 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Agathon - quote:
I don't - your attempted refutations consist of a ham fisted understanding of the argument and the first sentence you can think of. |
Accusing me of ignorance has been your pat response to my rebuttals, but you haven't been defending your PD's. Where was your defense of your guns PD?
quote:
I'm not feeling refuted, just bored. |
That's your problem.
quote:
Your last example was the American revolution - I fail to see what this has to do with it. |
It has to do with your claim that free riding prevents a system of voluntary taxation. If that was true, there would have never been a revolution.
quote:
Everyone knows that people tend to behave altruistically in moments of community crisis, but that once things return to normal they return to their self interested ways. |
Did it ever occur to you that these people are acting in their self-interest when the "community is facing a crisis"? The American Revolution was fought by people who wanted to be free from their government - self-interest.
quote:
If you want some proof of this assertion look up news reports of human behaviour when such disasters strike - everyone chips in while the crisis lasts (which led some communists to believe that they could behave this way all the time). |
I want proof your PD's show libertarianism is contradictory. I want proof your PD's even fit the definition you gave for PD's. Which PD shows a worse situation for everyone resulting from people acting out of self-interest?
quote:
Well there have been several. |
Don't give me that crap, none of the "PD's" you've provided prove your assertion about libertarianism, in fact, they don't even fit your definition of a PD. Your coats and guns "PD's" did not leave everyone worse off as a result of self-interest and I explained why.
quote:
I gave several instances of behaviour that exhibits a PD like structure, including market behaviour, which is one of the most common. |
Oh, now your PD's only exhibit PD like structure? 
quote:
Tax avoidance is another. |
You never did explain why we have any taxation now if everyone (or most) would avoid voluntary taxation. Claiming that people won't pay a smaller voluntary tax based on the current efforts of some people to avoid paying much higher forced taxes is illogical. But that's where social sanctions enter the picture...to deal with the small minority who may not pay the smaller voluntary taxes.
quote:
Your refutations consist of variations on the assertion "no it will work", which just disputes the conclusion rather tha attacking the reasoning behind it. |
Hehe, I explained how social sanctions work and you're the one who keeps claiming, "no they won't work".
quote:
I've said that voluntary altruism only seems to work in these cases when there is corresponding trust - do you care to dispute this. |
Wtf, I've been disputing that all along. I don't need every person in my community to pay a voluntary tax to support the local sheriff before I'm willing to pay the tax. I want the service regardless of your actions. Do I need this trust when donating to charities? Of course not.
quote:
words to the effect that he understood the econ point of the PD enough to know that you didn't. Ned actually said that he was reassessing his committment to Ayn Rand. |
Then quote him? The only criticism I saw from GP was about lotteries, not your ridiculous coats "PD". And where was Ned's endorsement of your PD's? I sure know he never proved the validity of your PD's, saying "I agree with Agathon" doesn't mean you've offered valid PD's.
quote:
But that's what they say: "Being able to do what I want with my life..." |
Do "they" say that to bears or to people who aren't letting them live their life? What if they want to murder people, is that part of liberty? No, because liberty is about freedom from the coercion or constraints imposed by other people.
quote:
Why should something I believe be raised in disagreement with me? |
Because you said the consequences of the hurricane and drunk teens knocking down your shed are identical.
The Founding Fathers and the people who influenced them, like Locke. When they spoke of liberty, did they mean freedom from nature or did they mean freedom from other people? If you need to ask "like who", then that explains why you are ignorant of the meaning and context of liberty. I just figured with all your name dropping you'd know about these philosophers.
quote:
This is dumb. Here's why: say I have a right to property. What this means, when cashed out is that I ought to be able to control the things that I have received in vountary exchanges with others. "things I have received in voluntary exchanges with others" describes something real, a natural fact. My "ability to control my life..." also describes a natural fact about the world. All that Libetarianism prohibits is other people violating my rights so as to change the facts so that they are in control of my life. |
I agree, that is dumb. "A natural fact" Are there un-natural facts? Libertarianism is about liberty - FROM OTHER PEOPLE! Sheesh...
