enforces them.

In other words, if you have a contention with taxes, it must be because you have a contention with the government to which they're paid, not because you have an issue with "taxes," as even in a stateless society, it will require some degree of investment to enforce rights.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:32:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:26:19 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Noumena, I'm not saying that you're generally wrong, I'm only stating that it's an ideal, rather than a feasible reality.

1) You're still confusing descriptive with normative ethics. What is doesn't say anything of what should be.
2) You're presupposing pragmatism (i.e., valuing practicality over idealism) without argument.

Rights in and of themselves are determines and enforced by a society, so the views of that society, which is determined by the majority, determines what those rights are.

Social actors can determine what rights theories are enforced, but not what they are.

This makes rights more relativist than they are ethical in application, despite that there may be some conception of rights that are more logically and/or ethically valid.

Again, that's descriptive ethics. We're discussing normativity.

In terms of rights in general, such as the Right to Life, there may be some deviation from this, but in terms of taxes in specific, those are not actually an application or detraction of rights in and of themselves; they're a protection of a given set of institutionalized rights, which may or may not be ethical and/or logical, and don't necessarily have such value separate of the institution that enforces them.

1) Libertarianism (anarchism) doesn't posit a complete destruction of rights-protection institutions, just rights violating ones.
2) Even if you accept the State on utilitarian grounds, it doesn't detract from the fact that States *do* violate rights in order to fulfill their purpose.

In other words, if you have a contention with taxes, it must be because you have a contention with the government to which they're paid, not because you have an issue with "taxes," as even in a stateless society, it will require some degree of investment to enforce rights.

1) Investment (voluntary) =/= Taxation (involuntary)
2) Libertarians have a contention with both. States are aggressive institutions and taxes are a single method by which that aggression comes to fruition.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:48:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights.

That's absurd, a person's ability to continue their life is a right under any system. Are you (or the person you are quoting) saying that there is some system of political or economic thought that says taxation of an individual is a violation or their rights, but murdering an individual isn't a violation of their rights?

Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

Therefore, any "rights centric view" that says "it's immoral to appropriate private property, which they have a right to,", but says that it isn't immoral to take a person's life, which they do not have a right to, then I'd have to say that is such nonsense that such a "rights centric view" isn't worth discussing. Is this really the "rights centric view" of Rothbard or Hoppe...or anybody for that matter?

I've seen these discussions about Libertarianism and Anarchy get unrealistic and astoundingly "theoretically" irrelevant, but this is a new level of inane, even for one of those typically completely detached from reality fantasy anarchy or libertarianism discussions.

"Say it ain't so Joe"
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:28:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 7:48:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

That's absurd, a person's ability to continue their life is a right under any system. Are you (or the person you are quoting) saying that there is some system of political or economic thought that says taxation of an individual is a violation or their rights, but murdering an individual isn't a violation of their rights?

Who said that?

Therefore, any "rights centric view" that says "it's immoral to appropriate private property, which they have a right to,", but says that it isn't immoral to take a person's life, which they do not have a right to, then I'd have to say that is such nonsense that such a "rights centric view" isn't worth discussing. Is this really the "rights centric view" of Rothbard or Hoppe...or anybody for that matter?

I'm pretty sure both Rothbard and Hoppe think murder is immoral so.....

I've seen these discussions about Libertarianism and Anarchy get unrealistic and astoundingly "theoretically" irrelevant, but this is a new level of inane, even for one of those typically completely detached from reality fantasy anarchy or libertarianism discussions.

"Say it ain't so Joe"

We (the libertarians and anarchists) didn't purport this hypothetical.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:06:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.

You would let billions of people die before supporting taxation here? You must really, really hate performative contradictions.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:13:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:06:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.

You would let billions of people die before supporting taxation here? You must really, really hate performative contradictions.

Didn't you read my response? I said I supported it in that instance, even if it's not a rationally defensible position.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:15:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:13:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:06:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.

You would let billions of people die before supporting taxation here? You must really, really hate performative contradictions.

Didn't you read my response? I said I supported it in that instance, even if it's not a rationally defensible position.

I understood the first sentence, not the second. Or are you talking about a different response?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:20:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:15:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:13:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:06:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.

You would let billions of people die before supporting taxation here? You must really, really hate performative contradictions.

Didn't you read my response? I said I supported it in that instance, even if it's not a rationally defensible position.

I understood the first sentence, not the second. Or are you talking about a different response?

I'm referring to what I said here: "Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite."
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:30:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:20:25 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:15:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:13:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:06:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 4:23:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:12:52 PM, Noumena wrote:
Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite.

As the person I quoted notes, a meteor hitting the earth doesn't violate anybody's rights. Therefore, if you take a rights centric view, like Rothbard or Hoppe, it's immoral to appropriate people's property, which they have a right to, even when the survival of the human race is at stake.

I know. I still think (qua Hoppe) that any argument for taking their rights away is performatively contradicting. However, as with solipsism, there's an air of validity even if not rationally founded.

You would let billions of people die before supporting taxation here? You must really, really hate performative contradictions.

Didn't you read my response? I said I supported it in that instance, even if it's not a rationally defensible position.

I understood the first sentence, not the second. Or are you talking about a different response?

I'm referring to what I said here: "Assuming the world would blow up, sure. I don't see any similarity between that and the normal functions that States tax to provide i.e., roads, courts, defense. Force isn't requisite."

