Sterba libertarian critique

[Brainpolice]

@liberty student

Danny, thanks for the laugh.

You won’t answer direct queries in debate but you will talk to yourself.

After calling us lunatic wingnuts, you are now making up conversations that you then laugh at.

At least the conversation has turned turned to light hearted strawmen.

@Donny with an A

W: “Man, Liberty Student, it really is a shame that Danny can’t even decide whether or not the cabin belongs to Tom; his position is so full of holes that I can’t even understand why he thinks he has any intellectual credibility left. And to think; it’s so simple: it’s Tom’s cabin, after all, and so once we acknowledge this it becomes clear that it’s just an inquiry of repercussions! Look at how much he tripped over himself trying to deny that property rights mean that it’s Tom’s decision. Really sad, actually.”

LS: “Danny is just confused. He simply doesn’t understand that his position leads directly to communism. But it’s okay; I think he’s still an okay guy, even if he just sits around calling people names. It’s a shame that Sage and Giles don’t see him for what he is, but Giles is a snivelling child anyway.”

Z: “RothbardFTW!!1!”

seizes Tom’s means of production Klems of the world…UNITE!

[Juan]

Uh oh.

Danny, there’s is a sizeable group of people (me included) that don’t take your attempts at selling socialism-light very seriously ?

Out of couriosity…what sort of society did Rawls envision ? I think Rawls, as a modern liberal, fully supported murdering any dissident who went against the state and his ‘welfare liberalism’…but I may be wrong. But please enlighten me : Was Rawls an anarchist ? A pacifist ? Or rather some brand of left-leaning statist ?

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

seizes Tom’s means of production Klems of the world…UNITE!

You’re still evading. Do you want me to repost, or will you be able to go back and find it?

[Laughing_Man]

@Vichy

I have hardly ever met a libertarian who at all understands what Marxism is, and most ‘critiques’ against Marx around here tend to attack straw men. .

Hi…nice to meet you.

[Donny_with_an_A]

@Juan

Uh oh.

Danny, there’s is a sizeable group of people (me included) that don’t take your attempts at selling socialism-light very seriously ?

Out of couriosity…what sort of society did Rawls envision ? I think Rawls, as a modern liberal, fully supported murdering any dissident who went against the state and his ‘welfare liberalism’…but I may be wrong. But please enlighten me : Was Rawls an anarchist ? A pacifist ? Or rather some brand left leaning statist ?

Rawls believed that social institutions should be chosen based on the principle of justice that the members of the society would embrace behind the veil of ignorance in the original position. I disagree with the way that Rawls formulates the original position and the way that he characterizes the choice to be made concerning principles of justice, and so I predictably disagree with the principles of justice for which he argues (and by extension, I am not led to the same conclusions in terms of social institutions). I finally set about taking a hard look at Rawls’ book a little while ago, and I wrote about this on my blog the other day.

That being said, in spite of my skepticism about some of the steps Rawls takes in formulating his theory, I am nevertheless finding the book to be every bit as remarkable as I would have hoped. Rawls’ concept of reflective equilibrium, for example, is a fascinating contribution, as is his account of the “priority problem” and his critique of aggregative teleological theories in ethics.

Novel idea: instead of thinking about things in terms of “us vs. them,” what about considering everyone’s ideas on their merits, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions about really fundamental issues?

[wilderness]

@liberty student

@wilderness

And yet mercy and justice cleans up this mess, restores, and no consideration of aggression need to have even been thought to have occurred. Liberty thus not violated.

I don’t believe Giles thinks people can be merciful and just. He certainly doesn’t believe those are rational choices someone can make.

It’s my feeling we’re seeing the real deal with a lot of folks. That under it all, there is a latent discomfort with freedom, and a desire to resort to aggression as soon as an adequate emotional lever can be pushed.

Not surprising. If everyone had an inherent and consistent sense of virtue, then we wouldn’t be in the mess we find ourselves in each day.

Exactly, if I’m not mistaken, this was something Laughingman came up with too (the Freudian thing). Giles can’t see others being merciful and just is a direct result of Giles own mishaps. Giles being not merciful and just leads him to the only conclusion that others must think such a personal event as well. Unless Giles knows what’s in everybody’s heart and mind, but I know he doesn’t.

We definitely are seeing the real deal with a lot of folks. It’s sadly amazing.

[nirgrahamUK]

@laminustacitus

I must admit that I never really intended to comment on this situation; instead, I merely desired to critique your interpretation of “thou shalt not steal.” I have not considered the conditions of this specific though-experiment enough to comment here.

Jews (Who received the ten commandments), interpret the prohibition against theft that supposedly was present on the tablets of the 10 commandments, to be referring not to theft in general, but to kidnap/slavery. also for the jews, the 10 commandments form a subset of the total set of laws they were supposed to follow, so apart from the dramatic way they were imparted they arent necessarily the core morality that was being pushed, theres lots of other stuff in there, (in the hundreds i think…)

for a cut-down version of monotheistic attempts to formulate a core morality, perhaps look at the Noahide laws.

laws supposedly given to Noah after the flood, the jews believe that even though non-jews should not follow jewish laws, they should at least follow the Noahide laws.

pasted from Wiki :

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

to me its still nonsense, but because the prohibition against stealing, really refers to thievery in the wide traditional sense, it is perhaps more pertinent than the 10 commandment version with its narrow focus on ‘person’ stealing.

