08-01-2003 11:18									#391
	Got spare money?

Orange -

quote: Very good way of turning this into a real world scenario Couldn't think of one myself.

Thx.

quote: I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Well, I did say that I only "believed" I would have her blessing, but I could have made that clear.

quote: I very much agree. Those are my feelings as well. You must admit, however, that there is the possibility that the person would not be willing to die, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Again, assume no communication with this individual.

True, which is why my perspective has to change when I become the button pusher and not the person being sacrificed since I can no longer know for sure if they would give me their blessing to end their life in exchange for the others. But if they were going to die anyway, their blessing is no longer a determining factor.

quote: I realize this. You wouldn't be 'immoral' for not doing anything, in my opinion. I feel, however, that most people would rationally choose to save the greatest number possible.

Oh, sure, I was talking about saving the group and not the 1 person, not standing by. I do believe we would have a moral obligation to try and save the group since that is the essence of the Golden Rule which I consider a valid basis for morality.

	08-01-2003 11:32									#392
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Orange -

quote: By some value of time, i meant something short...10 seconds was what I was getting at...basically trying to separate the two events so that it would be you killing someone else, rather than hitting a button 'as he dies'. Still interested to see what Berzerker thinks about that. And One_Brow. I'll check back tomorrow and see if the thread is still floating around.

It will be I'm sure, but are you referring back to the first hypothetical? Actually be forced by someone to push 1 of 2 buttons to kill either 1 person or 99? I would refuse and try to kill the person putting me in that position. Any murder committed is by the hand of that person with those lousy buttons, not me.

Thx Obiwan.

David -

quote: Again, though, that isn't an act of murder, because the mother is going to die of natural causes at roughly the same time - she is not going to be murdered, therefore you aren't separating the acts.

True, the taking of life in that situation is beyond human control, only saving the baby is within human control.

	08-01-2003 11:41									#393
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - You want me to identify a post you never posted?

No, you have to find YOUR post and tell me which one I ignored. But you can't do that.

quote: So I'm supposed to quote a post you never made?

Again, see above. You know, your answers remind me of Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. It was with the lips, so, that does not count as sex."

quote: That's quite a statement coming after your accusation that my lengthy line by line rebuttals should be ignored, hypocrite.

Give me the exact quote where I said your statements should be ignored.

quote: You said the dust bowl occured under laissez faire - wrong.

I was referring to the FARM SYSTEM in particular.

quote: Wrong. We weren't under a laissez faire system,

Tell me what regulations were in place on the farming system. Regulations = no lazziez faire.

By the way, farmers were overburdening their land because they were making money responding to the markets.

quote: government intervention was involved with that "greedy land mismanagement".

How? I want DIRECT intervention into the farming industry in particular. Easy money theory doesn't count as easy money was available in every sector.

quote: If you need the obvious expalined to you, that government intervention also caused the Depression.

Any scholar will tell you you can't pin the Depression soley on government intervention. Again, you're taking that one-dimensional view on things.

quote: The Federal Reserve system and banking practices under government regulation contributed to "greedy land mismanagement".

Tell me how a bank tells farmers how to farm the land? Banks loan money. Again, we are talking specific to the farming system. I'm not disupting that loose money was a problem for EVERY SECTOR during the 20s. But it's not the sole cause. I can go get some sources if you want.

Does the bank tell farmers to uproot trees that serve as windbreakers?

quote: Which is true. On the one hand you claim that greedy mismanagement caused the dust bowl which you blame on laissez faire,

No I don't. Those factors along did not cause the Dust Bowl. The drought and subsequent flooding were the primary causes. HOWEVER, the poor land management (no regulations regarding how to take care of the land) made the situation much worse than it needed to be.

No regulations = lazziez faire

quote: So if you're going to blame the dust bowl on an economic system, blame the economic system in place at the time, not a system that did not exist at the time.

I never put the whole blame on the economic system. Again, I am referring to the farming system specifically. Then later I pointed out how government intervention programs like land conservation programs have kept another Dust Bowl from happening again.

Regarding the droughts, The Dust Bowl droughts occurred in three waves -- 1934, 1936, and 1939-40. There was PLENTY of time to recover the land between waves.