Ok, then I misinterpreted that.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:32:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/20/2013 11:26:19 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Noumena, I'm not saying that you're generally wrong, I'm only stating that it's an ideal, rather than a feasible reality.

1) You're still confusing descriptive with normative ethics. What is doesn't say anything of what should be.

No, I'm not confusing anything. There's really no reason to sparse ethics into its various manifestations and interpretations for the purpose of this argument, such as normative and descriptive ethics. This is because we're not exploring established conclusions that could have such designations, we're exploring your opinions, which are yet undefined, which is why they remain under debate.

So, yes, I haven't said anything about what "should be," because I disagree that taxes are any sort of evil institution in their own right. Taxes are amoral, with the capacity to be applied either morally or immorally.

2) You're presupposing pragmatism (i.e., valuing practicality over idealism) without argument.

If you think about it, my argument is just as much idealist as it is practical. Indeed, our current system is a manifestation of how most people in that system want it. Nonetheless, there's a point at which idealism ends, but where practicality continues, such as the fact that stabbing someone in the heart will kill him or her, despite how one interprets the action. Accordingly, one can safely say that within the scope of real things rather than philosophical theory, practicality trumps idealism.

Rights in and of themselves are determines and enforced by a society, so the views of that society, which is determined by the majority, determines what those rights are.

Social actors can determine what rights theories are enforced, but not what they are.

Of course they can. See: Civil disobedience. See: the pirating revolution. There's no real distinction between those who construct social theories and those who enact them, as there is no real locus of authority regarding morality (unless, of course, one subscribes to a religion).

This makes rights more relativist than they are ethical in application, despite that there may be some conception of rights that are more logically and/or ethically valid.

Again, that's descriptive ethics. We're discussing normativity.

No, we're not. You haven't supported anything normative. We're discussing descriptive ethics until normativity is proven. That's how ethics works.

In terms of rights in general, such as the Right to Life, there may be some deviation from this, but in terms of taxes in specific, those are not actually an application or detraction of rights in and of themselves; they're a protection of a given set of institutionalized rights, which may or may not be ethical and/or logical, and don't necessarily have such value separate of the institution that enforces them.

1) Libertarianism (anarchism) doesn't posit a complete destruction of rights-protection institutions, just rights violating ones.

That is absolutely false. For example, throughout the course of my life, my personal rights have been violated to a much greater degree my companies, and especially insurance companies, than by the federal or state government. New Jersey municipalities, however, tend to be similarly corrupt. On the other hand, my rights have never been actively protected by any institution except the government and myself.

2) Even if you accept the State on utilitarian grounds, it doesn't detract from the fact that States *do* violate rights in order to fulfill their purpose.

How do they do that? Looks like conjecture.

In other words, if you have a contention with taxes, it must be because you have a contention with the government to which they're paid, not because you have an issue with "taxes," as even in a stateless society, it will require some degree of investment to enforce rights.

1) Investment (voluntary) =/= Taxation (involuntary)

Taxation is absolutely voluntary. In Louisiana, are you forced to pay taxes to Ohio? In the United States, are you forced to pay taxes in France? Taxation is literally a form of investment. However, banks force involuntary payments all the time, which are often contended. Within the last ten years, both Chase Bank and Bank of America lost class action lawsuits for violative charges. Taxes, on the other hand, are not only voluntary, but they're negotiable. With enough support, they can be changed, redirected, or even alleviated. However, charges by most companies, especially insurance firms, are not negotiable. Moreover, services provided through taxes are generally defensible. However, companies like insurance firms can place exceptions, and usually try to do so by misleading consumers through fine-print exceptions.

2) Libertarians have a contention with both. States are aggressive institutions and taxes are a single method by which that aggression comes to fruition.

That is completely false. One can so much as live separate of an economy on one's own land and pay little to no taxes. Moreover, taxes have several exceptions, making it possible to alleviate them despite participating in the economy. Companies are far more aggressive instituions -- whereas the IRS wouldn't even bother to chase someone who owes a few hundred dollars, a bank will very aggressively pursue dozens of dollars, but no before trumping them up to hundreds or thousands first.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:07:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:57:04 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/20/2013 11:32:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Libertarianism (anarchism) doesn't posit a complete destruction of rights-protection institutions, just rights violating ones.

That is absolutely false. For example, throughout the course of my life, my personal rights have been violated to a much greater degree my companies, and especially insurance companies, than by the federal or state government. New Jersey municipalities, however, tend to be similarly corrupt. On the other hand, my rights have never been actively protected by any institution except the government and myself.

1) Anecdotal arguments lack inter-subjective validity.
2) States hold an aggressive monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction concerning the protection of rights. So just saying "States do protect rights at current" doesn't mean that no other type of institution can arise to perform the same service.
3) I'm not trying to defend corporations. Historically, they're just as bad as governments.

2) Even if you accept the State on utilitarian grounds, it doesn't detract from the fact that States *do* violate rights in order to fulfill their purpose.

How do they do that? Looks like conjecture.

1) Involuntary taxation.
2) Monopolistic control of legal, retributive, defensive services.

1) Investment (voluntary) =/= Taxation (involuntary)

Taxation is absolutely voluntary. In Louisiana, are you forced to pay taxes to Ohio? In the United States, are you forced to pay taxes in France? Taxation is literally a form of investment. However, banks force involuntary payments all the time, which are often contended. Within the last ten years, both Chase Bank and Bank of America lost class action lawsuits for violative charges.