quote:
No, because bears and hurricanes cannot violate rights because they are not moral agents. |
And liberty is about the relationships between moral agents - people.
quote:
However, bears and hurricanes can effect consequences which are identical with those of rights violations - but the fact they aren't caused by moral agents means that there can be no blame attached to them and no compensation sought. |
Which means they aren't identical.
quote:
Isn't not being able to fly a restriction on my choice or action? |
Yes, but the inability to fly (like a bird) is not a violation of your liberty. If you have the ability to fly and I prevent you, that is a violation of your liberty.
quote:
You keep saying this without support. Liberty is about having control of my own life. |
I've supported it, the people who came up with the concept of liberty and rights never claimed liberty meant an exemption from the physical laws or being eaten by lions or bears, oh my.
quote:
The bear effects the same consequences as the jailor, but the bear is not a moral agent so there is no moral wrong committed when he does it. The moral wrong is not the consequence, it is the violation of rights by the person, which causes harm to me. |
And you don't think liberty involves morality?
Are you going to defend your guns "PD"?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
"the sky is blue" -Benito Mussolini, aged 5.
1)just because benito mussolini said it, doesn't make it wrong, or evil. In any case, my morals are... well, you've read the thread.  . "public good" is just another slogan, much like "rights",etc. but I've used it to demonstrate that utilitarians don't care about what happens to other people. I didn't want to be so harsh.
quote:
You don't consider freedom a "public good"? That's the problem I have with "utilitarianism", they seek the "public good" by sacrificing our freedom.
|
so, if a giant comet would fall on the planet, which society would cope with it better? a rather authoritarian society, where people are taxed and have many duties, or a libertarian society. I am here to maximise utility, and if under a certain condition of manking fascism/libertarianism would maximise utility I'd be all for it. It's generally happiness we strive for, not freedom. This is the real question, right? what do humans want?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -
Accusing me of ignorance has been your pat response to my rebuttals, but you haven't been defending your PD's. Where was your defense of your guns PD?
That's your problem.
It has to do with your claim that free riding prevents a system of voluntary taxation. If that was true, there would have never been a revolution.
Did it ever occur to you that these people are acting in their self-interest when the "community is facing a crisis"? The American Revolution was fought by people who wanted to be free from their government - self-interest.
I want proof your PD's show libertarianism is contradictory. I want proof your PD's even fit the definition you gave for PD's. Which PD shows a worse situation for everyone resulting from people acting out of self-interest?
Don't give me that crap, none of the "PD's" you've provided prove your assertion about libertarianism, in fact, they don't even fit your definition of a PD. Your coats and guns "PD's" did not leave everyone worse off as a result of self-interest and I explained why.
Oh, now your PD's only exhibit PD like structure?
You never did explain why we have any taxation now if everyone (or most) would avoid voluntary taxation. Claiming that people won't pay a smaller voluntary tax based on the current efforts of some people to avoid paying much higher forced taxes is illogical. But that's where social sanctions enter the picture...to deal with the small minority who may not pay the smaller voluntary taxes.
Hehe, I explained how social sanctions work and you're the one who keeps claiming, "no they won't work".
Wtf, I've been disputing that all along. I don't need every person in my community to pay a voluntary tax to support the local sheriff before I'm willing to pay the tax. I want the service regardless of your actions. Do I need this trust when donating to charities? Of course not.
Then quote him? The only criticism I saw from GP was about lotteries, not your ridiculous coats "PD". And where was Ned's endorsement of your PD's? I sure know he never proved the validity of your PD's, saying "I agree with Agathon" doesn't mean you've offered valid PD's.
Do "they" say that to bears or to people who aren't letting them live their life? What if they want to murder people, is that part of liberty? No, because liberty is about freedom from the coercion or constraints imposed by other people.
