05-01-2003 11:35									#151
	Remove this text

Ted -

quote: Proof?

Do what you told me when I asked you for a link, look it up yourself, hypocrite.

quote: Is that a contradiction of the above?

Nope, let's see if you can figure out why.

quote: Hey, ask the Chinese what the legalization of Opium did to them in the 19th Century.

Who was complaining? The emporer who enslaved Chinese to do his bidding or the Chinese using opium to relieve some of the stress and pain from laboring for the emporer? Brilliant, cite a slaveowner to support your position...

	05-01-2003 11:43									#152
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Who was complaining? The emporer who enslaved Chinese to do his bidding or the Chinese using opium to relieve some of the stress and pain from laboring for the emporer? Brilliant, cite a slaveowner to support your position...

OMG, that is without a doubt the most ignorant and cruel thing you have ever said. The Opium trade was IMPOSED on the Chinese by BRITISH MERCHANTS. The Chinese Emperor was powerless at the time to stop the British.

Who was complaining?

quote: The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down on British trade in the drug. He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to Lin, should only be in beneficial objects.

The Opium Wars were one of, if not THE, most humiliating and darkest time in Chinese history. The Chinese in charge wanted to stop it, but it was again imposed by force by the British companies. Later the crown got manipulated to get involved to back them up also.

quote: By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

Why do think that it was called the "Opium Wars"? The Chinese even tried to go to war to stop it but at that time they didn't have a modernized enough armed forces to defend themselves from the European merchant armies.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

You still didn't provide numbers on drug use by the way.

	05-01-2003 12:04									#153
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"Legalizing drugs WILL without a doubt increase drug abuse... there are people who don't do drugs because of the fear of punishment and being punished prevents people from doing drugs (ie- people in jail, etc.)."

Berzerker and Ramo have shown well that isn't the case.

"... I'm not talking about **** like gangs and dealers that would be removed with legalization..."

Well I am talking about that.

"Furthermore, even if drugs were legalized and the whole drug dealer structure disappeared... that would not stop drug related crime... "

Gangs are significant source of crime in this country and there is a good deal of violence between gangs over who can sell drugs where. Moreover, the amount of money youths can make selling drugs on the black market is a problem- why work at McDonalds when you get rich selling drugs? The War on Drugs thus creates a criminal position the drug dealer which youths are lured into, and many of them will go to prison. There goes their life.

"they would be unable to afford the drugs the corporation sells them... "

Corporations would likely be able to provide money for much cheaper. Forcing the market underground raises costs a good deal. You know all the drug dealers getting rich? They make alot more then convience store clerks selling cigarretes. I was watching on TV once how some smugglers were making primative submarines to cross the Caribbean sea to avoid their cargo being intercepted. Smuggling drugs can be expensive, and you're going to have pay people good money to smuggle it and risk going to jail. Those costs of supplying the drugs raise the price. And in the course of the War on Drugs, Governments do manage to intercept a good deal of drugs people try to smuggle around, and those drugs are destroyed. That decreases quantity in the market, which of course by the laws of ecnomics raises the price. In general forcing an entire market underground will raise the price greatly. Corporate priced drugs could be afforded by begging. And just the crime reduction from the buyer's standpoint- from the seller's standpoint crime is reduced through elimination of gangs.

"such was the state of affairs earlier in this country when drugs WERE legal... people didn't do them in large amounts because society abhored it. "

Source? Many great writers did some of their best work on opium and they weren't abhorred for it.

"Is it the position of Libertarians that all drugs should be freely available to everyone for anything and that we should abolish, for example, the FDA?"

I wouldn't remove the FDA entirely, but I would reduce their power to ban certain medicines and replace it with the ability to warn. If someone is dying and there is a cure that is awaiting FDA approval, and they want to take a risk on it, I say let them.

"
Hey, ask the Chinese what the legalization of Opium did to them in the 19th Century."

It wasn't the legalization of Opium that was the problem, it was the banning of opium that was the problem. China's war on drugs was ineffective and stopping drug trade, and eventually led to war with Britain.