Taxes, on the other hand, are not only voluntary, but they're negotiable. With enough support, they can be changed, redirected, or even alleviated. However, charges by most companies, especially insurance firms, are not negotiable. Moreover, services provided through taxes are generally defensible. However, companies like insurance firms can place exceptions, and usually try to do so by misleading consumers through fine-print exceptions.

1) I can except that while still maintaining the involuntary nature of taxation. I don't have to defend banks in order to hold that opinion.
2) I don't understand why you think being forced to pay taxes in one area (say Louisiana) and not another (say Ohio) makes taxation in Louisiana voluntary. It kind of reminds me of Harry Reid's "argument" that taxation is voluntary because the State lets you fill our your tax forms rather than just taking it out of your paycheck (FICA what what). The conclusion doesn't appear to follow.
3) Defending the end doesn't necessitate justifying the means towards it. You losing weight can be a justified end but that doesn't mean me taking your food is a justified means towards that end.

2) Libertarians have a contention with both. States are aggressive institutions and taxes are a single method by which that aggression comes to fruition.

That is completely false. One can so much as live separate of an economy on one's own land and pay little to no taxes. Moreover, taxes have several exceptions, making it possible to alleviate them despite participating in the economy. Companies are far more aggressive instituions -- whereas the IRS wouldn't even bother to chase someone who owes a few hundred dollars, a bank will very aggressively pursue dozens of dollars, but no before trumping them up to hundreds or thousands first.

1) Again, I'm not here to defend corporations. Just because they're shatty doesn't make State actions any more or less defensible.
2) Being able to opt out of *some* taxes doesn't rebut the nature of taxation itself. It's funny because most arguments for the State forward taxation as necessary specifically because it's involuntary i.e., "people won't pay for X without being forced to".
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:31:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:07:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:57:04 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/20/2013 11:32:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Libertarianism (anarchism) doesn't posit a complete destruction of rights-protection institutions, just rights violating ones.

That is absolutely false. For example, throughout the course of my life, my personal rights have been violated to a much greater degree my companies, and especially insurance companies, than by the federal or state government. New Jersey municipalities, however, tend to be similarly corrupt. On the other hand, my rights have never been actively protected by any institution except the government and myself.

1) Anecdotal arguments lack inter-subjective validity.
2) States hold an aggressive monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction concerning the protection of rights. So just saying "States do protect rights at current" doesn't mean that no other type of institution can arise to perform the same service.
3) I'm not trying to defend corporations. Historically, they're just as bad as governments.

1. If arguments must be inter-subjective, then your argument is invalid, because I disagree that taxes are a violation of my rights.

2. States do not hold a monopoly on the jurisdiction of rights. We have a trilateral system, and several levels of law enforcement, beginning and the municipal level, the state, then federal. And this is not to mention that one can sue any government in civil court, and any member of the government, even up to the president, members of congress, and supreme court justices, are able to be tried in criminal court.

3. Then, you're not defending anything, because your argument is from the vantage of libertarians, who remove power from the government and place it in the hands of corporations, who are not as interested in proving the service they offer as they are in profit, which means that overall monetary losses in order to receive what is desired will inevitably be far greater than taxes.

2) Even if you accept the State on utilitarian grounds, it doesn't detract from the fact that States *do* violate rights in order to fulfill their purpose.

How do they do that? Looks like conjecture.

1) Involuntary taxation.
2) Monopolistic control of legal, retributive, defensive services.

1. Taxes are not involuntary.

2. The government does not have monopolistic control over legal services -- those are provided by non-governmental agents called attorneys. The government does not have monopolistic control over retributive services. That is provided by a series of regular citizens known as a jury. The government does not have monopolistic control over defensive services. Self defense can be legally administered by the individual.

1) I can except that while still maintaining the involuntary nature of taxation. I don't have to defend banks in order to hold that opinion.
2) I don't understand why you think being forced to pay taxes in one area (say Louisiana) and not another (say Ohio) makes taxation in Louisiana voluntary. It kind of reminds me of Harry Reid's "argument" that taxation is voluntary because the State lets you fill our your tax forms rather than just taking it out of your paycheck (FICA what what). The conclusion doesn't appear to follow.
3) Defending the end doesn't necessitate justifying the means towards it. You losing weight can be a justified end but that doesn't mean me taking your food is a justified means towards that end.

1. No, you have to defend banks to support libertarianism. The government serves a purpose, and your job is to prove that they do not serve that purpose, and that the purpose can be served by someone else. Otherwise, your argument fails. Remember -- this conversation did not begin about taxes specifically. It began as an debate between libertarianism and actual contemporary society.

2. Because taxation is only applied to people who obtain the services of those taxes within the area in which those services are provided. If you do not subscribe to those services, you do not pay taxes. It's called "living under the grid." It may not be very much fun, but that's why people voluntarily pay taxes.

3. Defending the end satisfactorily justifies the means if the means have no inherent contention, which taxes do not. They are payment for a service, in the spirit of capitalism.

2) Libertarians have a contention with both. States are aggressive institutions and taxes are a single method by which that aggression comes to fruition.

That is completely false. One can so much as live separate of an economy on one's own land and pay little to no taxes. Moreover, taxes have several exceptions, making it possible to alleviate them despite participating in the economy. Companies are far more aggressive instituions -- whereas the IRS wouldn't even bother to chase someone who owes a few hundred dollars, a bank will very aggressively pursue dozens of dollars, but no before trumping them up to hundreds or thousands first.

