08-03-2003 12:43									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wraith:

quote: No, apparently not. I perfectly understand where Chomsky is going with his little example, which is why I'm so irritated with it. People blatantly misrepresenting those who don't agree with them is one of the lowest forms "debate".

That kind of form of debate should be avoided? Are you sure?
You mean like this :

Aga:

quote: --"Philosophers because it just ignores the last 100 years worth of arguments in ethics"

You:

quote: If age were the primary requirement of an argument, we'd be living on a flat earth.

So, what do you think? Did he say that because there have been good arguments iin etchics within the 100 last years, or because it's just old? What gives value? Were you being an ass or dumbass?

And David:

quote: I'm reminded of the last time Agathon got into a debate with Berzerker and myself. Let's go ask orange - who is certainly no Libertarian - who won that debate

Does orange agreeing with you make you right? How about me disagreeing? I was there lurking too you know, and even said something too. Sorry if I was mean to you then and I'm reminding of you that, but you are bringing it up, so I'm going to be honest, it was so silly thread.
Actually berz made so big clown of himself I'm a bit surprised you still believe he was right and wan't be lumped up with him. Everyone who disagreed with him just gave up on him, (except for Agathon) including me. It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up, and that was exactly why I gave up. The above whining of mine of Wraiths words is a good example of how berz argued in that thread... A true classic thread (actually it was 500+another thread ).

Now, if berz you see this, I don't have personal vendetta againts you, eventhought this is the second time outside that thread I'm going back there, but this time I'm just responding to David.
It's like I have witnessed something and I see that people are making the total opposite statements of what I saw, if Matt is being accused of something, but really the one who is to blame is Peter, I think I should say something.

	08-03-2003 12:49									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Narz Man, who cares about winning arguements on the internet? I'm just interested in discussion, arguing doesn't change people's minds anyway, intelligent pursuasion sometimes does. My philosophy about philosophy is best summed up by Bruce Lee : "Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own." - Narz

Well who? Quite a few actually!

	08-03-2003 14:31									#93
	Inflate your Upload Space

Wraith,

"I'd point out the whole "rational self-interest" thing again, but I do realize it's pointless to argue this here."

We did that many moons ago and it got nowhere. But, even assuming that is true, "rational self-interest" does not lead to laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. Libertarianism). It leads to socialism.

quote: Originally posted by Rex Little You state this as fact; do you have a source? His version was that she wanted such an affair, but he refused. That seems realistic to me; she was 20 years older than him. Her version was that it was all a lie.

That's Nathaniel Branden, husband of the aforementioned Barbara Branden IIRC. Source: Why People Believe Weird Things.

	08-03-2003 14:42									#94
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 The idea of irrationality is one that OBSESSES me.

Yes, you don't exist, you are just a brain in a vat with electrodes attached to various areas for stimulations.

	08-03-2003 16:25									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

IMO, any non mass murderer who is so universally hated can't be all bad. Read her other book, the ahhh...the ummm....


Damn.

	08-03-2003 16:40									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Wraith -

quote: Please stop making statements about what Libertarianism does or does not do. Your track record there is very poor. And please stop ignoring my point above about force or threat of force. Damn it, this is exactly why I stopped getting into these sorts of arguments.

I see you've discovered Agathon. Ask him how "prisoner's dilemmas" prove that libertarianism is contradictory.

tinypen!s -

quote: Does orange agreeing with you make you right? How about me disagreeing? I was there lurking too you know, and even said something too.

Lurking? You were there to launch insults and little more (and that's being generous), that was the extent of your "contribution". Gee, Tiny even said something too.

quote: Actually berz made so big clown of himself I'm a bit surprised you still believe he was right and wan't be lumped up with him.

My signature came from that debate, and Orange is hardly a libertarian sympathesizer.

quote: Everyone who disagreed with him just gave up on him, (except for Agathon) including me.

You? You weren't debating, you were trolling. Since you forgot, Agathon entered that thread claiming libertarianism is contradictory, and when I asked for proof, he claimed "prisoner's dilemmas" were the proof. But when I asked or one these "PD's", all his examples were shot to pieces in much the same way Rex and Wraith are shooting down his claims about libertarianism in this thread. That's when he decided to use insults instead of arguments. But you didn't waste any time with debate, you just went right to the insults...

quote: It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up, and that was exactly why I gave up.