"Nope, it would increase because no one knows how to do business in the 21st century like we Amercans do. Financing, marketing, distribution, you name it, we're the world leader. The world should shudder at the thought of drug trade going completely legal in the US."

We currently have severe restrictions on the marketing of tobacco, I don't see why we couldn't have them, perhaps even more severe marketing restriction, if drugs were legalized.

	05-01-2003 12:06									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Strangelove -

quote: How recently? Does anybody care?

There you have it, don't bother us with facts.

quote: AFAIK the major gangs aren't lining up for the opportunity to do business in Portugal.

Mafia? Basque seperatists? But why does the alleged lack of gangs help your argument? We have them here and we have a load of crime caused by the black market thanks to all you "good for society" proponents.

quote: This may have something to do with Portugal being one of the poorest countries in the EU. Or is it THE poorest in the EU?

Actually, the reason Portugal changed their policies is because drug use was going up with prohibition.

quote: Imagine though an American corporation conducting drug trade in a decriminalized environment.

They'd be allowed to sell drugs in a decriminalized environment?

quote: Perhaps as an experiment Portugal or the Netherlands should ask The American Tobacco Co., or one of its competitors to come into their country and market various drugs as the company sees fit.

Tobacco is illegal in Portugal and the Netherlands?

quote: Let's see if they can't get a near totality of the host country's youth hooked within 5 years.

They'd already be addicted, oops.

quote: After all, if you're really going to grant the citizens of the country the liberty to consume something

We get our liberty from you?

quote: you might ad well go all the way and introduce full scale modern distributive technology.

I didn't know Portugal and the Netherlands were so backward.

quote: If the people have the right to have their drugs then they also have the right to have them at the cheapest price possible and in as great a quantity as the market will bear.

Yup, that's how freedom works.

quote: Since freedom of speech is implied as well then the corporations will have the right to advertise their products as they see fit. Go ahead, do it.

Yup, that's how freedom works.

	05-01-2003 12:10									#155
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: It wasn't the legalization of Opium that was the problem, it was the banning of opium that was the problem. China's war on drugs was ineffective and stopping drug trade, and eventually led to war with Britain.

Again, this is just outright false. China had succeeded in eradicating Opium, which was brought into the country by British Merchants, completely. Later the Opium markets were forced back open. Note the word force.

Remember, all of the Europeans and the US were basically forcing the Chinese to trade with us by our rules during the 19th Century. It's a pretty sad chapter for the West. Gunboat diplomacy at its worst.

	05-01-2003 12:11									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

actually i see you just rebutting arguements but not making your own...

	05-01-2003 12:14									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Source? Many great writers did some of their best work on opium and they weren't abhorred for it.

Ben Franklin too, he wasn't shunned.

	05-01-2003 12:15									#158
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"
Again, this is just outright false. China had succeeded in eradicating Opium, which was brought into the country by British Merchants, completely. Later the Opium markets were forced back open. Note the word force."

Before it was forced open, however, they were still smuggling it in. The war started when Chinese forces detroyed a cargo of opium that was being smuggled in. Smuggling was a big business. It was natural though that it'd be western merchants who would be the ones smuggling it in, since they were the ones who domianted the Opium Market. Nowadays the drug market is dominated by criminals. Moreover, Opium was legal in the west and did not produce the same consequence it did in China.

	05-01-2003 12:18									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

BD,

What exactly was wrong with the Chinese destroying the Opium being smuggled in? That makes no sense, they had made it illegal so of course they have every right to destroy it.

Even so, it's disputable how much was being smuggled in. Also, the type of "smuggling" in this situation was quite different back then. Most of it was being brought to China with regular goods, and in huge quantities, where it was easily identifiable and intercepted.

Secondly, Opium was NOT legal in Britain, where it had been made illegal because the British recognized its harmful effects.

Back in the 19th Century many of the companies WERE the criminals.

Last edited by Ted Striker on 05-01-2003 at 12:26

	05-01-2003 12:23									#160
	Remove this text

MRT -

quote: actually i see you just rebutting arguements but not making your own...

Like I said, you've shown an inability to read.

