Sterba libertarian critique

[Harry_Felker]

@GilesStratton

That’s not to say there weren’t some suprising results of this topic, apparently libertarians think its moral to let children die, especially strange to me since I would have thought the average user on these forums could easily equal your average Muslim or Ethiopian in terms of children.

Giles, please tell me where I said that it is morally correct to let children die? I said that the libertarian belief, and I am fairly certain of this, is that people will give to charity, where the author of this speech disagrees, without the state, people will die of starvation, because rich people will not give willingly to charity…

Tell me Giles, is the free market approach to human compassion to take the property from one to benefit another by force?

@GilesStratton

And apparently the “philosophy” of objectivism has influenced the people on these forums quite a lot, which is unfortunate, because I don’t want my libertarian utopia to be comprised of lifeless homo economicus objectivists who can’t laugh at racist jokes because they’re “collectivist”, who think the fact that I drink beer is “irrational” , need to keep insisting that A is indeed, A and feel the need to use quotations from Atlas Shrugged to one another.

1. Is it a funny racist joke?

2. Drinking beer is only rational if it is Guiness. (Sorry I am biased to my favorite)

3. I did not quote Atlas Shrugged, I indicated that the theme of this speech is in fact very similar to the arguments of the “Villans” in the begining of the book, is literary reference supposed to be quoting?

4. I do not recall asking to be part of your “Libertarian Utopia”, for that matter, since I am not really into “Utopia” at all, I would reject such a notion, besides since I am not 100% white, I am sure I will not get an invitation…

Overall, Giles, I was talking with the original poster, not any of these side eruptions about “Tom and his Cabin”, I really do not care about Tom, Klemm and the damn cabin, or nihilism, etc…

What is humorous is that you did not indicate that I was wrong, just that you do not like my approach, and to that I say, too bad…

[DD5]

@Harry Felker

@wilderness

@Harry Felker

Basically with this paragraph, he is saying that Libertarians believe people are virtuous enough to take care of the poor and do not need the government to steal from producers to give to the unproductive. In other words, he is saying that he believes people are scum and will laugh at the poor dying in the street…

Who is the “he” that “is saying that he believes people are scum…”?

The person who wrote the speech…

The person who believes that people will die in the streets from hunger without legal plunder and wealth redistribution, of course…

Obviously the speech writer is of the opinion that all people in this country were decended from only the middle and better classes prior to the New Deal, because if you are poor, you are dead without welfare, because people are scum and will not willingly give to charity…

He does not need to say it so blatantly, it is meerly the final conclusion of the argument for wealth redistribution, it is the reason why, in communist countries, the leaders often slant media to show the rich taking advantage of the poor…

And what if people were really scums? Let’s bring it to an absurdity for a minute. Suppose most people don’t see it as a desirable “end” to help the poor starving people. I don’t see how that then justifies enslavement.

I just don’t like to justify my desire for freedom based on a utilitarian argument designed to show that the poor will be better off.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Except for the small problem that Rand nowhere extols a purely homo oeconomicus rendition of the virtuous man, though she does elevate material prosperity (which I hardly consider a bad thing.)

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

That’s not to say there weren’t some suprising results of this topic, apparently libertarians think its moral to let children die,

I never said that. It still doesn’t mean stealing is moral. You are not very aware of the system we are talking about. You inflate out of thin air absurd comments like this and paste them onto whomever you feel without a reasonable assertion.

@GilesStratton

especially strange to me since I would have thought the average user on these forums could easily equal your average Muslim or Ethiopian in terms of children. And apparently the “philosophy” of objectivism has influenced the people on these forums quite a lot, which is unfortunate, because I don’t want my libertarian utopia to be comprised of lifeless homo economicus objectivists who can’t laugh at racist jokes because they’re “collectivist”, who think the fact that I drink beer is “irrational” , need to keep insisting that A is indeed, A and feel the need to use quotations from Atlas Shrugged to one another.

And this was a bunch of what, who knows? Nothing that a reasonable person can find discourse in to be sure. So whenever you “feel” the need to bring up something intellectual please do instead of empty assertions.

[Donny_with_an_A]

Zefreak, the death premises are dripping from your every word. I bet you like Mondrain and Pollock! (In passing, I should also note that my tirade was hilarious, and you shouldn’t take things so seriously.)