Like I said, you weren't debating in that thread. You even said you were "lurking"...

quote: Now, if berz you see this, I don't have personal vendetta againts you, eventhought this is the second time outside that thread I'm going back there, but this time I'm just responding to David.

No personal vendetta Fine, if you say so, but I won't let you get away with making false claims about your so-called participation in that thread.

quote: It's like I have witnessed something and I see that people are making the total opposite statements of what I saw, if Matt is being accused of something, but really the one who is to blame is Peter, I think I should say something.

I leave you with my signature as proof to the contrary.

	08-03-2003 16:49									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Agathon - Here's your chance to present your "prisoner's dilemma" proving libertarianism is contradictory. I'll stay out of it given our history, so let Wraith and Rex have a crack at your arguments.

	08-03-2003 17:42									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Agathon -

quote: Anyway, Noam Chomsky came up with a wonderful one line refutation of Libertarianism. "If someone tells me he will shoot me unless I give him all my money, according to Libertarians he has not violated my right to choose."

Why didn't Noam cite these libertarians? So no one could track down his alleged source to see if they really said that? This guy displays an astounding ignorance of freedom and coercion for a linguist.

quote: If a roober comes up to you and says "I'll beat you up if you don't give me your wallet" he's still given you a free choice and he hasn't done anything wrong - you are still free to say yes or no: he doesn't do anything wrong until he starts beating you up.

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. If a robber threatens you to obtain your wallet, coercion is involved.

quote: If you say no he might shrug and go away and he wouldn't have done anything wrong since he wouldn't have usurped your power to make a choice.

His use of coercion is an attempt to usurp your power to "choose" regardless of what action he takes. If you were in school and a bully came up demanding your lunch money, would you say there was no outside influence - coercion - effecting your decision?

quote: He doesn't even have to threaten to beat you up himself. He can say, "give me fifty bucks or I'll tell that evil looking guy over there that you called him a f*ggot" and then he wouldn't be doing anything wrong at all.

Still a threat of violence, still coercion.

quote: Face it - using voluntariness as a ground for morality is just dumb.

Yeah, involuntariness is so much better, worked so well for Hitler and Stalin.

Voluntary - 1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMINING
5 : having power of free choice
synonyms VOLUNTARY, INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, WILLING mean done or brought about of one's own will. VOLUNTARY implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion.

Freedom - a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Coerce - 1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

Since I doubt Chomsky is really that ignorant, I can only conclude he is malicious and deceitful. Too bad, I had some respect for the guy until I read his "refutation" of libertarianism (assuming your quote is correct of course).

	08-03-2003 20:52									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

--"How magical. It is considered a form of force. Why? "

Do you know what the definition of fraud is?

"Fraud requires proof that A made a knowing or intentional false representation of fact to B intending that B rely upon the representation, and that B did reasonably rely upon the false statement to his loss, detriment, or damage."

Using lies and mistruths to do damage to another certainly seems to fit the definition of force to me.

--"As for coercion - the Libertarian version of coercion is that I don't get a free choice"

Rex Little points out your fallacy here.

--" My philosophy about philosophy is best summed up by Bruce Lee : "Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.""

I don't know. I tried pragmatisim, and it just iddn't work for me...

--"Did he say that because there have been good arguments iin etchics within the 100 last years, or because it's just old? "

I was being a smartass. He was purposely making a mis-statement. Rand certainly does not ignore the last 100 years of philosophy. She makes long arguments against almost all of it. So I answered his wise-arse remark with the same.

--"But, even assuming that is true, "rational self-interest" does not lead to laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. Libertarianism). "

Thank you for stating your opinion as an axiom. I'll leave it with an "I disagree".

--"I see you've discovered Agathon."

I could have done without this particular discovery.

Wraith
"Either you're babbling, or you just told me in Cherokee 'my scrotum is many colored'."
-- Cornfed ("Duckman")

	08-03-2003 21:23									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. If a robber threatens you to obtain your wallet, coercion is involved.