	05-01-2003 12:30									#161
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"What exactly was wrong with the Chinese destroying the Opium being smuggled in? That makes no sense, they had made it illegal so of course they have every right to destroy it. "

I didn't say there was something wrong with destroying opium(though I do think that), I was saying it's problems came from it's attempt to ban opium. It led to war and the undermining of Chinese soverignity. Not directly of course but that is what happened..

"Even so, it's disputable how much was being smuggled in."

Apparently enough for the Chinese to risk war.

"Secondly, Opium was NOT legal in Britain, where it had been made illegal because the British recognized its harmful effects."

It was legal until 1878.



"Back in the 19th Century many of the companies WERE the criminals."

They did nasty things for sure, but I meant criminal in the legal sense, as in breaking the law.

	05-01-2003 12:33									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

yeah thats it...i cant read!!! what a horrible burden i live with.

how exactly do you make points with once sentence quips and jabs at people?

i couldnt find more than 10 points you made that were longer than 2 sentences and were not a rebuttle to someones arguement.

thats your whole debating style though. you try to look superior to others and get your point across simply by breaking down other people's arguements line by line but not providing a counter arguement that you could prove yourself.

but hey, if you want a power trip by calling me illiterate by all means go ahead. Im ignorant and cant read. hope you celebrate this occasion with all your friends and family and make light of what a sad person i am.

take the power trip. be that person

Last edited by MRT144 on 05-01-2003 at 12:42

	05-01-2003 12:36									#163
	Put an end to popups!

MRT - Btw, using an argument to refute an argument is making an argument. You're aren't very bright. But you're being hypocritical, your contribution to this thread is to tell us that I don't make arguments.

	05-01-2003 12:38									#164
	Suffering from ads?

you dont, you just provide one sentence answers that are basicly your unproven opinions. you are also fairly dismissive with your one sentence replys and i dont think you even really care about proving yourself. you only care about one upping another person.

in fact if YOU had read my previous post you would see i said that you didnt provide counter arguements.

and i hope you derive some pleasure by demeaning me.

Last edited by MRT144 on 05-01-2003 at 12:43

	05-01-2003 12:45									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: My murder would be bad from my point of view, but not from the impartial point of view which Libertarians think is central to ethics.

Well, we can talk about degrees of right and wrong, or we can talk about right and wrong. We can both agree that murder is wrong, I assume. Since murder is wrong, you are in the wrong if you murder one person or ten people, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of debating whether one is worse than the other?

Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? Who cares, they were both horrible.

quote: No one, least of all me, is arguing that such a murder would be a good thing, but surely from the impartial view of moral rights five murders is worse.

OK, but when you put yourself into a situation it ceases to be an impartial view. You are never responsible for the actions of others, but rather for your own action. Thus, if someone commits an immoral act such as murder, you aren't morally responsible for that act - the person who committed it is.

If the only way to stop someone from killing five people is to kill one innocent person (and I struggle to see the real world application of even this example, which is more realistic than your original one), you can look at it two ways.

First, your way: Murder is bad, and more murder is worse. Thus, five murders are worse than one murder. If I can stop five murders by committing one myself, then I acted morally and properly.

But that thought process does not take into account the idea of personal accountability. You cannot control what someone else does - only they can. This leads to thought process number two:

Murder is bad, no matter how many people are killed. Therefore, I should not commit murder. Because I should not commit murder, it is not OK for me to murder one person to stop someone else from murdering five people.

But even that does not leave you without options. Assuming you KNOW that five murders are going to take place, you have the option to alert the police, alert the victims, or be there yourself to try to defend the people being murdered. You also have the option to do nothing, although I would think that any decent person would choose to try to stop the murder in a moral way.

The key, though, is that you are not committing an immoral act yourself - immoral acts do not balance themselves out, and there is no such thing as "net morality", ie, the immorality of killing one person is more than offset by the morality of saving five. That just doesn't wash, at least not with me.

But as I pointed out above, even this example is contrived, and has little bearing on reality. Come up with a more realistic example (I could, but why should I - it's your argument), and we'll talk about that.

quote: Are you saying that the person who murders his wife has committed an equivalent wrong to the man who ordered the Holocaust?