I don't know where you were going with that Yosemite connection but the drought affected most of the country.

quote: I asked if their was any subsequent drought impacting a similar sized area for a roughly equal amount of time, did you cite such a drought?

The 1950s drought went on for 5 years and covered the a same sized area. 5 years straight with no time to recover yet the land did not blow away. Why is that?

quote: In the aftermath of the Dust Bowl, it was clear that many factors contributed to the severe impact of this drought. A better understanding of the interactions between the natural elements (climate, plants, and soil) and human-related elements (agricultural practices, economics, and social conditions)of the Great Plains was needed. Lessons were learned, and because of this drought, farmers adopted new cultivation methods to help control soil erosion in dry land ecosystems. Subsequent droughts in this region have had less impact due to these cultivation practices.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drou...ht_history.html

	08-01-2003 11:45									#394
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

19th Century drug use numbers, please.

	08-01-2003 12:01									#395
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

bezerker...sucks when people beat you at your own game?

	08-01-2003 12:05									#396
	Inflate your Upload Space

www.aegis.com/factshts/niaid/1995/ niaid95_fact_sheet_hivaids_22.html

"The widespread use of opiates in the United States has existed since the middle of the 19th century (Courtwright, 1982); as many as 313,000 Americans were addicted to opium and morphine prior to 1914."

http://www.ccsa.ca/docs/horiz2e.htm

"The few studies done on opiate use in the 1880's revealed that women users outnumbered men two to one."

No citation unfortunately, but the article also available off-line

Edited by David Hewitt, Garry Vinje, and Patricia MacNeil
Health Canada (1995); ISBN 1-896323-10-3; Cat. No. H39-307/2-1996E; Published under Canada's Drug Strategy
Available from Health Canada in PDF format

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990709.html

"At the beginning of the 19th century drug addiction was rare in the English-speaking world, but at the end of the century it was common, at least in the United States. By a conservative estimate the U.S. had 200,000 addicts in 1900, with most of the increase coming in the late 1800s. The Civil War is often blamed for this, and in fact, after the war it's said that many called morphine addiction "the army disease."

Again, no source listed.

Don't know if this helps or hinders your point, Ted

Google

	08-01-2003 12:30									#397
	Put an end to popups!

Ted -

quote: No, you have to find YOUR post and tell me which one I ignored. But you can't do that.

I can, I just won't.

quote: Again, see above.

Again, see above.

quote: Give me the exact quote where I said your statements should be ignored.

Nope, you won't provide links when asked, I won't either. But you did tell Monkspider he was right to ignore my lengthy rebuttals.

quote: I was referring to the FARM SYSTEM in particular.

So what? The farm system didn't exist in a laissez faire system.

quote: Tell me what regulations were in place on the farming system. Regulations = no lazziez faire.

I've already told you I won't do research for you since you told me to do your research. But I don't have to do any research, we had a Federal Reserve system and banking regulations and a government induced Depression, only a fool would claim that had absolutely no effect on farming practices.

quote: By the way, farmers were overburdening their land because they were making money responding to the markets.

Markets involving banks and regulations before and during a Depression. Btw, it's my understanding that it wasn't "easy money" that caused the Depression, but a restriction of money that followed the easy money. But regardless, the Depression was induced by government monetary policy and that in turn effected the farming industry.

quote: Any scholar will tell you you can't pin the Depression soley on government intervention. Again, you're taking that one-dimensional view on things.

"Soley"? What happened to your claim that we were under a laissez faire system?

quote: Tell me how a bank tells farmers how to farm the land?

You were the one who claimed "greedy mismanagement" induced by laissez faire contributed to the dust bowl. Why did one economic system that wasn't in place cause this but not the economic system of intervention in the economy that was in place?

quote: Banks loan money.

And farmers have to pay off loans. Remember that "greedy mismanagement"? We could go back to "share cropping" policies if you want, but to argue the system in place was laissez faire is false.

quote: Does the bank tell farmers to uproot trees that serve as windbreakers?

They might if that loan needed paying off and the farmer needed more space for crops to pay the loan. The choice of which crops to grow matters too, some crops are better for soil conservation.

quote: No I don't. Those factors along did not cause the Dust Bowl. The drought and subsequent flooding were the primary causes. HOWEVER, the poor land management (no regulations regarding how to take care of the land) made the situation much worse than it needed to be.