I never could understand exactly what force meant in libertarianism.

If a oil operation sets up next to your town/home and pollutes your living enviroment are they initiating force against you? If they set up next to you in a attempt to get you to leave are they initiating force? If someone charges you a toll to get to a place you need to get to so that you will survive and you don't have the money to pay are they using force? If your ancestors use force to take land from someone and him or his ancestors return and want that land back is it in your right to use force to keep them out? Is it OK for someone to get someone else to protect your 'property rights'? If you owe a debt and the person you owe the debt to comes to you and tells you that you will be her slave since you will not pay the debt back then uses a gun to make you do what she wants, is she using force? If you pay a certain amount of money to receive certain services and then decide not to pay the money, should you still recieve the services and if the service giver decides that you owe them is it ok to use force to stop them? In the instances where force is used what redress do you have in a libertarian society, would there be a police system, and a court system or would it be up to you and anyone you can hire to defend your 'rights'?

I'm just not sure what constitutes initiation of force and what doesn't.

	08-03-2003 21:23									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rex Little No, the Libertarian version of coercion is that you are threatened with the violation of your rights. What Libertarians do not consider coercion is when you are threatened with something which, while undesirable, does not violate your rights (such as the loss of a customer in my example above). If you want to say that the threat of force isn't coercion even though force itself is, go ahead. Onlookers can judge for themselves if that makes any sense without us continuing to play 'tis so-'tis not.

What the onlookers say is neither here nor there unless they can back it up.

Again you've just said what Libertarians consider to be a violation of rights. I couldn't care less what they consider: I care about what they are entitled to. And the fact that Libertarians have chosen a name for one kind of activity over the other shows me nothing unless they can provide a morally relevant difference between the two.

They have an argument that says roughly that violations of liberty are what is wrong - all their other moral principles are derived from it (this is the idea that I'm the owner of my life and no one else is). You are ignoring this and helping yourself to rights you aren't entitled to.

So the argument is:

Libertarians claim that violations of liberty (the usurpation of choice) are the only things that count as bad. All rights that Libertarians claim are derived from this principle.

In the robber example the victim does not have his choice usurped by the robber.

Therefore, Libertarians can't claim that this sort of robbery violates a persons liberty, rights or anything else.

The problem with coercion as you have defined it is that Libertarians have no reason to object to my robber example because no one's liberty is violated (it's a stock truth for Libertarians that a bad choice is still a choice). What you need to do is show me why that sort of coercion is wrong and not the other sort in terms of how it affects a person's liberty; or you can add more principles to your version of Libertarianism.

Don't mess around: just answer the question.

	08-03-2003 21:29									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by SirTweek I never could understand exactly what force meant in libertarianism. If a oil operation sets up next to your town/home and pollutes your living enviroment are they initiating force against you? If they set up next to you in a attempt to get you to leave are they initiating force? If someone charges you a toll to get to a place you need to get to so that you will survive and you don't have the money to pay are they using force? If your ancestors use force to take land from someone and him or his ancestors return and want that land back is it in your right to use force to keep them out? Is it OK for someone to get someone else to protect your 'property rights'? If you owe a debt and the person you owe the debt to comes to you and tells you that you will be her slave since you will not pay the debt back then uses a gun to make you do what she wants, is she using force? If you pay a certain amount of money to receive certain services and then decide not to pay the money, should you still recieve the services and if the service giver decides that you owe them is it ok to use force to stop them? In the instances where force is used what redress do you have in a libertarian society, would there be a police system, and a court system or would it be up to you and anyone you can hire to defend your 'rights'? I'm just not sure what constitutes initiation of force and what doesn't.

This is because you can see the problem I'm taking aim at. Libertarians help themselves to certain rights and a conception of coercion illegitimately. So far all I've had in response is: "that's not what Libertarians say" which I understand perfectly well, I just don't buy that a person is allowed to claim such things from the principle they have.

	08-03-2003 21:32									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's a wierd debate when only one side makes any sense.

	08-03-2003 21:33									#104
	Support Apolyton

All such debates are weird.