Because you said the consequences of the hurricane and drunk teens knocking down your shed are identical.
The Founding Fathers and the people who influenced them, like Locke. When they spoke of liberty, did they mean freedom from nature or did they mean freedom from other people? If you need to ask "like who", then that explains why you are ignorant of the meaning and context of liberty. I just figured with all your name dropping you'd know about these philosophers.
I agree, that is dumb. "A natural fact" Are there un-natural facts? Libertarianism is about liberty - FROM OTHER PEOPLE! Sheesh...
And liberty is about the relationships between moral agents - people.
Which means they aren't identical.
Yes, but the inability to fly (like a bird) is not a violation of your liberty. If you have the ability to fly and I prevent you, that is a violation of your liberty.
I've supported it, the people who came up with the concept of liberty and rights never claimed liberty meant an exemption from the physical laws or being eaten by lions or bears, oh my.
And you don't think liberty involves morality?
Are you going to defend your guns "PD"? |
I would make a parody of your cutting and pasting. But it is too much of a self-parody.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
"If the right to life stems from life itself then they cannot mean the same thing. If they did mean the same thing then someone who knew what "life" meant would automatically know what "right to life" meant. This excludes everyone who lived prior to the creation of the concept of rights (in the late Middle Ages) from knowing what "life" was. Again worms and trees are alive, but Libertarians don't think that they have rights to life."
Agathon
"Their ignorance or non-belief in rights has nothing to do with the right to life stemming from life itself."
Berzerker
In order to answer the question, of does the right to life stem from life itself, we must first answer the question of where do rights come from?
There are two ways of answering this question, I'm curious as to which branch all you libertarians favour. One explanation is to use the concept of Natural Law, that the right to life originates from God, and therefore, men must respect this right.
Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. If men can decide who the right to life applies to, then it is the same as saying, "whomever has the power can strip anyone with lesser power of their right to life," or simply, "might makes right."
Does not the declaration of independence claim that these rights cannot be taken away by men? "endowed by their creator, certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
Secondly, to whom does the right to life apply? Agathon, Berzerker, I am very interested to hear what you both have to say about this.
BTW- your logic is false, Agathon.
If life = right to life, this does not prevent people from before the middle ages from knowing what life is. It does prevent them from knowing what the right to life is, at least how you have presented the right to life.
I would argue that any Christian, including those prior to the French Revolution, did know what the right to life meant, at least to some extent.
Thomas Aquinas formulated natural law, and would have clarified what the right to life meant, but it would not have altered Christian application of the right. They knew it was there, but Aquinas helped show them why.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
GP - quote:
I would make a parody of your cutting and pasting. But it is too much of a self-parody. |
quote:
well. When combined with ignoring the main thrust of someone's argument...it's pretty silly.
Learn to use PARAGRAPHS, dopers! |
I chop up paragraphs when they make several points and want to reply to each of the specific points. There is a difference between my posts and yours and Agathon's, I actually respond to the points being made while you guys respond to maybe 2 or 3 (although Agathon does a better job than you  ) and ignore the rest. Btw, I do use paragraphs when the paragraph contains only 1 point I want to discuss. Do you have proof I ignored the thrust of someone's argument by using my method of responding? If so, post your proof...
Obiwan - quote:
In order to answer the question, of does the right to life stem from life itself, we must first answer the question of where do rights come from? |
Agreed, the right to life comes from life itself. The fact you exist and we or the majority did not create you means we don't have a claim over your life.
quote:
There are two ways of answering this question, I'm curious as to which branch all you libertarians favour. |
Libertarians don't agree on that matter, but my view is that our rights come from that which created us - that which gave us life and liberty. I don't really care who or what did create us, only that I did not create you and you did not create me, etc.
quote:
One explanation is to use the concept of Natural Law, that the right to life originates from God, and therefore, men must respect this right. |
There are two groups of natural rights advocates, one is the religious as you have identified, another is that nature or nature's creator is the origin of our rights. The former requires a "God", the latter requires only that someone or something beyond ourselves is responsible for existence.