You're assuming land management decisions were made in a laissez faire system, they weren't.

quote: I never put the whole blame on the economic system. Again, I am referring to the farming system specifically. Then later I pointed out how government intervention programs like land conservation programs have kept another Dust Bowl from happening again.

You keep wanting to seperate how farms were operated from the economic system in place at the time, it can't be done because laissez faire wasn't the system farms were being operated under.

quote: Regarding the droughts, The Dust Bowl droughts occurred in three waves -- 1934, 1936, and 1939-40. There was PLENTY of time to recover the land between waves.

As Strangelove pointed out, it began in '31. Severity undoubtedly fluctuated, but the links I was reading said it was a decade long drought, from '31 to WWII.

quote: I don't know where you were going with that Yosemite connection but the drought affected most of the country.

I heard the drought was regional, the Rockies area, and it culminated (as far as symbolism goes) with the firestorm in Yellowstone. But that firestorm was the result of government intervention just as the more recent firestorms in the four corners area.

quote: The 1950s drought went on for 5 years and covered the a same sized area. 5 years straight with no time to recover yet the land did not blow away. Why is that?

Where was this drought? The bread basket of the country? Or was it the plains where natural grasses cover much the land? Maybe the mountain states where there isn't alot of soil? I'm not sure why all this matters, your last quote/link says farmers adopted better means of farming, not that government required they change. And if it did, it was based on what farmers were advising.

quote: In the aftermath of the Dust Bowl, it was clear that many factors contributed to the severe impact of this drought. A better understanding of the interactions between the natural elements (climate, plants, and soil) and human-related elements (agricultural practices, economics, and social conditions)of the Great Plains was needed. Lessons were learned, and because of this drought, farmers adopted new cultivation methods to help control soil erosion in dry land ecosystems.

	08-01-2003 12:38									#398
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Obiwan -

quote: "At the beginning of the 19th century drug addiction was rare in the English-speaking world, but at the end of the century it was common, at least in the United States. By a conservative estimate the U.S. had 200,000 addicts in 1900, with most of the increase coming in the late 1800s. The Civil War is often blamed for this, and in fact, after the war it's said that many called morphine addiction "the army disease."

Yes, a government intervention extraordinaire spiked addiction rates with more than a million wounded soldiers seeking relief from their agony. But in the 1820's, alcoholism was extremely high and resulted in a true temperance movement, i.e., non-governmental, which greatly reduced alcoholism rates. Unfortunately those numbers don't include other drugs like pot, booze, and tobacco.

	08-01-2003 13:08									#399
	Put an end to popups!

Berzerker- your argument's not with me. I just like to keep the ball rolling.

As for the existence of two temperence movements- you learn something new everyday. I knew about the later one near the turn of the century, because women were highly involved.

My thesis on this issue is that while addiction can be exacerbated by environmental conditions, (just look at Apolyton), people always have a choice whether or not to partake. Both are a factor.

BTW how many of Speer's threads have a chance to reach 500?



Today I become a Warlord

	08-01-2003 14:08									#400
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Obiwan - hehe, warlord at last.

The "Soldier's Disease" has become a political football as the link to the Schaeffer Library in your "Straightdope" link explains, but it seems quite sensible to accept that the US Civil War created an artificial spike in opiate addiction rates. But the number of opiate addicts in 1900 (200,000) with a population of ~75 million translates into about 800,000 opiate addicts today even with the likely increase resulting from the Civil War population.

So, are there fewer than 800,000 addicts today?

Here's an interesting link:

quote: It is probably not a good idea to tell our children the truth; that would clearly be sending them the wrong message. How, for example, could they deal with the fact that in 1914 when drugs were available on grocery store shelves and without prescription at the local pharmacy, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, just before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%.

http://www.lindesmith.org/library/judge_kane2.cfm

	09-01-2003 03:21									#401
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Let me first start by spamming... The 400th post belongs to me! (calc flashes a victory sign)

quote: Originally posted by orange In other words, the death of one person and the deaths of many people are equally undesirable to you - and faced with the spiderman scenario - you would choose randomly?