I'm saying that both were in the wrong.

quote: You owe a very convincing answer to this question.

Then I hope the above convinced you.

quote: Your example is good enough - perfectly plausible in fact.

It is? Granted, it's a TAD more plausible than yours (given that what few smithies exist in the world today do not stockpile modern weapons), but it still isn't very likely.

quote: Your view is often called "moral fetishism" because you seem to put your own moral purity over and above the consequences of your acting or not acting.

That's correct. I have an obligation to act morally, and killing innocent people is NOT acting morally.

quote: What you need to tell me is just why the lives of the 5 people are somehow worth less than your clear conscience.

I wasn't aware my conscience was killing anyone - I thought it was the guy who pulled the trigger.

quote: No one would throw you in jail for killing someone in this situation- so responsibility is a side issue.

That's blatantly false. If, in our outlandishly contrived scenario, I walked down the street, randomly shot someone, and claimed (rightly or wrongly) that by doing so I saved five people, I would be laughed out of court and thrown in prison. And rightly so.

quote: I can't understand how you seem to think 1 death is the moral equivalent of 5.

Again, you are oversimplifying the situation. I am not responsible for the deaths of five, but I am responsible if I kill one person.

quote: There's nothing bullshit about it - if you think murder is a bad thing, it must be a bad thing because people's rights are violated

With you so far.

quote: and if you think that, you must think that it would be a better situation overall if fewer rights were violated even if this makes you the violator

That's where it breaks down. The situation is not better if I violate someone's rights because I have an obligation to act morally, and the deaths of five are not my responsibility.

quote: otherwise what's the point of saying it's wrong in the first place.

I would think that's obvious, but if you need to ask why murder is wrong, this discussion is pointless. Although in essence that IS what you are asking - your basic question seems to be "Is it ever justified to murder someone?" I would say that it is not, because murder is by definition an unjustified act.

quote: We can compare societies by the degree to which they have realised this for their members.

OK, but if we are comparing societies by degree, then by definition we are comparing them by degree of the state of unfreedom (doh, is that a word ). The one thing all of these societies have in common is that they are unfree in some way. Saying one society is more or less free than another isn't very useful (except in the context of finding ways to create a FREE society), because ultimately none of them are free.

quote: If I am a Libertarian it makes no sense for me to say that I don't care if more or less people are free in my society.

That statement makes no sense. I think what you mean to say is that "...I don't care if people are more or less free....". In unfree societies, it is, IN GENERAL, true that no one is free, not that some people are perfectly free and some people aren't.

quote: I don't see anything wrong with your example.

Look harder.

quote: I say it is the most realistic situation that the gun owner would hand out guns

There you have it.

quote: yet it is conceivable that he wouldn't

Well, I suppose he could be a spy put in place to facilitate the invasion, or whatever we're calling it, but how likely does that seem, and how likely is it that that one person has a monopoly on weapons? Pretty much nil, wouldn't you say? Again, let's deal with reality. You brought up an unrealistic scenario by talking about smithy's and weapons monopolies. If the only support for your position comes from such examples, then quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time. Prove to me that you can construct a realistic and reasonably likely scenario, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, it's pointless - one can spend a lifetime dreaming up "what-ifs", but that's totally irrelevant.

********************

And, to change the subject a bit, may I ask what your experience is in either Libertarianism or political philosophy in general?

	05-01-2003 12:50									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: It led to war

Are you blaming the Chinese for trying to enforce rules in their own country? There were over 2 million Opium addicts. No doubt you are trying to compare this with the modern war on drugs, right? They had decided that Opium was having a terrible effect on their country, and rightly so. And by every historical account I have read, it was a devastating drug (in terms of the effects on Chinese society as a whole).

Does modern China still have this problem? I say no, but then again I am ignorant of China's current drug situation.

quote: and the undermining of Chinese soverignity.

Chinese Sovereignty had already been undermined long before the Opium Wars. Again, gunboat diplomacy. This is blaming the victim. Certainly other European powers (and the US) became more confident after the wars, but the trend had already been established.