quote:
Does not the declaration of independence claim that these rights cannot be taken away by men? "endowed by their creator, certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" |
Yes.
quote:
Secondly, to whom does the right to life apply? Agathon, Berzerker, I am very interested to hear what you both have to say about this. |
Human beings, when one becomes a human being is another matter. Some say at conception, others say at birth, and some say somewhere in between. A person's life begins at conception, but I wouldn't argue that a fertilised egg is equivelant to a new born baby.
quote:
If life = right to life |
To clarify, I said the right to life was synonymous with life with regards to human interactions. Meaning I cannot take away your right to life without taking your life and vica versa. Agathon then distorted that by replacing the human doing the taking to hurricanes and bears.
quote:
I would argue that any Christian, including those prior to the French Revolution, did know what the right to life meant, at least to some extent. |
Agreed, who knows when the first person said we have a right to life, but since we don't really know, we ascribe the concept to the enlightenment philosophers who influenced the Founding Fathers who in turn embodied the concept in the Decl of Independence. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus himself believed in rights, one of the parables deals with property rights. The landowner who has the right to decide how much to pay his employees.
quote:
Thomas Aquinas formulated natural law, and would have clarified what the right to life meant, but it would not have altered Christian application of the right. They knew it was there, but Aquinas helped show them why. |
Any decent books on him and his philosophy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Agathon, you logic is false
If life = right to life, this does not prevent people from before the middle ages from knowing what life is. It does prevent them from knowing what the right to life is, at least how you have presented the right to life. |
No, this is just a place where intensional contexts create confusion (See: Gottlob Frege, "On Sense and Reference"; and Bertrand Russell, "On Denoting").
Berzerker said that "life" and "right to life" are synonymous. I think that's a dumb thing to say. This is why:
If it's a statement about the meaning (or sense) of the terms being the same then medieval people would have known what the concept "right to life" was, because they knew what the concept "life" was. The introduction of the notion of "right to life" would have been of no importance since, if they mean the same thing, it would be just like introducing a new vocal sign for an old concept. The only thing they wouldn't have known is the new vocal sound representing the old concept - but they still knew the concept. But then again ancient Greeks wouldn't have understood "human" even though they understood "anthropos" which means the same thing. What's weird about that?
But they also discovered (or invented) rights - hence my somewhat sarcastic claim that they couldn't understand themselves, since they would have absurdly been claiming to have discovered a new concept when on Berzerker's theory they were really discovering a new name for an old one (and we don't discover names, we invent them). In order to avoid the discovery being absurd, it would have to have been the case that they didn't understand the concept "life" before - when they clearly did.
Saying that "life" means "right to life" is about as clever as saying to oneself, "my my, a cow is a horse."
The other options is that he could have meant that they referred to the same thing. In that case one could know the meaning of "life" and what it referred to whilst not knowing that "right to life" referred to the same thing (e.g. the Cassius Clay example). But the second argument deals to that silly notion.
Enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Just a quick point before I have to go to bed.
In an earlier PD, Agathon stated, and used as a major argument, that if I buy a gun, the overall safety of everyone decreases.
This is absolutely not true. I know that I am responsible, I know that I would handle my weapon safely, and most of all, I know that I would not murder people with it or wave it around in public for no reason.
From my perspective, that argument simply doesn't work - the safety of everyone is not in any way affected by me purchasing a firearm.
Actually, even if everyone buys a firearm, the fact that they own a firearm does not affect anyone's safety. Only their actions affect their safety and that of others.
But even if I accept your argument that gun ownership is a safety issue, it is absolutely clear that it is far more unsafe for you to own one than for me to own one. The proof of that is that you have stated multiple times that, in certain circumstances, you would commit murder, while I have stated just as many times that I would never commit murder.