Yes. But small things might count. I may like the sweater the third person on the group wears. Or individual might be wearing a team hat and I may like that team. It all depends. But not according to morals.

quote: This part makes me think that you would simply not chose either. Now, morals aside (that I don't care about for now, as they're all different) if you feel it equally undesirable for either the individual or the group to die, why wouldn't you at least act to save one of them? Or is the undesirability of the deaths infinite, so that whether you save either or neither the end result is the same? If so, wouldn't you choose randomly, but including the option not to do anything?

Which scneario is this? spiderman or the "kill one or I will kill ten"? In the threat scenario, doing nothing saves the individual. And I have to do nothing to save him. I also told you already, that I get an additional bonus of spiting the one whos imposing this scenario one me as well.

quote: You see, you wouldn't simply choose to do nothing. You would choose randomly between the three options (save A, save B, save neither) since all three lead to equally undesirable results. You can't say that you would choose to save neither, because that suggests another variable. Either you feel choosing neither provides a sense of justification to your choice (I couldn't save both, so I chose neither, to not 'play God') or for some other reason.

Well its very possible, that I may not choose to save neither. I'll have to weigh wether act of my altruism overweighs my desire to do nothing.

quote: laws have no bearing on this hypothetical. Irrelevant information.

I noticed. Therefore I said, even if this did not weigh in, it would not change my decision.

	09-01-2003 03:47									#402
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"Of course the deputy was a strait-laced, moralistic type who had no tolerance for human frailties, save his own. The deputy lusted in his heart, but his first act was to arrest an individual for violating an old statute prohibiting pre-marital intercourse."

"the need to treat drug users and decrease the demand for drugs instead of vainly attempting to attack the supply side."

Very interesting. A lawyer who cites literature? I think I could get along with someone like this.

That 1.3% quote seems to suggest some inherent human weakness, but there are three ways to respond to the example of the Duke.

1. There is no morality, or at least no morality that can be enforced.

2. People can continue to try to create other 'perfect people.' If we can't stop the production, we can try to fix people ourselves.

3. Help from somewhere else.

	09-01-2003 04:01									#403
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Calc II Let me first start by spamming... The 400th post belongs to me! (calc flashes a victory sign) Yes. But small things might count. I may like the sweater the third person on the group wears. Or individual might be wearing a team hat and I may like that team. It all depends. But not according to morals. Which scneario is this? spiderman or the "kill one or I will kill ten"? In the threat scenario, doing nothing saves the individual. And I have to do nothing to save him. I also told you already, that I get an additional bonus of spiting the one whos imposing this scenario one me as well. Well its very possible, that I may not choose to save neither. I'll have to weigh wether act of my altruism overweighs my desire to do nothing. I noticed. Therefore I said, even if this did not weigh in, it would not change my decision.

For all posts you quoted I was asking about the spiderman scenario.

It is unfathomable to me that you would base a decision to save lives on the colour of a shirt or the decal on a hat. There is, in my opinion, a very large flaw in your mental process. It seems not that death is infinitely tragic to you, but rather, infinitely small in signifigance.

	09-01-2003 04:48									#404
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by orange For all posts you quoted I was asking about the spiderman scenario. It is unfathomable to me that you would base a decision to save lives on the colour of a shirt or the decal on a hat. There is, in my opinion, a very large flaw in your mental process. It seems not that death is infinitely tragic to you, but rather, infinitely small in signifigance.

Death is never infinitely small in significant for me. Death facinates me the most. I would not decide the fate of 2 people's life SOLELY on a insignificant preference such as a colour of a shirt. BUT being all things equal, I would as compared to a normal person who wouldnt dare think out loud in his head (but he would). Also, it was to emphasize that I do not believe in Utilitarinism (or whatever the philosophy of "greatest good for greatest mass" is). fate of 10 vs fate of 1 soley thus not create a tension in my morality.

You could say I have no price on what death is, therefore in my mind, 10 death isnt necessarily tens times the one death. You would ask then how I can compare to other things and determine wether I will commit to altruism or not. Death of an individual is seperate from my act of altruism. I can commit altruism and the person can still die. However, that is irrelevant from recieving the satisfaction that I have commited altruism. I dunno if you get me.