1) Again, I'm not here to defend corporations. Just because they're shatty doesn't make State actions any more or less defensible.
2) Being able to opt out of *some* taxes doesn't rebut the nature of taxation itself. It's funny because most arguments for the State forward taxation as necessary specifically because it's involuntary i.e., "people won't pay for X without being forced to".

1. Then you aren't here to defend anything except an existence without taxes? Then go move to woods that have not been purchased, build yourself a cabin out of wood that does not belong to anyone else, and live off land that does not belong to anyone else. It's easier to find than you think.

2. You have not made any case against the nature of taxation, aside the erroneous allegation that it's involuntary. Taxes are quite voluntary. The IRS only pursues people who haven't paid taxes, but enjoy the fruits of those taxes.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 12:46:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
From a pragmatic point of view, one solution to public goods problems of this sort is to set up a payment scheme where the client commits to paying a certain sum if and only if a certain total commitment is reached.

If you fiat that taxation is required to stop the asteroid (as I assume you are doing to make the problem interesting), then there is still a solution within the NAP. If the victim of a crime is given compensation equal to twice the harm done (this is the standard Austro-libertarian view), then there is no violation of the NAP. In this case, the compensation could actually be in the form of the asteroid deflection. This wouldn't work to justify taxation generally unless the government could produce a 100% profit on its tax revenue and actually returned all of it in the form of useful spending, so it doesn't undermine libertarianism more broadly.

If you take a stricter view of the NAP which does not allow rights violations at all, then you obviously cannot endorse taxation for any reason. So you would be against stopping the asteroid. It's good that not many people hold this view. This is not Volokh's view, although I think that his is equally bad. Volokh does allow for rights violations, but only to prevent rights violations. This strikes me as a curious kind of quasi-utilitarianism that selectively weighs only certain benefits and harms. Regardless of their rationalizations, I have to think that anyone who bites the bullet on this issue is not being serious. Also note that Sasha Volokh is male (I assume you were misled by his first name).

I don't endorse this approach to libertarianism (my views are much more utilitarian), but I don't see the asteroid scenario as a serious problem for a rights-based approach unless it is poorly formulated. That's not to say that many people don't have poorly formulated views!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 4:43:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh my, just listen to the "libertarians" in this thread rationalize and attempt to uphold the consistency their ideological position, somewhat after the fashion of medieval scholastics theologizing according to the orthodox teachings of the Church about how many angels should be able to dance on the head of a pin! Come on folks, it's a no-brainer of a question, that you have an ideological imperative to answer it in a way that jibes with your particular brand of political orthodoxy is quite telling, shall we say; i.e., it tells us once again what dismal dogmatizers you are.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species. Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 5:20:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species. Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".
Really? How many socialist societies have had no political disputes and survived?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 7:25:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:20:04 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species. Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".

Really? How many socialist societies have had no political disputes and survived?

Really, despite the fact that real-world capitalism and capitalists have thoroughly subverted any principles that capitalism professes to be predicated on, and moreover with capitalism going full speed ahead in the process of effecting its own and humanity's ecological self-destruction you still wish to play the socialism-doesn't-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-isn't-viable card, you think it's a brilliant idea to fling that particular polemical stone?! Well, take a look about you, my dear booster of capitalism, and take notice of the fact that you very much reside in an ideological glass house.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 7:31:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 7:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:20:04 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species. Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".

Really? How many socialist societies have had no political disputes and survived?

Really, despite the fact that real-world capitalism and capitalists have thoroughly subverted any principles that capitalism professes to be predicated on, and moreover with capitalism going full speed ahead in the process of effecting its own and humanity's ecological self-destruction you still wish to play the socialism-doesn't-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-isn't-viable card, you think it's a brilliant idea to fling that particular polemical stone?! Well, take a look about you, my dear booster of capitalism, and take notice of the fact that you very much reside in an ideological glass house.

You did not answer my question, please name one viable purely socialistic society.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:43:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 7:31:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 7:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:20:04 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species. Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".

Really? How many socialist societies have had no political disputes and survived?

Really, despite the fact that real-world capitalism and capitalists have thoroughly subverted any principles that capitalism professes to be predicated on, and moreover with capitalism going full speed ahead in the process of effecting its own and humanity's ecological self-destruction you still wish to play the socialism-doesn't-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-isn't-viable card, you think it's a brilliant idea to fling that particular polemical stone?! Well, take a look about you, my dear booster of capitalism, and take notice of the fact that you very much reside in an ideological glass house.

You did not answer my question, please name one viable purely socialistic society.

You didn't take my point, that you're not at all privileged to pose such a question/challenge, since you can't very well name one either economically, ecologically, or humanly genuinely successful society. Well, at least you haven't denied that capitalism subverts and scuttles its own principles and haven't played the global warming denier, i.e., denied that industrial capitalism is in the process of causing an ecological catastrophe that will do in human civilization (which would truly be about as idiotic and heinous as being a Holocaust denier); no, you haven't denied any of this, you've just conveniently and facilely glossed over it. Really now, did you think that I didn't notice.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:24:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:31:36 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:07:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Anecdotal arguments lack inter-subjective validity.
2) States hold an aggressive monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction concerning the protection of rights. So just saying "States do protect rights at current" doesn't mean that no other type of institution can arise to perform the same service.
3) I'm not trying to defend corporations. Historically, they're just as bad as governments.