So it comes down to this - either your PD is false for everyone, because inanimate objects do not affect safety, or your PD is false as it applies to me but true as it applies to you, because of your stated support of murder in some circumstances and my stated opposition to murder and my stated position that I would store my gun safely, etc.
Either way, your PD breaks down - and if it isn't true for everyone, it is not a valid argument to begin with. Rather, it's a silly attempt to, once again, shift responsibility from where it belongs - in this case, from criminals onto firearms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Agathon - quote:
Berzerker said that "life" and "right to life" are synonymous. I think that's a dumb thing to say. This is why:
If it's a statement about the meaning (or sense) of the terms being the same then medieval people would have known what the concept "right to life" was, because they knew what the concept "life" was. |
I didn't make my comment about life and the right to life or liberty and the right to liberty being synonymous within the context of medieval peoples, hurricane damage or bears. I said they were synonymous because you cannot violate one without violating the other. And you still haven't shown how you can violate one without violating the other. Instead, you diverted the discussion away from the context of human interaction to hurricanes and bears. If you want to discuss hurricanes and bears, fine, but don't act like that was part of the original question and answer.
quote:
The introduction of the notion of "right to life" would have been of no importance since, if they mean the same thing, it would be just like introducing a new vocal sign for an old concept. |
The "right to life" is a statement that your life rightfully or morally belongs to you, in that context, they are synonymous.
quote:
In order to avoid the discovery being absurd, it would have to have been the case that they didn't understand the concept "life" before - when they clearly did. |
One can understand the concept of life and still be a slaveowner. The right to life is an understanding that your life belongs to you, not others.
quote:
Saying that "life" means "right to life" is about as clever as saying to oneself, "my my, a cow is a horse." |
That would be relevant if I made that equation, I didn't. You asked the following questions:
quote:
"Do Libertarians think that rights-violations are bad because they cause loss of liberty; or do they think that loss of liberty is bad because it is caused by rights violations?" |
quote:
"Do Libertarians think that the correct explantion of the badness of murder is that violating the right to life is bad because it causes death; or because death is caused by violating a right?" |
And I said life and liberty were synonymous with the rights to life and liberty because you cannot violate someone's life or liberty without violating their rights to life and liberty - and you can't. That's when you changed the context of human interactions to hurricanes and bears. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
GP - quote:
2. I responded to the problem with government lotteries by discussing several things. See the thread. (Examples of government failure in other nationalized industries, government efforts against private lotteries, and lack of volunteer payments to the government under current schemes, and also example of lower, higher taxed goods) Go back to the thread. |
I did, and you're full of sh!t like usual. On page 23 you responded to David, not me. And I never chopped up one of your posts and ignored the "thrust" of your argument. You made maybe 6 posts in the thread and they were all insults directed at libertarian posters or libertarians in general. I have to correct myself, I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.
quote:
and lack of volunteer payments to the government under current schemes |
And you call me a nitwit? Under current schemes we have massive forced taxation and people still play government lotteries. Why would I voluntarily give government money when I'm already being taxed at more than %50?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
-Berzerker
"Any decent books on him and his philosophy?"
- Try Written on the Heart, a case for Natural Law by J. Budziszewski
IVP, (Downer's Grove Illinois, 1997.
"The fact you exist and we or the majority did not create you means we don't have a claim over your life."
What about parents? Are parents allowed to kill their children?
"A person's life begins at conception, but I wouldn't argue that a fertilised egg is equivelant to a new born baby."
Why not, how do these differ? If life begins at conception, why isn't the zygote (BTW, that's the scientific term), equivalent to the
baby? The baby born is the same person, regardless.
Agathon-
Please answer my question. Berzerker was kind enough to do so.
"Christianity is a thieving religion - almost all its intellectually prestigious doctrines were borrowed from Greek philosophy."
I'm going to need more facts on this bald assertion. What do you mean by 'intellectually prestigious?'