Jack, the point of a moral system is to inform our actions. If we call some choice or action “immoral,” what we have in mind is that the person who did it ought to have done something else. It therefore is not consistent with the nature of morality for all alternatives available to a person to be immoral. Now, you could say that Klemm was immoral to put himself in a position where the most moral thing for him to do would be to break into the cabin. Thus we would say that Klemm did something wrong, but that it wasn’t breaking into the cabin; rather, it was choosing to go backpacking.

To put it simply, if Klemm has two choices – break in or die – and we call breaking in immoral, then that entails that we think the moral choice would be to choose death. If we call choosing death immoral, then that entails that we think the moral choice would be to break in.

Now, there’s an important distinction to be made between “regrettable” and “immoral” here. It is certainly regrettable that Klemm will have to break in or die, and either of these alternatives would produce very regrettable consequences. But to say that an alternative is immoral is to say that one should not choose that alternative, and so to say that all choices are immoral is to say that one should not choose from any of the possible range of choices – a clearly self-defeating position.

[wilderness]

@nirgrahamUK

surely its better to kill theoretical children and in reality have circumstances for real children be positive

than to theoretically prohibt the death of children and in reality wreak havoc on them

If I know what you’re saying here, you pointing out how in their intellectual exercise the children must die or Klemm must die unless they can coerce somebody like a Tom to help them. It’s a mere intellectual exercise skewed for them to justify coercion. Yet in the real world I see a Tom and many others not having such desperate occasions befall people. I see a real world in which in liberty coercion doesn’t help in the high preference time, but rather voluntary help is more a low preference time. Meaning people are foreseeing and thus using reason to avoid such dire straits in the name of liberty and not coercion is reasonable events possible.

Am I close to what you were trying to say?

[wilderness]

@Harry Felker

@wilderness

@Harry Felker

Basically with this paragraph, he is saying that Libertarians believe people are virtuous enough to take care of the poor and do not need the government to steal from producers to give to the unproductive. In other words, he is saying that he believes people are scum and will laugh at the poor dying in the street…

Who is the “he” that “is saying that he believes people are scum…”?

The person who wrote the speech…

Ah, after I wrote that post to you, I was thinking that’s what you meant. Thanks for clarifying this for me.

@Harry Felker

The person who believes that people will die in the streets from hunger without legal plunder and wealth redistribution, of course…

Obviously the speech writer is of the opinion that all people in this country were decended from only the middle and better classes prior to the New Deal, because if you are poor, you are dead without welfare, because people are scum and will not willingly give to charity…

I think that is a deeper premise of theirs. Writers such as this person do jump off in their writings thinking “people are scum” and the more knighted people will save the world - like Obama the messiah.

Excellent point.

@Harry Felker

He does not need to say it so blatantly, it is meerly the final conclusion of the argument for wealth redistribution, it is the reason why, in communist countries, the leaders often slant media to show the rich taking advantage of the poor…

Awesome point!

[Harry_Felker]

@wilderness

Awesome point!

Thank you…

As much as it is unpopular, this was what I had taken from Rand, and truly could have come from her to me, as she lived in communism, it is a trait of those that do not live as the general citizen of a communist country to not see anything wrong with the system, and as long as the only (narrow) perspective is that of someone looking into communism from the outside without the reality of what it is, you can never go beyond that.

Despite the poor reviews, I would suggest We the Living, as a real look into what happens in a communist country…

The funny thing is that the speech is labelled as Humanist…

The compassion to those that produce is completely irrelevant to humanists, and producers are humans, so in what sense are they humanists?

[wilderness]

@Donny with an A

Zefreak, the death premises are dripping from your every word. I bet you like Mondrain and Pollock! (In passing, I should also note that my tirade was hilarious, and you shouldn’t take things so seriously.)

I guess you finally admit your argument was not serious. Well, on this, we agree.

@Donny with an A

Jack, the point of a moral system is to inform our actions. If we call some choice or action “immoral,” what we have in mind is that the person who did it ought to have done something else. It therefore is not consistent with the nature of morality for all alternatives available to a person to be immoral. Now, you could say that Klemm was immoral to put himself in a position where the most moral thing for him to do would be to break into the cabin. Thus we would say that Klemm did something wrong, but that it wasn’t breaking into the cabin; rather, it was choosing to go backpacking.

lol

@Donny with an A

To put it simply, if Klemm has two choices – break in or die – and we call breaking in immoral, then that entails that we think the moral choice would be to choose death.