1. If arguments must be inter-subjective, then your argument is invalid, because I disagree that taxes are a violation of my rights.

My argument *can* be inter-subjectively valuidated because it's based on reason. Yours *cannot* since it's based on personal experience only. Inter-subjective validity doesn't refer to universal acceptance, merely the ability to hold rational weight regardlesso of experience.

2. States do not hold a monopoly on the jurisdiction of rights. We have a trilateral system, and several levels of law enforcement, beginning and the municipal level, the state, then federal. And this is not to mention that one can sue any government in civil court, and any member of the government, even up to the president, members of congress, and supreme court justices, are able to be tried in criminal court.

All part of the same institution amirite? That's my point.

3. Then, you're not defending anything, because your argument is from the vantage of libertarians, who remove power from the government and place it in the hands of corporations, who are not as interested in proving the service they offer as they are in profit, which means that overall monetary losses in order to receive what is desired will inevitably be far greater than taxes.

When did I endorse corporatism? There's a strong current of libertarianism/anarchism going around now called bleeding heart libertarianism or left wing market anarchism. It takes the descriptive view that State action entails corporatism (vie regulatory cartelization, IP, etc.). Removing these State actions doesn't let corporations run free, it reduces their artificial level of output and influence. Furthermore, I can simply turn the charge back against you considering that State are incredibly open to corporate manipulation of policy outcomes.

1) Involuntary taxation.
2) Monopolistic control of legal, retributive, defensive services.

1. Taxes are not involuntary.

Oh okay then.

2. The government does not have monopolistic control over legal services -- those are provided by non-governmental agents called attorneys. The government does not have monopolistic control over retributive services. That is provided by a series of regular citizens known as a jury. The government does not have monopolistic control over defensive services. Self defense can be legally administered by the individual.

*facepalm* The legal system itself is maintained and controlled monocentrically by the State. The sucky thing about this conversation is that we can't even get into the meat of whether that monocentrism is valid (which honest statists at least argue for) since you're refusing to even admit of its existence!

1) I can except that while still maintaining the involuntary nature of taxation. I don't have to defend banks in order to hold that opinion.
2) I don't understand why you think being forced to pay taxes in one area (say Louisiana) and not another (say Ohio) makes taxation in Louisiana voluntary. It kind of reminds me of Harry Reid's "argument" that taxation is voluntary because the State lets you fill our your tax forms rather than just taking it out of your paycheck (FICA what what). The conclusion doesn't appear to follow.
3) Defending the end doesn't necessitate justifying the means towards it. You losing weight can be a justified end but that doesn't mean me taking your food is a justified means towards that end.

1. No, you have to defend banks to support libertarianism. The government serves a purpose, and your job is to prove that they do not serve that purpose, and that the purpose can be served by someone else. Otherwise, your argument fails. Remember -- this conversation did not begin about taxes specifically. It began as an debate between libertarianism and actual contemporary society.

I have to defend banks? Since when? Also, I don't have to defend services I think are unnecessary or immoral. For instance, drone bombing children or taxation even though someone might think them necessary. I do think that legitimate functions of States can be serviced by non-States, that doesn't mean I have to necessarily support EVERYTHING being done privately.

2. Because taxation is only applied to people who obtain the services of those taxes within the area in which those services are provided. If you do not subscribe to those services, you do not pay taxes. It's called "living under the grid." It may not be very much fun, but that's why people voluntarily pay taxes.

Except services rendered aren't obtained via voluntary contract. Things like nationald defense and roads are just forced on to everyone and payment is seeked after the fact, justified by some BS notion of tacit consent. I don't just come to your house, lay a sidewalk, and then demand payment.

3. Defending the end satisfactorily justifies the means if the means have no inherent contention, which taxes do not. They are payment for a service, in the spirit of capitalism.

Like I said, voluntary exchange entails contracting services BEFORE they're received. The opposite is the case on Statism.

1) Again, I'm not here to defend corporations. Just because they're shatty doesn't make State actions any more or less defensible.
2) Being able to opt out of *some* taxes doesn't rebut the nature of taxation itself. It's funny because most arguments for the State forward taxation as necessary specifically because it's involuntary i.e., "people won't pay for X without being forced to".

1. Then you aren't here to defend anything except an existence without taxes? Then go move to woods that have not been purchased, build yourself a cabin out of wood that does not belong to anyone else, and live off land that does not belong to anyone else. It's easier to find than you think.

No thanks. I'd rather just stop the inclusion of taxation in everyday life. Just telling me to move doesn't entail the normative validity of your position, a common mistake I run into invariably when arguing with Statists.

2. You have not made any case against the nature of taxation, aside the erroneous allegation that it's involuntary. Taxes are quite voluntary. The IRS only pursues people who haven't paid taxes, but enjoy the fruits of those taxes.

Services like national defense and roads can't really be excluded from enjoyment.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:02:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:24:51 AM, Noumena wrote:

Your argument isn't intersubjective, because it is based on opinion. Anecdotal arguments hold greater weight than opinion, because they at least assert something that not only could be, but has been.

2. States do not hold a monopoly on the jurisdiction of rights. We have a trilateral system, and several levels of law enforcement, beginning and the municipal level, the state, then federal. And this is not to mention that one can sue any government in civil court, and any member of the government, even up to the president, members of congress, and supreme court justices, are able to be tried in criminal court.