As for Aquinas, I can neither confirm or deny. I'll have to go and read up some more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -
I did, and you're full of sh!t like usual. On page 23 you responded to David, not me. And I never chopped up one of your posts and ignored the "thrust" of your argument. You made maybe 6 posts in the thread and they were all insults directed at libertarian posters or libertarians in general. I have to correct myself, I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.
And you call me a nitwit? Under current schemes we have massive forced taxation and people still play government lotteries. Why would I voluntarily give government money when I'm already being taxed at more than %50? |
1. Berz, you say that we debated lotteries (and than correct yourself and say you were talking to someone else) and get mad at me because my comments were addressed to Dave in the same thread we were all talking in?  Regardless, those posts responded to your points.
2. Leaving aside the question of wether people would donate money to the government if there were no taxation (you can claim that they will but have no evidence of it. I can claim that they don't right now. Why should it bve different with no taxation) --> But to your last point, people playing government lotteries only shows that there is demand for lotteries, not that there is a desire to contribute to the government (your thesis). I can point to examples of people playing illegal numbers games or of crossing state lines to p;lay the lottery. Clearly they are not supporting their government than. They just want that particular good. And will go to real efforts to get it. even if it is illegal where they live. Pointing to people using current government lotteries as proof of people's willingness to play for worse odds for the government is absurd. they have no legal choice now. All it shows is that they like to gamble. Look at state liquor stores. It's completely analagous. People go there cause they like to drink and its the only place to get booze (in some states).
(Are you really that THC-impaired that I have to spell this all out to you?)
Last edited by TCO on 13-01-2003 at 07:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Obiwan - quote:
What about parents? Are parents allowed to kill their children? |
No, parents are only the "mechanism" by which offspring come about. Parents owe their existence to this primogenitor too.
quote:
Why not, how do these differ? If life begins at conception, why isn't the zygote (BTW, that's the scientific term), equivalent to the
baby? The baby born is the same person, regardless. |
Just biological differences - brain waves, heart, etc. A zygote is better classified as a potential human IMO, but I haven't come to a hard conclusion about when a person becomes a person with regards to the law. I figure that if I'm legally dead when I cease having certain bodily functions, then the same would apply on the other end, except of course for the element of potential.
Agathon - quote:
"Christianity is a thieving religion - almost all its intellectually prestigious doctrines were borrowed from Greek philosophy." |
It's difficult to find a religion that didn't borrow from predecessors or contemporaries. I consider the Golden Rule to be Christianity at it's most fundamental, and I believe Buddha offered a very similar concept to the Golden Rule before Jesus. But I believe there is something in the Old Testament that echoes the Golden Rule too. The Greek religion was not invented by Greeks, they borrowed heavily from Mesopotamia/Anatolia. As for Greek philosophy, can you identify the Greek who expressed the concept of the Golden Rule (not that the Golden Rule is some mysterious doctrine only a handful of people could ever come up with).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
GP - quote:
1. Berz, you say that we debated lotteries (and than correct yourself and say you were talking to someone else) and get mad at me because my comments were addressed to Dave in the same thread we were all talking in? Regardless, those posts responded to your points. |
You accused me of chopping up your posts and ignoring the thrust of your argument in the process. When I asked you for proof, you said you wouldn't bother with my request. So I looked at the thread. I didn't even respond to your post from what I can see, and you didn't address either of your posts to me. The first was to David and the following post was addressed to no one, just a generalised insult directed at libertarians. And you didn't respond in either post to my rationale for why a government lottery can raise money even when competing with private lotteries. As I pointed out to Agathon, the American Revolution was funded via lotteries and voluntary donations at a time when private lotteries were legal.
quote:
2. Leaving aside the question of wether people would donate money to the government if there were no taxation (you can claim that they will but have no evidence of it. |
How would you know? You obviously haven't been reading my posts to Agathon which is where I've been supporting my arguments.