This one is completely on the British for being the bad guy. They were "conveniently" shipping Opium into China in HUGE ships alongside regular goods, making sure any attempt to enforce anti-Opium drug laws became complex.

The Opium Wars were over greed, as the British were making a fortune from it.

Regarding its legality, I see the Pharmacy Act of 1868 restricted its use to only licensed pharmacists, so I stand corrected. Do you have more information on the year 1878? (I can't find it).

One final note is that the Chinese banned Opium in response to its deterimental effects, so there was a period of time in the late 18th century where it was used legally there.

	05-01-2003 13:16									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

MRT -

quote: you dont, you just provide one sentence answers that are basicly your unproven opinions.

Let us know when you learn to read, or is the problem just comprehending what you read?

quote: you are also fairly dismissive with your one sentence replys

I am to a$$holes like you and Ted.

quote: and i dont think you even really care about proving yourself. you only care about one upping another person.

Well, how can I care about "one upping" someone when I don't care about supporting my arguments? I take it 144 is not your IQ.

quote: in fact if YOU had read my previous post you would see i said that you didnt provide counter arguements.

I did read it, you just edited your post after I responded to it. So now you accuse me of not reading it? A$$hole! You are the one who apparently doesn't know a rebuttal is an argument. If you look back and "read" this thread, you will see that a couple people have complained about me making to many rebuttals. Naturally, a moron would enter the thread to accuse me of doing the opposite.

quote: and i hope you derive some pleasure by demeaning me.

I do, I don't like a$$holes and hypocrites.

quote: how exactly do you make points with once sentence quips and jabs at people?

Read.

quote: i couldnt find more than 10 points you made that were longer than 2 sentences and were not a rebuttle to someones arguement.

I didn't start this thread with a proposal, Speer started the thread with his proposal. That means people who disagree are in the position of refuting his arguments.

quote: thats your whole debating style though. you try to look superior to others and get your point across simply by breaking down other people's arguements line by line but not providing a counter arguement that you could prove yourself.

Lol, what a moron.

quote: but hey, if you want a power trip by calling me illiterate by all means go ahead.

I did. Ooh, the power...

quote: Im ignorant and cant read.

I know.

quote: hope you celebrate this occasion with all your friends and family and make light of what a sad person i am.

There's an idea, they could use a good laugh too.

quote: take the power trip. be that person

Do you realise you've not supported your "arguments" yet? What a surprise...

	05-01-2003 13:18									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

do i need to? youve just proven my points for me with that post

	05-01-2003 13:26									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Numbers on 19th century American drug users please Berzerker.

Stop harassing MRT though I'm sure you are amusing him.

	05-01-2003 13:38									#170
	Support Apolyton

and amusing myself at the same time...
im just seeing at which point he will give up and just stop trying to bust my iron hide

	05-01-2003 13:40									#171
	Put an end to popups!

Ted -

quote: OMG, that is without a doubt the most ignorant and cruel thing you have ever said. The Opium trade was IMPOSED on the Chinese by BRITISH MERCHANTS. The Chinese Emperor was powerless at the time to stop the British.

Oh, poor Chinese emporer. Who did the complaining? The Chinese emporer and his court or the poor Chinese enslaved by the emporer and his court? According to you, a bureaucrat employed by the emporer who was enslaving the Chinese. So, you didn't refute my argument, you in fact supported my argument and accused me of being ignorant, ROTFLMAO!

quote: The Opium Wars were one of, if not THE, most humiliating and darkest time in Chinese history.

Humiliating to a slaveowner, you've misplaced your bleeding heart.

quote: Why do think that it was called the "Opium Wars"?

I know the history.

quote: The Chinese even tried to go to war to stop it but at that time they didn't have a modernized enough armed forces to defend themselves from the European merchant armies.

The "Chinese"? No, a slaveowner.

quote: Numbers on 19th century American drug users please Berzerker.

You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression, then you told me to look for a link to support your argument about a food riot in Arkansas, so don't ask me to do research for you hypocrite.

quote: Stop harassing MRT though I'm sure you are amusing him

If he is deriving pleasure, why would you want me to stop? Doh!