	08-03-2003 21:37									#105
	Remove this text

quote: Lurking? You were there to launch insults and little more (and that's being generous), that was the extent of your "contribution". Gee, Tiny even said something too.

I was rude to David yes, but unfortunately also honest.

quote: You? You weren't debating, you were trolling. Since you forgot, Agathon entered that thread claiming libertarianism is contradictory, and when I asked for proof, he claimed "prisoner's dilemmas" were the proof. But when I asked or one these "PD's", all his examples were shot to pieces in much the same way Rex and Wraith are shooting down his claims about libertarianism in this thread. That's when he decided to use insults instead of arguments. But you didn't waste any time with debate, you just went right to the insults...

-I did had opinions about matters, you did reply to my post, and then we discussed /argued /debated /whatever you want to call it, about it, then you just made irrelevent remarks without touching my points really, so I told you I would give up. I gave up after just a few posts with you so that's why maybe you don't recall it.
-My point here was that everyone expect for Agathon did give up, and me too.
-I was rude I won't deny that, but I didn't touch anything besides what the others were trying to say and what points they were making. I never inverted their stuff. Quite opposite of what you did, and that's why I mentioned it about my previous post to begin with. I believe it's called playing with semantics. Maybe you just didn't understand others, no need to explain it anymore, it was discussed to death even then.



I just said in my last post:

quote: It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up, and that was exactly why I gave up.

then you say:

quote: Like I said, you weren't debating in that thread. You even said you were "lurking"...

-You did discuss with me.
-Don't be conserned about the word "debating". Read again. So if you discuss with me, or even argue or whatever you like to call it was, then why I can't use the definiton "debating skills" about how you discuss/argue.
-And what's with that remark about me lurking? Is that a wrong word to use? Ok I'll explain. I posted some, mostly observed, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

quote: No personal vendetta Fine, if you say so, but I won't let you get away with making false claims about your so-called participation in that thread.

I am not making any false claims about it. I was rude to you too (I checked it even from the threads), but I did answer everything you asked untill the point I told you I'm going to give up.

quote: I leave you with my signature as proof to the contrary.

That is oranges opinion yes.
I still see what he did and what you did. There were others too who didn't quite share oranges opinion. Now people have seen two sides of opinions about it, but for actual proof they should go to the threads and see for themselves what was being said by you and Agathon instead of listening to orange, me, David, GP, Ted, or anyone else there.

If anyone is interested I can dig them threads up. However I don't see need to do it unless being asked to, and who would really even care.

I surely hope this is all about this. =

	08-03-2003 21:38									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Libertarians claim that violations of liberty (the usurpation of choice) are the only things that count as bad. All rights that Libertarians claim are derived from this principle.

You are paddling in the sea, idly watching a small child drowning nearby. Nobody else has seen it.

Would it be bad if you didn't help it?

	08-03-2003 21:39									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc It's a wierd debate when only one side makes any sense.

Are you going for two flies?

	08-03-2003 21:42									#108
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp You are paddling in the sea, idly watching a small child drowning nearby. Nobody else has seen it. Would it be bad if you didn't help it?

Heh Heh - I was saving that one for later, but be my guest.

	08-03-2003 21:44									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis Are you going for two flies?

Not really. The Libs seem to be putting forth the more cogent case so far when compared to Agathon, IMO. It just seems surreal to use Chomsky as a source for an arguement against Libertarianism when I'm sure that better ones are available.

	08-03-2003 23:14									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: You are paddling in the sea, idly watching a small child drowning nearby. Nobody else has seen it. Would it be bad if you didn't help it?

I'll take this one.

I believe it would be "bad", or rather wrong, not to help the child, because helping the child is not an immoral activity, and if you do not help the child, he or she will die. Preventing death by moral means is always right, but, on the other hand, preventing death through immoral means is always wrong.

There is also a third example, and that is helping the child at the cost of your own life or safety or somesuch. In this case, it is not immoral to refuse to help the child - it just takes a personal value judgement on whose life you value more, yours or the child's. I personally doubt I would help the child if I would die in the process, but other people might. Either way, it isn't a wrong decision because it's a personal choice involving no coercion.