quote:
I can claim that they don't right now. |
Because we have forced taxation now, sheesh. Why would I want to donate money to government when I'm paying more than %50 in taxes now? Geez, I just said that in my last post. Try reading before typing for a change. Answer this question, Agathon keeps ignoring it: if people would not voluntarily fund government, why don't people just do away with all taxation now?
quote:
But to your last point, people playing government lotteries only shows that there is demand for lotteries, not that there is a desire to contribute to the government (your thesis). |
When lotteries are proposed, we are told they will exist to fund schools, etc. You don't think that's a selling point? And if we didn't have forced taxation and no governmment services at all, you don't think a government lottery to pay for the military or police would be a MAJOR selling point?
quote:
I can point to examples of people playing illegal numbers games or of crossing state lines to p;lay the lottery. |
Many people like to gamble.
quote:
Clearly they are not supporting their government than. |
They do when they play government lotteries. The fact so many people like to gamble and do so under different venues doesn't mean they won't or don't play government lotteries. Why do you think those government lotteries get so big? Because millions are playing them already even with massive forced taxation.
The lotteries to raise money for the Revolution sure made it clear people who bought lottery tickets were funding the Revolution.
quote:
Pointing to people using current government lotteries as proof of people's willingness to play for worse odds for the government is absurd. |
Where did I say the willingness to play the lottery was proof people prefer worse odds? You just make crap up. You can't deny that millions of people in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut region play the lottery even with plenty of casinos in the area where they can get better odds.
quote:
they have no legal choice now. |
Private lotteries may be illegal, but gambling is legal within range of tens of millions of people. We have both a Kansas lottery and multi-state lottery here and we live close to Indian and riverboat gaming. The lotteries here are doing quite well inspite of the competition. With those worse odds come the big payoff, you can't get 20 million from a poker/numbers game.
quote:
All it shows is that they like to gamble. |
Many people do like to gamble.
quote:
Look at state liquor stores. It's completely analagous. People go there cause they like to drink and its the only place to get booze (in some states). |
State liquor stores are a relic of the puritanism that gave us prohibition, so what's your point?
quote:
(Are you really that THC-impaired that I have to spell this all out to you?) |
I doubt it, I haven't smoked pot for more than a decade. What's your excuse? You're the one having the trouble with facts.
Last edited by Berzerker on 13-01-2003 at 08:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
Am I the only one enjoying the whole "American Revolution was funded by lotteries" bit? Without assistance from other, extremely non-libertarian states, the lottery-funded revolutionaries would have been crushed by the British. That hardly seems like a good success story for the ability of non-taxation to fund an effective military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
GP - quote:
Jeez, Berz, in all seriousness, I'm running out of energy to spell out basis points any more to you. It's just not fun tallking to you. You're like a little kid or something. You don't THINK. |
It's my fault you keep making stuff up.
quote:
You can complain about me dismissing you, but that's too bad. |
Just stating facts, give it a try sometime.
quote:
I don't mind if you disagree with me. |
You mean I have your permission?
quote:
I just find your style annoying and blockheaded. |
I saw your posts in that thread, all you did was insult people. So why should you start trying to debate now?
quote:
What is so hard to see about the analogy between (current, exisiting, non-hypothetical) state lotteries and state liquor stores. |
What does your analogy supposedly show? State liquor stores were not created to eliminate private competition due to revenue, they were created because prohibitionists didn't want alcohol sold privately. They didn't want liquor stores on every corner. Don't "economists" have to take history courses at some point in their education?
quote:
The funny thing about this whole discussion is that Rex or Ramo would back me up. |
First Agathon claims you supported the logic of his PD's, and now you are name-dropping too. Yeah, what's funny is that you have to allege support where none has been offered just as Agathon alleged support where none existed.
quote:
I am having to explain some basic incentives of human free behavior to you...the libertarian. |
Let us know when you start since I'm the one explaining incentives and behavior to you guys. God, you almost make Agathon look like Einstein...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2003 01:35
|