I thought you weren’t for either/or schemes. Your focus is lacking indeed. Nobody said Klemm had to die. It’s simply nobody has to coerce Tom to help Klemm that you fail to recognize. Your premise is not only anti-libertarian as you befuddle liberty along the way, but you also begin with people are immoral and work your conclusions from there as well.

Tom isn’t immoral. He would have freely helped Klemm.

@Donny with an A

If we call choosing death immoral, then that entails that we think the moral choice would be to break in.

Now, there’s an important distinction to be made between “regrettable” and “immoral” here. It is certainly regrettable that Klemm will have to break in or die, and either of these alternatives would produce very regrettable consequences. But to say that an alternative is immoral is to say that one should not choose that alternative, and so to say that all choices are immoral is to say that one should not choose from any of the possible range of choices – a clearly self-defeating position.

A bunch of tail chasin’ in this paragraph of yours: “To say that… is to say… so to say… is to say…” yes your argument is “clearly self-defeating”.

By the way, Tom never thought Klemm was immoral for breaking into the cabin. He even helped him get up off his feet and taught him how to rub sticks together next time. And since Klemm was backpacking and I do that often, for Klemm not being able to go out into nature with preparation then Klemm is left with either the wrath of nature due to ill-preparation, which actually takes reasonable foresight, or fortunate for Klemm he found a compassionate and merciful Tom who helped Klemm out. And Klemm being the nice guy/gal he/she is helped pay for any damages if Tom so asked.

From experience, I would say Klemm was very humbled by his experience and is very thankful that a capitalistic such as Tom had a cabin in the woods to provide safety on his life’s journey. You can learn a lot of nature. I know.

“Don’t worry, be happy”… life’s not so bad as you depressly make it out to be.[:)]

[Harry_Felker]

@DD5

And what if people were really scums? Let’s bring it to an absurdity for a minute. Suppose most people don’t see it as a desirable “end” to help the poor starving people. I don’t see how that then justifies enslavement.

I just don’t like to justify my desire for freedom based on a utilitarian argument designed to show that the poor will be better off.

Well, this is my opinion, feel free to disagree, I feel that it is profitable (not monetarily) to give to charity, that is willingly donate, not steal by use of legal plunder, as I work for my possessions, and I believe that it curbs the desire of others to rob me of them, if that does not work, I have the means to my own defense as well, but this is besides the point…

The absurd argument is absurd for a reason…

[Donny_with_an_A]

Wilderness, for about the seven hundredth time, Tom is not home. The choices available to Klemm are a) break in, and b) die. It’s true that if there were other alternatives, then maybe those alternatives would be better. But there aren’t.

Actually, let’s say this instead:

Tom is in the broadcast booth with me. He can’t let Klemm in; nor can he communicate with him.

“That’s right, Danny. It’s the moral battle of the century down there. Will Klemm literally accept his own death for the sake of the inviolability of my cabin? Or will he break into the cabin and save himself?”

Given that he’s just sort of sitting there, it looks like he’s swallowed those death premises hook, line, and sinker! Amazing, Tom.

“It is amazing, Danny. By convincing Klemm that his life is the standard of value, these libertarians have managed to make Klemm believe that he ought to voluntarily sit there and die on behalf of my property rights. This is a great day for freedom!”

I couldn’t have put it any better!

[wilderness]

@Harry Felker

Despite the poor reviews, I would suggest We the Living, as a real look into what happens in a communist country…

Hmm, I may check that book out some time. I never read any of Rand’s books. Not that I don’t like her. I’ve come across some of her points at times in some articles that I didn’t agree with but they were scholarly journals that overall gave praise to Rand. They simply were nit-picking some of her assertions. They were very minor details, very minor. Overall I’ve heard very good things about her books. My brother read “Atlas Shrugged” and really like it. I’ve never given the time to her books as of yet. I have a book pile that is high at the moment and I would like to get to those first. But I foresee a time when I’ll be able to get around to her books. Thanks for the suggestion and I bookmarked this post of yours with the novel name so I’ll remember in the future on what book it was that you recommended as a good read.

Is the book a real life look at her experience in communism melted into a fictional storyline? So therefore there is real communist experiences that she knew from her experience that she brings to light in book?