To sum up, there is a moral imperative, from my point of view, to help the child ONLY IF you can help the child through moral means and you do not put yourself in danger by doing so.

Now, I used the phrase "from my point of view", which is a Christian/Libertarian point of view. If one is not a Christian, and is not guided by certain personal moral principles, then I cannot impose a moral imperative on that person to help the child in any situation. So, objectively speaking, there is no moral imperative unless you impose one on yourself (or, rather, allow one to be imposed upon you).

	08-03-2003 23:19									#111
	Full PM-box? Change here!

--"I never could understand exactly what force meant in libertarianism"

The dictionary definition works.

"violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing"

Let me quote an example, although it's from a paper about Objectivism.

quote: How can the existence of willingness be determined? A man with a gun to his head (or whose values are indirectly threatened) will most likely ASSERT willingness, but does his assertion really signify the existence of willingness? To determine whether or not something is voluntary, we should examine two things: the person's behavior (both word and deed) and the context within which that behavior occurs--including the temporal context: the person may be operating under a threat laid on him in the past, and which is not to be manifest until sometime in the future. The concept "voluntary" cannot apply to any context in which coercion occurs as part of the relevant environment. If a person's behavior is mandated, regardless of her personal choice, then her behavior cannot properly be labeled voluntary. No contract--whether direct, indirect, or implied--is valid if it is coercively imposed, or if it is acquiesced to by default within a context of coercion. Meaningful consent does not exist under these conditions. The fundamental distinguishing characteristic which separates the two categories is the relevance of choice to the preservation of values. For example: If I put a gun to your head and demand your money, the situation is such that your choice has no relevance: you lose a value no matter how you choose. Either your money or your life. If your choice is to give me the money, then you lose the money. On the other hand, if your choice is NOT to give me the money, then you still lose the money--and your life, too. No matter how you choose, you lose. That's what makes the situation coercive. If a person's choice is NOT relevant to the loss vs. non-loss of a value then the transfer is a theft. If the person's choice IS relevant, then the transfer is a trade. There is a situation in which choice seems to be relevant, but nonetheless the transfer cannot be termed a trade: when the transfer occurs within a context of deception. This is fraud.

--"and pollutes your living enviroment"

Damaging your property without your consent, so yes.

--"If they set up next to you in a attempt to get you to leave are they initiating force?"

Depends how they attempt to get you to leave. If they offer you a lot of money for your place and do nothing else, then no. If they send people over to your house to comment on how flammable it looks, then yes.

--"If someone charges you a toll to get to a place you need to get to so that you will survive and you don't have the money to pay are they using force?"

Depends. If you need to take a plane but can't afford the ticket, then no. If they're preventing you from getting in your car unless you pay them, then yes.

--"If your ancestors use force to take land from someone and him or his ancestors return and want that land back is it in your right to use force to keep them out?"

This is one of the few true problems. It's hard to make blanket statements about this one, but it'll largely depend on how long ago it was and what kind of proof can be brought into play.
The problem here lies in the fact that restitituions for generations past involve punishing people who did not do anything wrong. This is a bad thing. We are pretty effectively limited to only addressing this when it was caused by people who are still alive.

--"Is it OK for someone to get someone else to protect your 'property rights'?"

In general, yes. It's fine for you to protect rights, no matter whose they happen to be. Your methods still have to be appropriate.

--"If you owe a debt"

Unless you were dumb enough to sign a contract saying you're their slave if you can't pay it off, it doesn't quite work that way. Penalties for contract violations of a sort that aren't specified in the contract are what the courts are for.

--"should you still recieve the services"

If you haven't paid for it, then no. Not unless the person providing them feels charitable.

--"would there be a police system, and a court system"

Depends which libertarians you ask. We do range from minarchists like myself (in which the answers are yes) to anarchists (who would say no).

--" I care about what they are entitled to."

Libertarians do not talk about what they are entitled to. The term does not agree with the general philosophy. Libertarians simply want their rights to remain unviolated.

