07-01-2003 10:35									#301
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ned -

quote: I think I mentioned something about diminished capacity awhile back. Not worth a response?

If they violate a contract, they should be held to account, not the millions who didn't violate the contract. I see you are intent on punishing the innocent because of the guilty. Maybe you would change your mind if you were the one being put in a cage because someone else committed a crime.

	07-01-2003 10:38									#302
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ted - you ignore my posts, I'll ignore yours, hypocrite.

	07-01-2003 10:40									#303
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

	07-01-2003 10:42									#304
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - you ignore my posts, I'll ignore yours, hypocrite.

I didn't ignore a thing.

Nice attempt to weasel out of the argument though.

	07-01-2003 10:51									#305
	Got spare money?

quote: If you chose to push a button, yes.

Oh my, I was under the impression I have to push it.

quote: Why do you only get two choices? Not pushing a button is always a choice...

Wow, I didn't know this, oh man!! Life is so wonderful, I was so worried for a moment, but wow, how wonderfully it turned out! No one has to die!!

quote: So does the hypothetical, but I can see why y'all are having a fit over our answer.

Mainly because you didn't answer the question asked, rather you changed it.

But it's so cool that you did, since, you have given me a excellent idea. An idea that I may be able to use in real life. When I grow old and If I get a bad disease, cancer or whatever, and doctor gives me two(2) options, to die to it naturally or with the help of medicine, which will make it less painless death. Instead of these, I choose to get magically cured.

	07-01-2003 10:51									#306
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Graag You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

There's only so many ways you can call people hypocrites but I'm always impressed by the variety that Hypzerker brings to table.

	07-01-2003 11:22									#307
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Agathon -

quote: Look at the amount of litter on any downtown street.

Why? Government deals with litter, not social sanctions.

quote: Libertarian!?!

Are you going to quote the LP platform's endorsement of legalising pollution?

quote: I never said we have a right to pollute, I said it that the prisoner's dilemma shows that it is rational to pollute - i.e. in a voluntary system there is incentive to pollute.

But you said these PD's you are offering prove a contradiction in the libertarian philosophy. So where in the LP platform did you find a right to pollute? Now it seems you are more intent on posting PD's than proving your argument.

quote: Only a coercive state system can remove that incentive by forcing massive penalties onto violators.

And?

quote: One more then...

Geez, how about just one.

quote: OK - you tell me exactly how much Mrs S that lives in Chicago has contributed to my ill health by driving her SUV and not only exactly how much air pollution Phillip Morris is responsible for, but exactly how much that one company has cost you?

Why? Are you willing to be sued for your pollution? As I said, pollution is a matter for regulation because we all pollute. Once those regulations are in place, then we can go after violaters.

quote: The reason that it works in the courts now is that the fines regarding air pollution are primarily meant to deter and they are coercively and somewhat arbitrarily enforced by the state for that reason.

Yes, and?

quote: Now any bleeding idiot that knows anything about Libertarianism knows that the violation of individual rights are the only ground for compensation - not deterrence.

Really? So we would have laws against murder only to compensate the victim who is no longer here to collect?

quote: Deterrence just aims to stop the offending behaviour. The Libertarian system recompenses people for the violation of their rights, the destruction of their property.

We certainly would where possible. If someone knocks down your fence with their car, they get to pay for the damage. Is that any different than what we do now?

quote: It is immoral under a Libertarian system to set up sanctions just as deterrents (imagine the massive violations of liberty that would result if people were fined too much for polluting) although any sanction has some deterrent value.

Why is it immoral to use sanctions as deterrents?

quote: As it stands awards for pollution are fairly arbitrary anyway since it is impossible to sort out whose air pollution has affected whom

That's right, so we focus on the most blatant offenders and fine (or jail) them.

quote: Oh blah blah blah blah.

That's the most rational statement you've made so far in this thread (hope I used your exact words).

quote: I not going to bother with the rest it's just more tired old c*** that misses the point I was making.

Does that mean you are giving up trying to prove that libertarianism is contradictory?

quote: i suggest you read my original posts again.

Will I find the PD you claim proves your proposition that libertarianism is contradictory?

quote: After all Ned got it

He can't figure out the immorality of punishing the innocent because of the guilty, so you'd do better than citing him. But I'd be happy to read his endorsement of your position.

quote: so I can't have been that opaque, but then again he appears to be smarter and better mannered than you.

Hmm...insults in a sentence calling me bad-mannered, lol.

	07-01-2003 11:25									#308
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Don't be ridiculous. DinoDoc made that argument in my name. I made a completely different argument. Respond to mine, not the stupid one he made.

One stupid arguement is as good as the next David.

	07-01-2003 11:26									#309
	Suffering from ads?

Graag -

quote: You know, Berz, it's lucky you're around. I've been lurking this thread for a while, and you seem to say roughly what I would but in a much more articulate fashion. Keep up the good work.

Thx

	07-01-2003 11:26									#310
	Got spare money?

