Why are you a libertarian?

[shanek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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]

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,

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]

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.

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.

 

[shanek]

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]

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:

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.

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.

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).

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!

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... [insert mischaracterizations]."

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 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".

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

(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 "[Insert chuckle here]" 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 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.

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.