	09-01-2003 05:02									#405
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 1. There is no morality, or at least no morality that can be enforced.

Perhaps. I know now I contradict myself, but the reason why I came so strong with "morality is bull crap" was to incite people to post . For as long as I know, I have reviewed other people's morals and beliefs and I have found none to work in all cases and cannot be adopted universally. I have on the otherhand, found things to work just as well without morals. So unless someone corrects me or have a perfect defintion of what good morality is, I'll stick to mine thank you.

	09-01-2003 06:35									#406
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less - less liberty than more - and more property crimes than less. Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it? He still seems to think that his own moral purity counts more than the deaths of many times those he would have to kill. One murder to prevent a holocaust is one murder too many for him.

And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you. I'm getting tired of this - you don't seem to understand the point of the thought experiments - silly empirical objections or changing the example is missing the point. It's as if someone complained that Schrodinger's cat was a pointless thought experiment because no one would be cruel enough to do that to a cat.

As for the comments about the war situation being unrealistic. What you seem to be claiming is that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, they would never do anything bad to us - are you mad? What world do you live in?

Anyway, you don't have to bother with that if you don't want to. I'm more intrigued by this comment.

quote: Certainly you are morally responsible - you had the means at hand to prevent his death in a moral way. You wouldn't have had to drown someone to save your infant son. This scenario has nothing to do with the hypothetical.

So I should be punished if I let him die? Is that what you are saying?

Try this one:

Say my neighbour's kid falls hits his head at the public baths just as I walk in and I am, by accident rather than design the only adult there. Am I responsible, culpable and punishable if I stand by and enjoy watching the child drown (I might be a sadist). In other words do I have a moral obligation to save him and should I be had up for manslaughter if I don't?

Answer this and I won't bother you about any of the rest any more.

	09-01-2003 07:33									#407
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Agathon -

quote: Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less

No, he is "settling" for not committing murder as opposed to committing murder.

quote: Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it?

It's not about doing something to stop it, it's about murdering to stop it.

quote: He still seems to think that his own moral purity counts more than the deaths of many times those he would have to kill.

Those he would have to murder.

quote: One murder to prevent a holocaust is one murder too many for him.

Would you murder 100 people to save 101 people from being murdered?

quote: And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you. I'm getting tired of this - you don't seem to understand the point of the thought experiments - silly empirical objections or changing the example is missing the point.

Your failure to cite a PD proving your proposal that libertarianism is contradictory is hardly impressive.

	09-01-2003 07:59									#408
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - I can, I just won't.

Or because you can't.

quote: Nope, you won't provide links when asked, I won't either.

I did that one time. Of course if I was anal like you, I could argue how you just applied the plural word "links" to a one time occurance. On the other hand, I have provided an overwhelming number of links to back up my analysis.

quote: But you did tell Monkspider he was right to ignore my lengthy rebuttals.

Point it out please.

quote: only a fool would claim that had absolutely no effect on farming practices.

Ah, but again my Anal Friend, I never claimed that it didn't. I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically. And loose money sure as hell didn't CAUSE the Dust Bowl.

quote: But regardless, the Depression was induced by government monetary policy and that in turn effected the farming industry.

It's not that simple. Take any BASIC, elementary level history class, or, if you want, take an advanced level class, or, research the topic on your own. Oh, wait, you won't do research.

quote: You were the one who claimed "greedy mismanagement" induced by laissez faire contributed to the dust bowl.

That's right, I said greedy LAND mismanagement induced by the lassiez faire SPECIFIC to the farming sector, contributed to the dust bowl. The Dust Bowl was a recoverable situation but because of poor land management, the land was unrecoverable.

quote: You're assuming land management decisions were made in a laissez faire system, they weren't.

Farmers can't manage the land that they own?

quote: You keep wanting to seperate how farms were operated from the economic system in place at the time, it can't be done because laissez faire wasn't the system farms were being operated under.

I will meet you halfway on this and say that, some sectors are more heavily regulated than others. The farming sector post 1920s was more heavily regulated than before then, however there were few if any regulations regarding farming in early 20th century.

quote: I heard the drought was regional, the Rockies area, and it culminated (as far as symbolism goes) with the firestorm in Yellowstone. But that firestorm was the result of government intervention just as the more recent firestorms in the four corners area.