I see only one problem with Libertarians: they believe their personal freedoms to be more important than anything else in society... and that's just selfish. I agree with the social aspects of libertarianism (drug legalization, prostitution, etc) because government should not preach morality, especially the morality of a few religious, self-righteous Christians; but their economic policies, in practice, only foster an anarchistic society where the rich, producers, get to exploit workers and extort consumers.

social libertarianism
economic libertarianism

	07-01-2003 11:32									#311
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ted -

quote: I didn't ignore a thing.

Yes you did.

quote: Nice attempt to weasel out of the argument though

What argument? That opium can be harmful? I never said otherwise, we were debating the validity of an emperor's motives...Too bad you never responded to my arguments about the drug war.

	07-01-2003 11:37									#312
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Graag - Thx

Hmm, having made that post I feel the need to qualify it somewhat...
I personally am an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Though largely Berz's refutations (is that a word?) apply to my political beliefs... and libertarianism is easier to argue for, as anarchy just confuses people.

	07-01-2003 11:39									#313
	Increase Your PM Length

Sava -

quote: I see only one problem with Libertarians: they believe their personal freedoms to be more important than anything else in society... and that's just selfish.

Would you spend the rest of your life as a slave to better society? These freedoms you apparently consider unimportant are yours too, you know.

quote: I agree with the social aspects of libertarianism (drug legalization, prostitution, etc) because government should not preach morality, especially the morality of a few religious, self-righteous Christians; but their economic policies, in practice, only foster an anarchistic society where the rich, producers, get to exploit workers and extort consumers.

But you want the government to preach your morality by outlawing "selfish" freedoms? Why are the freedoms you want preserved "unselfish" while the freedoms you don't want preserved are "selfish"?

	07-01-2003 11:42									#314
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Graag -

quote: and libertarianism is easier to argue for, as anarchy just confuses people.

Hehe, are you a Ramo/Boshko type anarchist?

	07-01-2003 11:50									#315
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Tiny -

quote: Oh my, I was under the impression I have to push it.

Then it isn't a choice now, is it.

quote: Wow, I didn't know this, oh man!! Life is so wonderful, I was so worried for a moment, but wow, how wonderfully it turned out! No one has to die!!

You didn't know a choice to act includes a choice not to act? Well, live and learn... I refer you to a song by Rush called "Freewill".

quote: Mainly because you didn't answer the question asked, rather you changed it.

David and I are smart enough to know the question is flawed. Just how will this killer posing the question force us to "choose" if we don't make a "choice"?

quote: But it's so cool that you did, since, you have given me a excellent idea. An idea that I may be able to use in real life. When I grow old and If I get a bad disease, cancer or whatever, and doctor gives me two(2) options, to die to it naturally or with the help of medicine, which will make it less painless death. Instead of these, I choose to get magically cured.

Why not, the question you want us to answer is also magical, so I suppose a magical cure is possible in your magical world..

	07-01-2003 11:53									#316
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Graag - Hehe, are you a Ramo/Boshko type anarchist?

I'd need some qualification on that...
I am an anarchist in the most extreame sense of the term. I don't believe in the middle ground

	07-01-2003 11:57									#317
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ted -

quote: There's only so many ways you can call people hypocrites but I'm always impressed by the variety that Hypzerker brings to table

Hmm...I think I've called only you (and possibly MRT) hypocrites, but since the shoe fits...It is hypocrisy to tell me to provide links for my arguments after telling me to look up links to support yours. It is hypocrisy to chastise me for not responding to your posts after you ignore mine.

	07-01-2003 11:59									#318
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Graag -

quote: I'd need some qualification on that... I am an anarchist in the most extreame sense of the term. I don't believe in the middle ground

Lol, I think that middle ground is called libertarianism. Ramo and Boshko sound like die hard anarchists, and I'm pretty close.

	07-01-2003 12:07									#319
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Die hard
Thats how I'd describe my stance.

	07-01-2003 12:13									#320
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that my question got buried on page 12.

quote: Now for a libertarian question that has been on my mind for sometime now, "Would thalidomide have been banned in a libertarian state in an action similar to what the FDA took?"

	07-01-2003 12:38									#321
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Then it isn't a choice now, is it

It's not? If you have 2 things to choose from, and you pick one, what is that called? A choice? Well, is it a truly free choice? Of course not. You are also welcome to look up "choice" in a dictionary.

quote: You didn't know a choice to act includes a choice not to act? Well, live and learn... I refer you to a song by Rush called "Freewill".

I thought the settings of the question ruled it out.

quote: David and I are smart enough to know the question is flawed. Just how will this killer posing the question force us to "choose" if we don't make a "choice"?

Excellent! Now why didn't you just plain said this in the first place? Do you think this about freewill? The conditions of question rules out freewill, sorry. Just admit you can't answer the question with the conditions. If your so smart why didn't you understand the question?

quote: Why not, the question you want us to answer is also magical, so I suppose a magical cure is possible in your magical world..