[Donny_with_an_A]

For those still reading this thread with the intention of learning something, it might be helpful here to point out that saying “Choosing Alternative A would be immoral” is incompatible with the claim that “Choosing Alternative A would be the right thing to do,” or “All things considered (including all moral considerations), Alternative A would be the best choice.”

[wilderness]

@Donny with an A

Wilderness, for about the seven hundredth time, Tom is not home.

So? Tom can come back and give compassion after the fact. If you’re saying Tom never knows Klemm did this, then so what? It’s an event that nobody knows about except for Klemm. But you’re still saying Tom is coerced to let Klemm into the cabin. So how is Tom coerced into this situation if Tom isn’t even home? Around and around you go.

@Donny with an A

The choices available to Klemm are a) break in, and b) die. It’s true that if there were other alternatives, then maybe those alternatives would be better. But there aren’t.

So Klemm breaks in? Merely physics. You are still saying it’s Tom’s cabin.

@Donny with an A

Actually, let’s say this instead:

oh God…lol

@Donny with an A

Tom is in the broadcast booth with me. He can’t let Klemm in; nor can he communicate with him.

“That’s right, Danny. It’s the moral battle of the century down there. Will Klemm literally accept his own death for the sake of the inviolability of my cabin? Or will he break into the cabin and save himself?”

Given that he’s just sort of sitting there, it looks like he’s swallowed those death premises hook, line, and sinker! Amazing, Tom.

“It is amazing, Danny. By convincing Klemm that his life is the standard of value, these libertarians have managed to make Klemm believe that he ought to voluntarily sit there and die on behalf of my property rights. This is a great day for freedom!”

I couldn’t have put it any better!

Actually you could have put it better.

This is your intellect letting Klemm die.

My intellect has Klemm living and being snug with some hot coffee sitting by the fire letting Tom know by a written note that he will send money in the mail to pay for any damages caused.

[Harry_Felker]

@wilderness

Is the book a real life look at her experience in communism melted into a fictional storyline? So therefore there is real communist experiences that she knew from her experience that she brings to light in book?

Yes it is, Marquise can back this up if you do not trust my opinion…

She says mail her and she will tell you herself…

[Donny_with_an_A]

So hold on, now you’re saying that Klemm would be justified in breaking into the cabin, but that in doing so he might take on certain obligations to pay restitution?

[wilderness]

@Harry Felker

@wilderness

Is the book a real life look at her experience in communism melted into a fictional storyline? So therefore there is real communist experiences that she knew from her experience that she brings to light in book?

Yes it is, Marquise can back this up if you do not trust my opinion…

She says mail her and she will tell you herself…

Nice.

I’m definitely keeping this book on my to read list. I like books like this. Thanks

[Brainpolice]

@Donny with an A

@Vichy

@Juan

@Danny

John Rawls

Basically a social-democrat n’est-ce pas ?

Rawls isn’t a social democrat, he’s a welfare liberal and there are important distinctions. For example, welfare liberals are interested in giving individuals their due as the criterion for a just society, whereas social democrats want to promote democratic society as the criterion of justice.

Libertarians seem to be incapable of making any sort of distinctions between political philosophies, all they can see are anarchists and socialists.

And, as for Brainpolice, you are totally wasting your time, you know? Look at how many people throw around the word ‘a priori’ with no understanding what it even means. These people aren’t interested in philosophy, they’re ideologues. You’d have as much luck arguing with anarcho-communists.

Hehehe

From Rawls, the alleged social democrat, on the very first pages of A Theory of Justice:

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. No doubt they are expressed too strongly. In any event I wish to inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so how they can be accounted for.

Sounds like commie statist fascism, to me!!! Next thing you know, he’ll be peddling the labor theory of value, handing out pamphlets on effective nirvana-fallaciousness, and sending people off for “re-education” if they won’t “voluntarily” hand over their land to The People! Keep your hands off my property, zombie-liberal!

In all seriousness, though, it’s really Wilderness and Liberty Students who hate freedom and humanity, since obviously they’re the ones asking Klemm to become a sacrificial animal for the benefit of Tom and the holy market system. Where’s a man’s own life as the standard of value now?! Uh oh; looks like self-abrogation is on the menu – like, literally. Sorry, Klemm, but we have this property system that we need to uphold, so we’re going to need you to…uh…die on its behalf. Yep; eat death premises, Klemm; we’ll thaw you out in the Spring!