Well, again my sources differ from yours, as with the recounting of the Dust Bowl drought years.

quote: Where was this drought? The bread basket of the country?

Ironically, it was actually in the Southwest, where the Okies had retreated to after the Dust Bowl was wiped out. It covered 7 states and Cali and Texas were among them. It's thought of as the worst drought to ever hit that region. The worst of it hit in 1951-1956, but actually precipitation was really low as far back as 1942, so there was a dry period from 1942-1956, and then it was capped off in 1951-56. Remeber that California was and is the #1 agricultural state in the union. And those Southwestern states have all the big cattle ranches as well.

http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/...s/1950smap.html

	09-01-2003 08:51									#409
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ted -

quote: Or because you can't.

Where was your response to my post about the drug war and how it came about? Want more? Too bad.

quote: I did that one time.

Well, maybe you've learned a lesson, but I doubt it.

quote: Of course if I was anal like you, I could argue how you just applied the plural word "links" to a one time occurance.

You are anal, that's why you came up with that response.

quote: On the other hand, I have provided an overwhelming number of links to back up my analysis.

Who cares about your analysis about something irrelevant to the debate?

quote: Point it out please.

You already forgot applauding Monkspider for not responding to my lengthy rebuttals? Feel free to refresh your memory by re-reading your posts.

quote: Ah, but again my Anal Friend, I never claimed that it didn't. I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically. And loose money sure as hell didn't CAUSE the Dust Bowl.

Then why blame laissez faire? And it wasn't loose money, it was the contraction of the money supply following loose money I believe.

quote: It's not that simple. Take any BASIC, elementary level history class, or, if you want, take an advanced level class, or, research the topic on your own. Oh, wait, you won't do research.

I don't do your research.

quote: That's right, I said greedy LAND mismanagement induced by the lassiez faire SPECIFIC to the farming sector, contributed to the dust bowl.

Make up your "mind", you just got finished telling us the following - "I said that banking and Fed practices had affected EVERY sector, not just the farming sector specifically."

You haven't proven laissez faire was even involved, but you cite the government's intervention in the economy.

quote: The Dust Bowl was a recoverable situation but because of poor land management, the land was unrecoverable.

You keep repeating this as if it proves laissez faire was complicit.

quote: Farmers can't manage the land that they own?

Not if they don't own the land outright and have to manage it to comply with banking and federal reserve policies.

quote: I will meet you halfway on this and say that, some sectors are more heavily regulated than others. The farming sector post 1920s was more heavily regulated than before then, however there were few if any regulations regarding farming in early 20th century.

Then laissez faire is not to blame.

quote: Ironically, it was actually in the Southwest, where the Okies had retreated to after the Dust Bowl was wiped out. It covered 7 states and Cali and Texas were among them. It's thought of as the worst drought to ever hit that region. The worst of it hit in 1951-1956, but actually precipitation was really low as far back as 1942, so there was a dry period from 1942-1956, and then it was capped off in 1951-56. Remeber that California was and is the #1 agricultural state in the union. And those Southwestern states have all the big cattle ranches as well.

And very sparce soil. I'd have to see the drought parameters concerning California. I'll look at the az link.

No comment on the drug use stats prior to the Harrison Act?

	09-01-2003 09:09									#410
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - Where was your response to my post about the drug war and how it came about? Want more? Too bad.

Nonstop Anal probe Machine, I responded to it. So yes, I want more.

quote: Who cares about your [b]anal/b]ysis about something irrelevant to the debate?

You've never gone out on asides or sidetracked, or sidestepped anyone though have you?

quote: You already forgot applauding Monkspider for not responding to my lengthy rebuttals? Feel free to refresh your memory by re-reading your posts.

The original point was that you claimed I said we should ignore your posts. In fact, I never said that. Instead, I was making fun of your posts.

quote: I don't do your research.

You don't do your own research.

quote: You haven't proven laissez faire was even involved, but you cite the government's intervention in the economy.

I cited the government intervention as helping the farming sector in particular for preventing another Dust Bowl.

quote: Not if they don't own the land outright and have to manage it to comply with banking and federal reserve policies.

Oh come on! The Federal Reserve makes land management decisions? Give me a break.

quote: Then laissez faire is not to blame.