All part of the same institution amirite? That's my point.

No, you're not right. Those are entirely separate institutions. There are completely separate laws at the state and federal level, for example. This is why marijuana remains federally illegal, but legal in some states.

When did I endorse corporatism? There's a strong current of libertarianism/anarchism going around now called bleeding heart libertarianism or left wing market anarchism. It takes the descriptive view that State action entails corporatism (vie regulatory cartelization, IP, etc.). Removing these State actions doesn't let corporations run free, it reduces their artificial level of output and influence. Furthermore, I can simply turn the charge back against you considering that State are incredibly open to corporate manipulation of policy outcomes.

You're going to have to explain that, because you're essentially saying, "there's a strong current of libertarianism that isn't like any other interpretation of libertarianism, and magically fixes everything." The various governments of the United States are open to corporate manipulation, because this is a mercantile society drawn from a capitalist paradigm. Removing the government doesn't change that.

1) Involuntary taxation.
2) Monopolistic control of legal, retributive, defensive services.

1. Taxes are not involuntary.

Oh okay then.

2. The government does not have monopolistic control over legal services -- those are provided by non-governmental agents called attorneys. The government does not have monopolistic control over retributive services. That is provided by a series of regular citizens known as a jury. The government does not have monopolistic control over defensive services. Self defense can be legally administered by the individual.

*facepalm* The legal system itself is maintained and controlled monocentrically by the State. The sucky thing about this conversation is that we can't even get into the meat of whether that monocentrism is valid (which honest statists at least argue for) since you're refusing to even admit of its existence!

Monocentrically? Monocentricism is literally the belief that one should only make personal agreements on a private level, then allow a third party, usually in the form of a cartel, to enforce those agreements. Which, of course, is a terrible idea, and leads to a society run by an organized criminal organization, rather than a government.

It is also the belief that humans derive from a single region of the world -- which is true, and that region is Africa and the Middle East.

But, I do realize that what you're really trying to say is that this society is unilateralist, which is preposterous. There are fifty states in this country, each with their own cultures, constitutions, laws, and law enforcement. The FBI doesn't simply circumambulate regular streets of any given city looking for federal laws to enforce.

I have to defend banks? Since when?

Since you called yourself a libertarian, and I already explained that.

Also, I don't have to defend services I think are unnecessary or immoral. For instance, drone bombing children or taxation even though someone might think them necessary.

Drone-bombing children? That isn't a service, that's a military action, and libertarianism, for all intents and purposes, is entirely irrelevant to foreign relations. In fact, foreign relation is libertarianism's greatest weakness. In any case, funding social services like roads and schools is nothing like funding drone strikes. That is a terribly misleading equivocation.

I do think that legitimate functions of States can be serviced by non-States, that doesn't mean I have to necessarily support EVERYTHING being done privately.

Yeah, non-states like who? Some entity that has authority designated by the people, with a written constitution that determines that authority, as well as the rights of the people to limit that authority, and which are paid for by the people to maintain that authority? That's called a government.

Except services rendered aren't obtained via voluntary contract.

Of course they are. It's called citizenship.

Things like nationald defense and roads are just forced on to everyone and payment is seeked after the fact, justified by some BS notion of tacit consent. I don't just come to your house, lay a sidewalk, and then demand payment.

Of course you don't. Instead, you lay the sidewalk, and if I walk on it, I help pay for it. there is nothing wrong with that.

National defense is not forced on anyone. If you don't want to be defended by this country, then leave this country.

Like I said, voluntary exchange entails contracting services BEFORE they're received. The opposite is the case on Statism.

No, it's not. As you agree to be a citizen (parents decide that for natives when they're too young to decide for themselves), you agree to services it entails.

No thanks. I'd rather just stop the inclusion of taxation in everyday life. Just telling me to move doesn't entail the normative validity of your position, a common mistake I run into invariably when arguing with Statists.

Oh, really? Just claiming that taxes are wrong do not entail normative validity, either. You're not right just because you think you're right. However, that's how you're approaching this conversation. If we were to completely remove the pleonasm from your responses, all they would say is, "well, you're wrong because I'm right, and I make sense, and I'm the only authority on what's right and what makes sense."

False.

2. You have not made any case against the nature of taxation, aside the erroneous allegation that it's involuntary. Taxes are quite voluntary. The IRS only pursues people who haven't paid taxes, but enjoy the fruits of those taxes.

Services like national defense and roads can't really be excluded from enjoyment.

Yes, they can. You can either live off the grid or leave. "It isn't desirous" isn't an argument, it is literally a concession.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:23:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 4:43:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
Oh my, just listen to the "libertarians" in this thread rationalize and attempt to uphold the consistency their ideological position,

That was what Kinesis asked for in the OP. How would libertarians respond to this scenario? I can't speak for anyone else, but I had already seen this argument before. If you didn't have a response to a well known argument (and you're not an idiot like the person Kinesis linked to in the OP), then you probably wouldn't be a libertarian anymore. So it's not that surprising that I already have a response prepared to this particular question.

Also, anyone would attempt to uphold the consistency of their ideological position when challenged. Calling arguments for positions you disagree with "rationalizations" is fairly arbitrary unless you have unusually good access to the thoughts of the people you're debating.

somewhat after the fashion of medieval scholastics theologizing according to the orthodox teachings of the Church about how many angels should be able to dance on the head of a pin!