MRT -

quote: do i need to? youve just proven my points for me with that post

Yup, real brilliant there. You made the accusations before "that post", so the "proof" did not exist when you made the accusations.

	05-01-2003 13:44									#172
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: and amusing myself at the same time... im just seeing at which point he will give up and just stop trying to bust my iron hide

You enjoy being demeaned? Iron hide? That explains why nothing is getting through to that "brain" of yours.

	05-01-2003 13:44									#173
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

because i knew the way in which you would reply. i could cite the previous posts you made but why waste my time when your quick fingers would provide a perfect example only seconds later

and yes, im defying the human anatomy by having a phantom brain

and i dont mind being demeaned because i have nothing to prove to people online

	05-01-2003 13:45									#174
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: slaveowner

Proof?

quote: You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression

500,000 was not my estimates. I never complained about a specific number. And I've also addressed your faulty one-dimensional requirement of death count numbers a couple of times already.

	05-01-2003 13:46									#175
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: If he is deriving pleasure, why would you want me to stop? Doh!

Every single comment is an argument to you isn't it?

	05-01-2003 15:13									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Agathon -

quote: Oh God. There is a lengthy and slightly whimsical piece of dialogue which you don't seem to have understood which argues in support of the claim that Libertarianism violates its own principles when applied to the real world.

If there is one, you've failed to offer it.

quote: It seems you don't understand the meaning of the term "unsupported" and how it differs from "badly supported". You should have said "a badly supported assertion" and then gone on to argue why.

An argument is either supported or it isn't, and I did explain why it was unsupported. You didn't explain why it was "badly supported" or supported at all.

quote: If you are going to say this you will be thrown out of the Libertarians' Club rather sharpish, because if there is one thing they cannot stand it is moral relativism.

I said both examples you gave were wrong.

quote: It's quite clear that Libertarians (like John Hospers and Robert Nozick) believe that murder is wrong independently of what people might think (they say this).

And what did I say to your hypothetical? That both were wrong.

quote: If one murder is bad, aren't two worse (i.e. twice the badness), all other things being equal?

Worse for whom? Yes, it's worse to murder 1 million people than 1 person. How does that justify murdering the 1 person?

quote: Or is someone like you going to say that stealing an apple is the moral equivalent of comitting a bank robbery every week?

Both are immoral (I didn't know immorality was broken up into varying levels - either an act is immoral or it isn't), the fact a murder occurs doesn't justify rape if the rape will prevent the murder.

quote: Go on - I'd like to hear this one.

Read it instead.

quote: No it isn't - I make no such claim.

Yes you did, you (Socrates) argued that there were situations in which choices between 1 violation of rights was justifiable if the alternative was multiple violations.

quote: In fact my conclusion (not premise - they're different by the way)

A conclusion depends on a premise. Your conclusion, that violating the rights of one person is justified if the alternative is 50 violations, depends on the premise that the conclusion should be based on which is "worse".

quote: is that since we are often confronted in life by situations in which we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" the Libertarian notion of absolute rights has to be dropped.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil.

quote: In other words to protect the rights of the many we may have to violate the rights of the few.

On the issue of drugs, everyone's rights are being violated. But does this mean you would have supported the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?

quote: All you have to accept to be forced into this conclusion is that more violations are worse than less - and it seems insane not to say that.

"Worse" is your standard.

quote: Oh Jeez.... It's called a "thought experiment".

So the fact you can't support your hypothetical with a real world example means your "thought experiment" is relevant?

quote: In moral theory (a branch of philosophy in which people argue about such things as Libertarianism) people often put forward thought experiments as a way of testing moral principles or theories (like Libertarianism) for coherence.

And if these "thought experiments" are detached from reality, they are meaningless.

quote: It doesn't matter that there is no such smithy, it doesn't even need to be a smith.

If there is no such smithy, there is no "experiment".

quote: I could invent other examples - I only chose a smith because it is the sort of homey example used in the Platonic dialogues. The same sort of situation could occur with a gun shop owner or something completely unrelated to weaponry.

Okay, then my response remains the same.

quote: It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the case could happen - and it could.

Really? But you can't show that it has, umkay.

quote: And forgive me for asking, why would no smithy have a stockpile of weapons?