Here with some thoughts of his own is Tom, who flew in all the way from his winter home in Hawaii to be here today! Hi Tom, here’s the footage of Klemm freezing to death outside your cabin in order to respect your claim over it. Would you care to tell us what you think is going through his mind here?

“Sure thing, Danny. You see, what’s happened here is that Klemm has been convinced that because we have a private property system that we take to be important, that means that nothing else could ever matter enough to outweigh the moral importance of the property system – not even his own life! Imagine that! He’s literally going to sit there and allow his body to slip into a hypothermic coma, eventually leading to death, because he doesn’t want to smash my window and let himself in. It’s remarkable, isn’t it?”

Indeed it is, Tom. If only Klemm were a worse person, and cared less about justice, maybe he could have saved himself. But clearly, the demands of justice establish that when it’s human lives on one hand and property rights on the other hand, there’s only one thing we can choose: property rights. Otherwise, we all become communists.

“That’s right, Danny. If Klemm broke my window and let himself into the house, he would save his life, but he would immediately slip into an irreversible state of confusion, since he would never ever be able to justify respecting anyone’s right to anything ever again. He would stop believing that A is A, and he would immediately quit smoking and begin listening to Mozart. Because clearly, if it would be justified to break into my cabin to save his life, there would be no way for him to deny that he would be justified in breaking into my cabin for some iced tea. Barbarism, Danny.”

That would be barbaric, Tom. To think; a man could never be secure in his iced tea again. I shudder at the thought.

“But hey; let’s just take a moment to thank Klemm for sacrificing himself for the good of the private property system and the market economy. Without the brave sacrifices made by people like him, you and I could never enjoy our freedom today; we’d all be communists, asked to sacrifice ourselves for other things that are far less worthy.”

Good point, Tom. Systems of ethics that insist that people sacrifice themselves for ideals and for others are sick except when they’re ours. To freedom, Tom!

“To freedom, Danny!”

For Tom, my name is Danny; we’d like to thank the crew, our sponsors, and Klemm for his brave sacrifice for the greater good.

LMAO!

[wilderness]

@Donny with an A

So hold on, now you’re saying that Klemm would be justified in breaking into the cabin, but that in doing so he might take on certain obligations to pay restitution?

The whole time through this thread, but I’ve been getting the feeling that you’ve been blinded by some noise in the system, I’ve been saying physics enables Klemm to break into the cabin. Jack and LS have repeated this. Jack has shown very clear posts on this position.

None of this has to do with who’s property the cabin is as I’ve repeated. It is Tom’s cabin. This is why Klemm would pay restitution (a form of repercussion) if Tom so wanted. I also said Tom could waive any repercussions. I also stated Tom could waive the repercussions, but Klemm insists on paying for any damages occurred. But all of this is an inquiry into repercussions. Who’s property it is, Tom’s, is never in default or up for question. His right of property is never damaged. You have never shown how Tom loses this property of his. And that’s why I’ve continually repeated that you are inquiring into repercussions. Brainpolice tried to make this about property rights and substituted this inquiry of repercussions into another phrase called “decision-making power”. Well the decision-making power of what Tom has when it comes to repercussions on dealing with Klemm who physically can break into the cabin is still under question. I know of no universal repercussions. I do incline personally and I know LS and Jack throughout this thread have stated, as I would, that Tom has a say in what befalls Klemm who has trespassed upon Tom’s property. This is to inquire about repercussions and does not damage who’s property it is - Tom’s.

I’ve repeated this continually. It doesn’t fumble anybody’s liberty. To coerce Tom into helping Klemm does fumble liberty, when reasonably, coercion is not necessary to help Klemm. It is called compassion. It is called mercy. It is called forgiveness. It is called love. It is about protecting liberty and still helping people along the way.

[Brainpolice]

You guys are definately winning here, after having dealt Danny, Sage and BP a crushing blow

When was I dealt “a crushing blow”? It took pages for some of them to even comprehend my argument, and my argument was never refuted. I’ve yet to see anyone justify deontological libertarianism in this thread, even though it’s been the unspoken premise of most posters. I’ve seen a lot of wheel spinning for pages on end from people who apparently don’t even understand the philosophical problems involved in the arguments and are attacking strawmen, and act reactionary against anyone who questions the way that they have conceptualized their dogma.