You can compare anyone to the medieval scholastics. It's totally meaningless to do so. lol no u r the medieval scholastic, stop rationalizing!

Side note: the debate about the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin was invented in the 19th Century and never actually happened.

Come on folks, it's a no-brainer of a question, that you have an ideological imperative to answer it in a way that jibes with your particular brand of political orthodoxy is quite telling, shall we say; i.e., it tells us once again what dismal dogmatizers you are.

I thought it was a no brainer of a question too. There aren't that many ways to set up modern societies that are likely to fail at asteroid deflect. A society that can sustain the technology to deflect an asteroid is not going to be that stupidly uncoordinated.

The fact that libertarians have an ideological "imperative" (I wouldn't regard it as imperative, cf. my answer) to answer the question in a certain way does not undermine libertarianism. If you're faced with this scenario, you're not going to immediately start proposing Coasean solutions to public goods problems, are you? You could almost say that you have an ideological imperative not to...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:31:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:12:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Under socialism there'd be none of this absurd ideological agonizing about how to proceed, people would simply proceed to pull together in a collaborative, collective, well-planned effort to ensure the survival of the human species.

I wish I got to just define my proposed model for a society as successful.

Another little example of the fact that socialists have more sane and decent, more rational and human principles and priorities than "libertarian" types who hewing to a pack of pukey casuistical sophisms would risk allowing humanity to perish in order to not violate the integrity of their precious "free market".

Only stupid libertarians have this problem. My proposed answer basically reflects the consensus. The Journal of Libertarian studies published a paper to this effect years ago. There is no ideological contention for people who know what they're talking about. Rights-based libertarianism allows for rights violations with no foul if they are adequately compensated. There is an agreement that this means compensation to the effect of two times the harm done. For utilitarians the problem is even less serious because the compensation only needs to equal the harm done. But the calculus is never going to come out so that you shouldn't top the asteroid.

How is there any ideological tension in this answer? Nothing new even had to be added. You just take the theory of criminal justice and apply it.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:42:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/23/2013 7:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:

Really, despite the fact that real-world capitalism and capitalists have thoroughly subverted any principles that capitalism professes to be predicated on,

This is definitely true. Why do you think it's fair to call real-world capitalists "capitalists" when they "have thoroughly subverted any principles that capitalism professes to be predicated on," but when real-world socialists thoroughly subvert any principles that socialism professes to be predicated on, you don't see this as a hit against socialism?

and moreover with capitalism going full speed ahead in the process of effecting its own and humanity's ecological self-destruction

Any society that lacks a means of making industrialists pay the costs of damage they do to the environment is going to suffer from this problem. Either (reasonably successful) socialism or (reasonably successful) libertarianism could avert this better than the current system, but which would do so better is a matter of debate.

Regardless, I think that the odds that pollution poses an existential risk (as opposed to "merely" a global catastrophic risk) are very low.

you still wish to play the socialism-doesn't-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-isn't-viable card, you think it's a brilliant idea to fling that particular polemical stone?! Well, take a look about you, my dear booster of capitalism, and take notice of the fact that you very much reside in an ideological glass house.

I think that this is to some extent a legitimate criticism. However, socialism has dropped the ball harder. There has never been a society in which there was widespread agreement on "libertarianism" (as opposed to naive capitalism), whereas there have been societies that explicitly aimed at socialism and failed.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:53:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/24/2013 1:43:33 AM, charleslb wrote:

You didn't take my point, that you're not at all privileged to pose such a question/challenge, since you can't very well name one either economically, ecologically, or humanly genuinely successful society.

This is true to some extent, but you're assuming that "successful" is an all or nothing trait. You can have a sliding scale of success. Over the past century, societies that called themselves "socialist" have tended to end up lower and the scale than societies that called themselves "capitalist." This is not a definitive argument by any means, but if you don't see it is a prima facie hit to your model at all then I don't see how you can be the one accusing me of dogmatism.

Well, at least you haven't denied that capitalism subverts and scuttles its own principles and haven't played the global warming denier, i.e., denied that industrial capitalism is in the process of causing an ecological catastrophe that will do in human civilization

Global warming denial now means denying that global warming will destroy human civilization? I suppose that predicting a few hundred trillion dollars in cumulative damage and millions of deaths isn't enough anymore...

(which would truly be about as idiotic and heinous as being a Holocaust denier);

Obviously false. The evidence that the Holocaust happened is a least slightly better, although that's not the main problem. Holocaust denial is significantly more heinous than global warming denial because it is usually motivated racism and hatred, it belittles the suffering of millions of people, and twists history to defend a regime that aimed at genocide and world domination. If you think that global warming denial is at all comparable to this (or that modern capitalism is comparable to Nazism), then you have no sense of proportionality.

no, you haven't denied any of this, you've just conveniently and facilely glossed over it. Really now, did you think that I didn't notice.

This is DDO. Never assume malice where assuming stupidity will suffice.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 2:18:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/24/2013 10:02:12 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:24:51 AM, Noumena wrote:

Your argument isn't intersubjective, because it is based on opinion. Anecdotal arguments hold greater weight than opinion, because they at least assert something that not only could be, but has been.

I backed it up by recourse to discourse ethics. You not agreeing doesn't make it an opinion of mine.