I didn't say a smithy would not have a stockpile, I said he wouldn't have the stockpile necessary to ward off the intruding army.

quote: Is there some physical law preventing smiths from hoarding swords?

Nope, just common sense. A smithy would have weapons owned by others in need of repair and some for sale.

quote: Should we expect to find the weapons at the fishmonger's shop? Surely the smithy would be a logical place.

No, the logical place would be in the homes of the people who are free to have them unless people like you decide to violate their rights for the good of the community.

quote: And why must a "free people" be armed? Couldn't they have forgotten?

Let us know when you come down from planet whoopie. Where did I say they "must" be armed? I said they would be armed of their own accord.

quote: I suppose I must dignify this with an answer...

You were the one who gave the hypothetical of stealing library books as a contradiction of libertarianism.

quote: Again stealing books from the library is only an example to show the general form of PD situations. I could have used non criminals behaviour, but I chose not to.

Then do so because using a behavior libertarians believe should be illegal is not a contradiction of libertarian principles.

quote: In any case the private policing example doesn't involve stealing at all.

So use that argument to show the self-contradictory nature of libertariansim, but private or public policing doesn't violate libertarian principles.

quote: Nor would a PD case of polluting the environment or buying guns or driving SUV's.

If that is your example, flesh it out.

quote: I don't have to quote you. It's common knowledge that coercive taxation is forbidden by Libertarian principles.

So quote me or the LP platform that says the police must be private. Furthermore, user fees are not coercive, they are payment for services rendered and wanted.

quote: Boo hoo. My neighbours don't like me, what can they do? Nothing, apart from not talk to me - and considering some of the neighbours I've had that wouldn't be so bad.

Pretty short-sided there, they can do a whole lot more than not talk to you. They can dis-associate from you in ways you won't like. Try buying food from the local grocer who hates your guts.

quote: Perhaps I prefer free riding and being safe to being liked.

Then don't support the local police and suffer the consequences.

quote: The problem here is that there is an incentive to free ride and when that happens a significant number of people will do it

If they get treated just like everyone else when they do, but that won't happen in a free society where discrimination is legal.

quote: Indeed you will find that it according to the PD it is rational not to contribute because I will be better off, on the balance of things, if I don't.

Not if the consequences are negative.

quote: Indeed, if I believe what Ayn Rand says, I ought always to act in my self interest over that of everyone else - so being nice and contributing would be very bad if she were right.

Most people believe in God, that effects how they behave. Mother Teresa was "selfish" too, but look at the good she did as payment for her self-interested ticket to Heaven.

quote: I'm sure you know plenty of selfish people who are despised by many, most of the ones I know don't seem to care.

That depends on how you define "selfishness". The so-called robber barons may have done some very bad things, but they employed lots of people in their "selfish" zeal.

quote: You are overestimating human decency.

No, that's why I want government limited to protecting our rights. I know what happens when government decides it can start sacrificing our rights for our own good. Those bad people will just have a safer way of hurting people - government.

quote: Ask an insurance agent what "moral hazard" means, and you'll see what I mean.

Gee, I have to wait until I find one to get an answer?

quote: The point of the PD is to show that the right's assertion that people acting in their own self interest (I don't mean stealing or killing here) will collectively always produce the optimum result (the so called "Invisible Hand") is a load of tosh.

"Optimum results" are in the eye of the beholder and used as an excuse by one group of people to trample others. The "Invisible Hand" deals with economics and how an economy based on freedom and the multitude of decisions consumers and producers make every day is a better system than controlled economies where a group of elites try to make all those decisions for everyone (I believe).

quote: Come one - you can do better than this. Libertarianism is pretty silly but even I can think of better counterarguments than yours.

Using the theft of library books to show an alleged contradiction in the libertarian philosophy is silly, can you counter it better than I did? If so, do so...