Again making things up? What magical world? My magical world, what the hell? The question is not magical, it does have odd conditions however, but it's not supposed to be in magical world.
Well, I'm off to "my magical world", you are just too much

	07-01-2003 12:41									#322
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Oh crap, you're right. I saw that and wanted to respond but got lost in all the other posts.

No, it would not have been banned. The FDA should be reduced to testing and advising us on products, not deciding what we can or cannot use. More people have been killed by the FDA than saved IMO. Ever hear an FDA official at a press conference tell us how 50,000 people will be saved next year with the approval of a new drug? What about the 50,000 who died the year before, and the 50,000 the year before that, and so on...I have and I think about all the people who died waiting for the FDA approval (permission)...

	07-01-2003 12:46									#323
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker No, it would not have been banned.

What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry? I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

	07-01-2003 12:57									#324
	Tired of ads?

Tiny -

quote: It's not? If you have 2 things to choose from, and you pick one, what is that called? A choice? Well, is it a truly free choice? Of course not. You are also welcome to look up "choice" in a dictionary.

Yes, by all means, show us in the dictionary where you found "must" and "choose" under the definition of "choice".

quote: I thought the settings of the question ruled it out.

That's why the question is flawed.

quote: Excellent! Now why didn't you just plain said this in the first place? Do you think this about freewill?

Choice is about freewill, telling a person they must choose is an oxy-moron.

quote: The conditions of question rules out freewill

Which is why the question is not about a choice.

quote: sorry. Just admit you can't answer the question with the conditions.

Why? If I have a choice, I choose not to participate.

quote: If your so smart why didn't you understand the question?

I did understand it just as I understand the person asking the question cannot compel me to commit murder and call it a "choice".

quote: Again making things up? What magical world? My magical world, what the hell?

You were the one who introduced magic, not me. I'm just responding...

quote: The question is not magical, it does have odd conditions however, but it's not supposed to be in magical world.

Then why refer to my answer as magical?

quote: Well, I'm off to "my magical world", you are just too much

Another one bites the dust...

	07-01-2003 12:58									#325
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry? I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

Well you could simply have the FDA test medicines and mark them "FDA approved", and anything else you would buy at your own risk...

	07-01-2003 13:07									#326
	Got spare money?

Dinodoc -

quote: What recourse would you allow people harmed, sometimes ermanently so, buy unsafe products brought to market if FDA approval is not a requirement for the drug industry?

The same they have even when the product has FDA approval - civil lawsuit. But notice how we can't sue the FDA?

quote: I will grant you strengthening of the FDA when the thalidomide scare hit the fan was likely unneeded given the sucess of the previous regime.

Thalidomide was banned, but remained legal in Europe I believe. People in this country still got it though, but tragedies like that certainly do lead to increases in federal power, quite understandable. But I not only fear giving government the power to decide what we can ingest, I fear the fact that people start losing their sense of personal responsibility and wariness as the state becomes our protector.

	07-01-2003 13:11									#327
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Shi Huangdi -

quote: Well you could simply have the FDA test medicines and mark them "FDA approved", and anything else you would buy at your own risk...

Yup, I don't know if that would help reduce potential corruption at the FDA, but at least people would have the option of waiting for approval or jumping the gun a bit as their hopes diminish.

	07-01-2003 19:17									#328
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange One_Brow - that assumes that, if forced to choose between killing one person and killing two people, you'd choose randomly.

Since I can never have perfect standards or complete knowledge of who deserves to live/die, it is fairly random regardless.

quote: I don't know about you, but I'd choose killing one in such a situation. Why? Becuase it is better to have two survivors than one.

Since there over four billion people on earth, you'd have, for example, 4,000,000,022 survivors instead of 4,000,000,021 survivors.

	07-01-2003 19:19									#329
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis If One_Brow would have power to adjust laws by his logic, then serial killers would have a blast

Perhaps it would be that one-time killers would receive the same degree of punishment as serial killers...

	07-01-2003 19:38									#330
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: quote: Originally posted by One_Brow All of these arguments are based on a horribly evil premise: that human life has a finite value. This would mean that if you add up 2, or 12, or 50 thousand, or 50 billion violations of free speech, you eventrually get up to the moral equivalent of murder. However, if human life is considered to be of infinite value N, and the removal of it of value -N, than 5* -N is still -N, when N is infinite. IOWs, a five-fold infinity is no larger than the original infinity. Further, by killing an inocent yourself, your tarnish your own self to that degree, while removing none of the stain from the man who creates the threat. While I might be wrong, I have the feeling David Floyd also sees human life as having infinite value, and has gotten to the right conclusion without the mathematical training. There is no such premise. All that is being compared are rights violations.

The "rights violation" for ending a human life is still infinite.

quote: If you can't see that the Holocaust was worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife then I'm afraid there is no help for you.

We were discussing the murder of random individuals. I would say "Joe Bloggs killing his wife" is equally bad.

However, the Holocaust is an entirely different level of evil, the attempted extermination of a genetic lineage. This would have a stirctly larger infinite value than the random killings of individuals. IOWs, no number of simply random killings is as terrible as the Holocaust.