--"They have an argument that says roughly that violations of liberty are what is wrong"

You're mis-stating things again. It's not "violations of liberty", it's violations of rights. The two terms are not synonymous. This is the last time I will address one of your strawmen.

--"It's a wierd debate when only one side makes any sense."

I know. But this is why it's really hard to argue with subjectivists. When they insist that things can mean anything they want them to mean, it's effectively impossible to pin them down on anything.

Wraith
"Forget Mother Mirabel, this crowd needs Father Thorazine. What the hell are you looking at?"
-- Duckman

	08-03-2003 23:50									#112
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I'll take this one. I believe it would be "bad", or rather wrong, not to help the child, because helping the child is not an immoral activity, and if you do not help the child, he or she will die. Preventing death by moral means is always right, but, on the other hand, preventing death through immoral means is always wrong. There is also a third example, and that is helping the child at the cost of your own life or safety or somesuch. In this case, it is not immoral to refuse to help the child - it just takes a personal value judgement on whose life you value more, yours or the child's. I personally doubt I would help the child if I would die in the process, but other people might. Either way, it isn't a wrong decision because it's a personal choice involving no coercion. To sum up, there is a moral imperative, from my point of view, to help the child ONLY IF you can help the child through moral means and you do not put yourself in danger by doing so. Now, I used the phrase "from my point of view", which is a Christian/Libertarian point of view. If one is not a Christian, and is not guided by certain personal moral principles, then I cannot impose a moral imperative on that person to help the child in any situation. So, objectively speaking, there is no moral imperative unless you impose one on yourself (or, rather, allow one to be imposed upon you).

I'll be an *******, and twist the plot a little bit more:

You're a wheelchair-bound police officer of a perfect libertarian state, guarding a convicted criminal, on a boat in waters that are shallow for adults, but are deep for kids. a child is drowning near by. can you force the convict into saving the child?

( I don't even want to get into the "one murder=many murders" part. )

	08-03-2003 23:52									#113
	Tired of ads?

Why would a wheelchair bound officer be in a boat guarding a convict?

	08-03-2003 23:57									#114
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by SirTweek If a oil operation sets up next to your town/home and pollutes your living enviroment are they initiating force against you? If they set up next to you in a attempt to get you to leave are they initiating force?

Yes.

quote: If your ancestors use force to take land from someone and him or his ancestors return and want that land back is it in your right to use force to keep them out?

The original owner of the land clearly has the right to take it back; the original taker clearly does not have the right to keep it. Once everyone involved is dead and only their descendants are involved, the issue gets murky. Land ownership is a tricky concept anyway; reasonable people can disagree about exactly what it entitles you to.

quote: If someone charges you a toll to get to a place you need to get to so that you will survive and you don't have the money to pay are they using force?

Obviously, this question assumes that the person charging the toll owns land that you must cross to get where you need to go. The answer depends on how his ownership of that piece of land is defined. (Defined how, and by whom? I don't know, and I don't propose to settle the question here. Like I said, it's a tricky concept.) If it includes the absolute right to decide who sets foot on the land, then no, he's not initiating force.

quote: Is it OK for someone to get someone else to protect your 'property rights'?

Anything you have the right to do, you have the right to get someone else to do for you. That includes protecting your property rights. But you didn't say property rights; you said 'property rights'. If by that you meant claims to property that really isn't yours, then of course it's not OK.

quote: If you owe a debt and the person you owe the debt to comes to you and tells you that you will be her slave since you will not pay the debt back then uses a gun to make you do what she wants, is she using force?

Yes, unless you had signed an agreement giving her the right to do that if you didn't pay.

quote: If you pay a certain amount of money to receive certain services and then decide not to pay the money, should you still recieve the services and if the service giver decides that you owe them is it ok to use force to stop them?

If this possibility is covered in whatever agreement was made at the time of the original purchase, that agreement governs. If not, there are a number of reasonable ways the law can deal with it. My own preference would be that if the service provider was expecting payment in advance, or if you've made it clear you won't pay, they're under no obligation to provide the service. If they choose to do so anyway, it's at their own risk; if you choose not to pay they have no right to force you.

quote: In the instances where force is used what redress do you have in a libertarian society, would there be a police system, and a court system or would it be up to you and anyone you can hire to defend your 'rights'?