	05-01-2003 15:38									#177
	Support Apolyton

MRT -

quote: because i knew the way in which you would reply. i could cite the previous posts you made but why waste my time when your quick fingers would provide a perfect example only seconds later

Because we are engaged in a flame war of sorts, not a debate. Or did you think we were debating whether or not I've made any arguments when you don't even bother to support your proposition choosing instead to ignore the rest of the thread?

quote: and yes, im defying the human anatomy by having a phantom brain

"Phantom" brain to go along with that iron hide of yours?

quote: and i dont mind being demeaned because i have nothing to prove to people online

Having nothing is what you've proven.

Ted -

quote: Proof?

Emporer?

quote: 500,000 was not my estimates.

I didn't say it was your number.

quote: I never complained about a specific number.

No idiot, you complained when I asked for a link.

quote: And I've also addressed your faulty one-dimensional requirement of death count numbers a couple of times already.

Strangelove said a 1/2 million people died of starvation, your comment is irrelevant to what he said. Try to keep up on the "debate".

quote: Every single comment is an argument to you isn't it?

I try not to miss opportunities to make fun of morons.

	05-01-2003 15:47									#178
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Emporer?

Grunting out words and making silly faces isn't an acceptable show of proof.

George Washington had slaves by the way, as did many of the founding fathers. But that was in the good old days before the thieving government started intruding into our lives and took away "rights" such as slavery and child labor.

quote: No idiot, you complained when I asked for a link.

I am not going to do your work for you when there is a mountain of information out there you can read through yourself. It's not that hard. You just type the little words in the Google search box thingie and it comes up with sites you can go to: Arkansas Food Riot or England Food Riot

quote: Strangelove said a 1/2 million people died of starvation, your comment is irrelevant to what he said.

So why did you lump his number in with me?

Your exact quote is:

quote: You complained about me asking for proof that a 1/2 million people starved to death during the Depression

Show me my and exact quote regarding complaining about the 500,000 starving to death stat.


hypocrite

	05-01-2003 16:07									#179
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

zing!


i have no interest in this debate over political philisophies...but i do have an interest in keeping your little fingers typing as long as possible for no good reason.

	05-01-2003 16:09									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

loinburger -

quote: Why should I, a responsible drug user, be punished for the actions of irresponsible drug users?

Because Speer's moral compass won't stop spinning.

Ramo -

quote: Excuse me? Economic equality (I believe in rough economic equality, not absolute economic equality BTW) can be ensured through voluntary means.

If so, I have no problem with it.

quote: If workers control their businesses, they would likely not pay certain positions exorberant salaries, and they would likely not screw over their comrades too badly...

That assumes all businesses are run by the workers. How will you achieve this through voluntary means?

quote: That simply is not true. The point of anarchism is to enable workers to be the inventors and producers. You are describing a social democratic system; i.e. a strawman.

But not everyone is an inventor, in fact, very few people are inventors (Thank God for them). So how would you prevent the inventor of a great machine that mines copper from making alot of money while non-inventors can't?

quote: This so-called "inefficiency" is baseless speculation. If you look at anarchist societies such as in Spain, there is often a great deal of innovation.

I thought Spain's experience with anarchism was too short-lived. If company "A" produces more efficiently, what will happen to the workers in company "B" which produces less efficiently? Will they lose their jobs through competition or will company "A" have to subsidise company "B" in some way?

quote: What justification? I was simply showing why your beliefs are not practical, not justifying a more statist system.

But if you hold libertarianism to this standard, why not anarchism? You say the libertarian system will fall because either the haves or the have nots will corrupt it, that's true for any system. Having economic equality (roughly) is no guarantee if even the extremely rich in a libertarian system will seek the power to get more via unethical means. The reality is that there will always be some people who seek power over others regardless of the political system in place.

quote: And the workers could collectively refuse to work at your business.

True, and they can stop buying my product as a further means of control. But what happens if some people decide to work for me anyway? Some people who don't share the anarchist way of life.

quote: That's a non-issue. I'm not justifying the morality of statism; rather I'm illuminating the impracticality of libertarian capitalism. Please stick to the actual debate.

But I can't seperate morality from the system I advocate or support. I have no problem with anarchism as long as it's voluntary, but I don't see how it can be voluntary unless virtually everyone practices it. Only then can workers acquire privately owned businesses through discrimination or freedom of association.