Lassiez-faire like lack of regulations ARE.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, where are those drug numbers?

	09-01-2003 10:06									#411
	Inflate your Upload Space

Agathon,

quote: Well I see David is still settling for more murders than less - less liberty than more - and more property crimes than less.

That's ridiculous. I'm not settling for any murders - I'm saying that all murder is wrong. You can't blame the evil in the world on me - you can properly blame it on the person or people committing evil acts.

quote: Where is the rationality in someone saying that they think murder is wrong but won't do anything stop it?

That's not a correct interpretation of my position. I will happily use any moral means at my disposal to prevent murder.

quote: And I notice David that you didn't give proper answers to the questions I put in bold type especially for you.

I've answered every question you've asked and every point you've made - you just don't like the answers.

quote: It's as if someone complained that Schrodinger's cat was a pointless thought experiment because no one would be cruel enough to do that to a cat.

Comparing physics to philosophy is stupid.

quote: What you seem to be claiming is that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, they would never do anything bad to us

While you seem to be making the claim that if we did nothing bad to anyone else, we would still have fought in the same number of wars. I can't tell you what would have happened had we behaved morally - no one can. All I can tell you is that if we had behaved differently - morally - the same situation would not have happened.

quote: So I should be punished if I let him die? Is that what you are saying?

I think that parents have certain obligations to their children, once they take on the implied responsibility of taking care of a helpless - or at least comparatively helpless - child.

quote: In other words do I have a moral obligation to save him

Certainly, as long as saving him won't endanger yourself. If danger to yourself is involved, it becomes a personal decision with no absolute right or wrong answer.

quote: and should I be had up for manslaughter if I don't?

I'm not sure what the proper charge, if any, would be. What I can tell you is something you've already said and agreed to - moral obligations and the law aren't necessarily the same thing.

And in any case, I thought we were discussing morality, not legality. Why are you changing the debate?

	09-01-2003 10:24									#412
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

David,

I said I'd leave the other stuff alone as long as you answered this question, and I'm true to my word.

You answered regarding the drowning child.

quote: Certainly, as long as saving him won't endanger yourself.

You're really sure?

Is this because you think that we all have a moral obligation to help people when there is no comparable danger and little cost to ourselves, and that in egregious circumstances failure to act should be punishable by law; commitment to this general ethical principle being the reason for your answer?

Please think carefully before you agree to this - I'm really surprised and baffled that you agreed to the first one.

	09-01-2003 10:36									#413
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Is this because you think that we all have a moral obligation to help people when there is no comparable danger and little cost to ourselves, and that in egregious circumstances failure to act should be punishable by law

First of all, I never said anything about legality and punishment, you brought that up. I'm only arguing morality.

Secondly, I suppose I should add the caveat that the moral obligation to act ONLY EXISTS when the action itself is moral. I figured that would have been assumed.

Thirdly, I should never force someone else to help someone out. That means that my wish to go help England fight Nazi Germany should only apply to myself - I should not push for a declaration of war against Nazi Germany or push for the use of government income to fund the war in any way. If I want to go fight, fine, I can go join the English (or German) army, but I shouldn't force anyone else to.

Finally, some of my beliefs in obligations are as a result of my religious beliefs. These only extend to myself, obviously - I can't and shouldn't force anyone to believe the same as I do, but as far as I am concerned, the fact that I'm a Christian means that I have certain additional responsibilities that someone who is not religious would not have.

So, does that mean that I have an obligation to help a poor person, for example, if I can do so without hurting myself and can do so with the means at my disposal? Sure I do - I shouldn't rob a store to give him money, and I shouldn't impoverish or harm myself or my family, but if I have extra money at hand, and I see someone in need, I should help them out (explanation below, don't quote me out of context).

Ayn Rand might not agree with me, but when did I claim to agree 100% with her?

Also realize that, in general, I don't think that laws should be passed to force us to act morally - only laws that prevent us from directly harming another should be on the books. Thus, the government shouldn't pass a law forcing me to help the poor (through food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or whatever) - my belief that I have a moral obligation to help the poor, when possible, stems from my Christianity, not from any particular societal obligation or anything else. An atheist, for example, has NO obligation to help the poor, only an obligation not to do something to cause them harm.