No, you're not right. Those are entirely separate institutions. There are completely separate laws at the state and federal level, for example. This is why marijuana remains federally illegal, but legal in some states.

They're not synonymous in every respect, but if I refer to the government of the United States, you know what I'm talking about, even if there are separate functioning entities as a part of it.

You're going to have to explain that, because you're essentially saying, "there's a strong current of libertarianism that isn't like any other interpretation of libertarianism, and magically fixes everything." The various governments of the United States are open to corporate manipulation, because this is a mercantile society drawn from a capitalist paradigm. Removing the government doesn't change that.

Didn't say anything about magic. In fact, I specifically referred to the repealment of policies that serve to entrench established corporate interests i.e., regulatory cartelizatoin via licensing requirements, IP enforcement leading to monopoly pricing, externalization of transportation costs (vie publicly funded roads) for trans-state/national corporations, artificially shrinking the labor market via immigration restrictions, age requirements, minimum wage, etc. etc. etc. Corporate capitalism didn't arise spontaneously on the free market. It was established by policies like these that keep big business up and running. Further, I don't see how the fact that it's different from other strands makes it less legitimate as a strand of libertarianism but whatevs.

Monocentrically? Monocentricism is literally the belief that one should only make personal agreements on a private level, then allow a third party, usually in the form of a cartel, to enforce those agreements. Which, of course, is a terrible idea, and leads to a society run by an organized criminal organization, rather than a government.

Is there a difference? Lol obviously you think so. But monocentrism in the legal sense is how I'm using it. It refers to a legal system wherein a single institution (even one as diverse as the U.S. government) has ultimate decision making authority in terms of policy, law, etc.


But, I do realize that what you're really trying to say is that this society is unilateralist, which is preposterous. There are fifty states in this country, each with their own cultures, constitutions, laws, and law enforcement. The FBI doesn't simply circumambulate regular streets of any given city looking for federal laws to enforce.

The Federal government has decision making authority over the States. See the drug war. Also, I fail to see how you can really say that Florida isn't a part of the U.S.

Since you called yourself a libertarian, and I already explained that.

Drone-bombing children? That isn't a service, that's a military action, and libertarianism, for all intents and purposes, is entirely irrelevant to foreign relations. In fact, foreign relation is libertarianism's greatest weakness. In any case, funding social services like roads and schools is nothing like funding drone strikes. That is a terribly misleading equivocation.

You said I was tasked with showing why services provided by the government can and would be provided without it. I was pointing out that I don't need to do that for EVERYTHING. If you're wondering how schools and roads would be funded absent a State, refer to grocery stores, cars, food, and pretty much every other good and service produced. Tell me how those arise on the market and you'll have your answer.

Yeah, non-states like who? Some entity that has authority designated by the people, with a written constitution that determines that authority, as well as the rights of the people to limit that authority, and which are paid for by the people to maintain that authority? That's called a government.

When did I say that's what a non-State is?

Of course they are. It's called citizenship.

Of course you don't. Instead, you lay the sidewalk, and if I walk on it, I help pay for it. there is nothing wrong with that.

Yeah there is, since I didn't contract your services for that sidewalk, therefore I'm not obliged to pay you. If I ask you to do that and you do, we have a legitimate service/payment relationship.

National defense is not forced on anyone. If you don't want to be defended by this country, then leave this country.

Presupposing dat State legitimacy again.

No, it's not. As you agree to be a citizen (parents decide that for natives when they're too young to decide for themselves), you agree to services it entails.

You said I agree to be a citizen and then right after said it was decided for me. Wut.

Oh, really? Just claiming that taxes are wrong do not entail normative validity, either. You're not right just because you think you're right. However, that's how you're approaching this conversation. If we were to completely remove the pleonasm from your responses, all they would say is, "well, you're wrong because I'm right, and I make sense, and I'm the only authority on what's right and what makes sense."

See my discourse ethics point from ages ago which you never responded to.

False.

Yes, they can. You can either live off the grid or leave. "It isn't desirous" isn't an argument, it is literally a concession.

Presupposing ontological supremacy and legitimacy of the State agaiiin. *yawn*
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 2:54:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/24/2013 1:53:31 PM, Grape wrote:
Obviously false. The evidence that the Holocaust happened is a least slightly better, although that's not the main problem. Holocaust denial is significantly more heinous than global warming denial because it is usually motivated racism and hatred, it belittles the suffering of millions of people, and twists history to defend a regime that aimed at genocide and world domination. If you think that global warming denial is at all comparable to this (or that modern capitalism is comparable to Nazism), then you have no sense of proportionality.

I think climate change denial is worse. 'belittling suffering' and 'twisting history' is a lesser crime than helping the spread of a movement which is actively preventing efforts to prevent an environmental disaster whose predictive estimates from reliable sources range from disastrous to catastrophic, especially for the poorest countries that don't have the funds to construct sea barriers or infrastructure resistant to extreme weather conditions, or the agricultural technology to tide them through droughts and crop failures. Obviously, it will also hugely depress economic growth in countries that need to spend the money on things like that - yes, on the order of hundreds of trillions of dollars. So, massive economic damage + mass starvation among other forms of humanitarian disasters vs denying a historical event.

Holocaust denial isn't a defense of the holocaust because denial implies an admission that the thing being denied was terrible and immoral. So even if it is construed as a defense of Nazism, which from what I've seen isn't at all always true, it isn't as bad as climate change denial.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.