Protecting your rights is the proper function of police and courts. That doesn't preclude you from hiring someone else, but if they go beyond protecting your rights and violate someone else's, you're as responsible as if you'd done so yourself.

	09-03-2003 00:01									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DD: this is besides the point. It's the full right of Police Inc. to employ whoever they want to.

	09-03-2003 01:21									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Not really. The Libs seem to be putting forth the more cogent case so far when compared to Agathon, IMO. It just seems surreal to use Chomsky as a source for an arguement against Libertarianism when I'm sure that better ones are available.

It doesn't matter who the source is. The Libertarians haven't put forward any case at all, much less a cogent one in answer to my question which I will repeat. Giving dictionary definitions or merely re-asserting the point in question is not making a case.

So again...

If depriving someone of liberty is depriving them of choice and this is the ground of Libertarian morality, why is what the robber does wrong when he clearly doesn't deprive his victim of the power of choice or make the choice for that person. The question couldn't be simpler.

Bad answers include: because he's threatening to violate someone's rights - this is dumb because merely threatening to violate someone's rights is not violating them ergo is not wrong, unless you invent a right not to be threatened.

Bad answer 2: Claiming a "right not to be threatened". If you invent a right not to be threatened, where does it come from? It certainly cannot be account for in terms of violating a person's liberty because threats threaten to deprive people of liberty (as Libertarians define it) rather than actually depriving them of it. And since all Libertarian rights are derived from the right to liberty, there just can't be any right not to be threatened in a Libertarian scheme.

Bad answer 3: coming up with some other moral principle in addition to liberty which justifies a right not to be threatened. This won't work because it is hard to find a principle that won't yield anti-libertarian counter examples.

Surely you supposed Libertarians can give some answers to these queries without begging the question.

	09-03-2003 01:25									#117
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It doesn't matter who the source is.

I know that the source doesn't matter. I just find Chomsky amusing in a buffoonish kind of way.

	09-03-2003 01:32									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, given that Chomsky's part in the cognitive revolution makes him a good candidate for being one of the leading scientific and historical figures of the twentieth century, it's a bit much to say that.

The point isn't peculiar to Chomsky (in fact I think he reports the example from someone else) but it is a much more powerful point than the so called Libertarians on here realise since they don't seem to understand the conceptual role of the principle of liberty in a Libertarian scheme as the sole moral principle from which all rights are derived. Unfortunately rights not to be threatened don't fall into this scheme unless you adopt a different (i.e. socialist) principle of Liberty. That's what's so funny about the robber case.

Anyway, how about having a go at answering the question.

	09-03-2003 01:41									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon it's a bit much to say that.

It's the political writings that do it for me. Most of them are just so far out there. I'll admit to not being familiar with the rest of his work though.

quote: Anyway, how about having a go at answering the question.

I would but I fail to see anything substantively wrong with Rex's post on page 5.

	09-03-2003 01:53									#120
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Rex's problem is that he assumes we have a right not to be threatened (what he calls "coercion") without giving an argument as to how it is derived from the principle of liberty.

The fundamental principle of Libertarianism is a variation on "Everyone is the owner of their own life and no one owns anyone elses." Their interpretation of this is that we have a "negative" right to liberty (a right to non-interference in our choicemaking) rather than a "positive" right to liberty (a right to interfere in the choices of others in order to affect our range of choices).

Trom this "negative" conception of liberty, they derive the rights to freedom of association, speech and property. I have no great objection to this derivation of rights because it follows from the initial conception of liberty. I can't see how you can derive a right not to be threatened like I described in the robber case because the robber doesn't interfere with your choicemaking (that is what he does does not intefere with "negative" liberty). If one did have a right not to have such choices presented to one then that would be admitting a "positive" right to liberty because it would be allowing you to interfere to affect your range of choices. A positive conception of liberty would destroy what most people call libertarianism because it would require others to do things without their consent in order to affect our range of choices.

If this seems a bit abstract, it is. I make no apologies for it either - this is where the real substance of the theory is, so this is where it should be questioned.