Sufficient answer?

	09-01-2003 10:39									#414
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Your failure to cite a PD proving your proposal that libertarianism is contradictory is hardly impressive.

Your failure to understand the import of the prisoner's dilemma was even more impressive.

The incoherence is basically the same in the other case. Libertarianism is committed to a conception of rights that endorses a certain political system. Adoption of that system given rational choice theory means that Randian libertarianism fails since each person must always seek the optimum result for him and herself, no matter what; and this entails that prisoner's dilemma situations will lead to a less than optimal outcome overall - in fact I think it will destroy the economic and social basis that enabled it to function in the first place. To avoid the prisoner's dilemma, citizens will have to behave alruistically, which is forbidden by Rand (although her grounds for this are shaky). How can you promote something if promoting it leads to its own destruction.

In the case of non-objectivists, the case is harder to make. Your response was that social sanctions would suffice to convince non-contributors to contribute. I think that the evidence of ordinary social regulation is sufficient to show this isn't true. Unfortunately, this is an empirical rather than deductive claim so the best way of confirming it is to look. However, I can't make you look so that's all I can really say - other than to remark that I find your remarks about taxation odd. You say that people try to cheat on tax because they are paying too much. This would suggest that they would be satisified with a certain level of taxation and stop trying to cheat. Unfortunately, in my experience, almost everyone's preferred level of taxation is zero; in fact it is less than zero, since people often try for top ups from the government if they can.

The reason for this is that it is a classic prisoner's dilemma situation - people know that everyone else will do their darndest to pay as little tax as possible (look at the thriving trade done by accountants in this area) so they do the same, otherwise they will pay more than their share and everyone will free ride off them.

I can offer this response to non objectivists and objectivists alike. Your attempted social sanctions will only be effective if most people adhere to them. Yes, you've guessed it: this creates another prisoner's dilemma since each person has an incentive to break the sanctions unless they have complete trust in everyone else.

	09-01-2003 10:42									#415
	Put an end to popups!

David,

Can you think of any situations like the drowning child (and including it) in which a person is not only morally obliged to help, but laws should be passed to punish those who don't?

A fuller diagnosis tomorrow.

	09-01-2003 10:43									#416
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: In the case of non-objectivists, the case is harder to make.

Who ever claimed to be an Objectivist?

Further, you are again missing the point that government income can come from a source that is neither a tax or a voluntary check written out to the government. Government lotteries, for example, or fines as a punishment for certain crimes. Government-run casinos are a possibility that I haven't thought much about, but on the surface seem reasonable, given their non-coercive nature and the fact that they seem to be pretty lucrative.

	09-01-2003 10:44									#417
	Increase Your PM Length

Religion has nothing to do with it. I feel obligated to give to the poor just as you do and I'm an athiest. Your religion makes you feel obligated, but it does not actually make you obligated any more than my own humanity makes me obligated. I resent any implication that religion is what forces individuals to be compassionate.

	09-01-2003 10:45									#418
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Can you think of any situations like the drowning child (and including it) in which a person is not only morally obliged to help, but laws should be passed to punish those who don't?

Not really. Quite frankly, I don't believe in "Good Samaritan" laws.

The only exception would be the case of parents and children. Parents, by becoming parents, take on a responsibility for the life of another. The assumption of this responsibility is totally voluntary - no one is making them have a child. So if a parent watches their child die when they can reasonably prevent it, I think that is a punishable act.

	09-01-2003 10:47									#419
	Tired of ads?

quote: Religion has nothing to do with it. I feel obligated to give to the poor just as you do and I'm an athiest. Your religion makes you feel obligated, but it does not actually make you obligated any more than my own humanity makes me obligated. I resent any implication that religion is what forces individuals to be compassionate.

Outside of religion, helping others is a decision that is really neither moral or immoral, in the sense that murder is immoral and not murdering is moral. If you want to help others, great, but I fail to see the moral obligation. If you want to feel morally obligated, fine, but I'm not sure what you base that on.

	09-01-2003 10:50									#420
	Got spare money?

quote: quote: mor·al (môrl, mr-) adj. 1) Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

If "not murdering" is moral, so is "giving to the poor".