[hayekianxyz]

Now Danny, you’re approaching this topic with the same lack of seriousness with which you approach rights.

If only you learned to take rights seriously you could stop wasting everybody’s time and we could all return to repeating “A = A” and apprecation the fire of the intellect in our hands.

[wilderness]

@Brainpolice

And I’ve said repeatedly, if I was Tom I would be ok with it as long as Klemm cleans up the mess caused. But again this is not up to me. Why even go through all this. What’s really the point other than cultivate a Tom that would agree with me and show compassion? Are you trying to say this should be law? I’m leaving Tom’s free-will intact. Tom can be ass and not show mercy. I’m protecting liberty and somehow it’s benefiting both Tom and Klemm.

Again, you’re simply sidestepping having to address the question with a fully comprehensive answer. Noone is saying that it’s “up to you” or “up to us” in the sense of some governmental decision-making body, I’m asking you to actually give me a coherant answer to the philosophical question about moral permissibility in the scenario.

Nope, you are making statements. You lack context. Tom is not dead.

@Brainpolice

You have consistently sidestepped doing that by insisting on talking about the matter in an ex-post-facto sense and as a restitutional issue, when the question is one of the agent’s moral permissibility in the scenario. You keep shifting the question to “What can or should Tom do after the scenario occurs?”, when you are being asked “What is it permissible for Klemm to do in the scenario, and why or why not?”.

I said my answer, but Tom is not dead. You are making statements, lack context, and live in a bubble world where only Klemm exists. I recognize Klemm and Tom. Probably due to I recognize liberty.

@Brainpolice

Is Klemm morally obligated to die or do nothing by virtue of the absolute authority of Tom’s property rights? Or is it is morally permissible for Klemm to do that which is necessary to save his life in the scenario?

Making statements. That’s all I’m probably going to say for awhile until you understand the world is not a Klemm Bubble.

[hayekianxyz]

@wilderness

Giles being not merciful and just leads him to the only conclusion that others must think such a personal event as well

In this topic: we become objectivists (poor psychology and all).

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

Once again, I’m done.

You’ve said that before. See ya. Nothing like a tail between the legs and run.

[wilderness]

@Donny with an A

@GilesStratton

Once again, I’m done. Soon enough everybody else will be too. At that point you guys can go back to challenging each other’s knowledge of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and discussing how much you hate dyslexics (after all, they do tend to get a bit confused when it comes to that whole “A = A” business).

Oh and, for the record, BP turns out to be correct.

Not before another one of these:

W: “Man, Liberty Student, it really is a shame that Danny can’t even decide whether or not the cabin belongs to Tom; his position is so full of holes that I can’t even understand why he thinks he has any intellectual credibility left. And to think; it’s so simple: it’s Tom’s cabin, after all, and so once we acknowledge this it becomes clear that it’s just an inquiry of repercussions! Look at how much he tripped over himself trying to deny that property rights mean that it’s Tom’s decision. Really sad, actually.”

LS: “Danny is just confused. He simply doesn’t understand that his position leads directly to communism. But it’s okay; I think he’s still an okay guy, even if he just sits around calling people names. It’s a shame that Sage and Giles don’t see him for what he is, but Giles is a snivelling child anyway.”

Z: “RothbardFTW!!1!”

Well another forgetting of bringing intellect to the table by Danny. “Really sad, actually.” lol

[wilderness]

@Brainpolice

seizes Tom’s means of production Klems of the world…UNITE!

True colors show bright.

[hayekianxyz]

By the way, I’ve no idea how you guys missed this, look:

@Donny with an A

W: “Man, Liberty Student, it really is a shame that Danny can’t even decide whether or not the cabin belongs to Tom; his position is so full of holes that I can’t even understand why he thinks he has any intellectual credibility left. And to think; it’s so simple: it’s Tom’s cabin, after all, and so once we acknowledge this it becomes clear that it’s just an inquiry of repercussions! Look at how much he tripped over himself trying to deny that property rights mean that it’s Tom’s decision. Really sad, actually.”

LS: “Danny is just confused. He simply doesn’t understand that his position leads directly to communism. But it’s okay; I think he’s still an okay guy, even if he just sits around calling people names. It’s a shame that Sage and Giles don’t see him for what he is, but Giles is a snivelling child anyway.”

Z: “RothbardFTW!!1!”

[wilderness]

@Donny with an A

Novel idea: instead of thinking about things in terms of “us vs. them,” what about considering everyone’s ideas on their merits, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions about really fundamental issues?

Not novel at all. But novel for you no doubt. I don’t think you grasp a minimizing of “us vs. them” yet. You still live in a Klemm Bubble. I’ve embraced Tom and Klemm without fumbling anybody’s liberty. You violate liberty and can’t figure out if it’s Tom cabin yet as I’ve linked some posts back for Brainpolice to see.

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

@wilderness

Giles being not merciful and just leads him to the only conclusion that others must think such a personal event as well

In this topic: we become objectivists (poor psychology and all).

Well Giles if you don’t think somebody potentially can be merciful and just, then that’s your poor psychological projection from within your own self. Unless you can use ideas to reciprocate, but you haven’t yet.

[Juan]

Danny, I half appreciate your reply, but not really. I’m not that interested in your ‘sophisticated’ opinions on Rawls, rather I’m interested on what did Rawls’ ideas entail. I’m sure he was a left-leaning statist. I’m also sure you royally avoided my questions.

[JackCuyler]

@Donny with an A

@JackCuyler

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

Logical fallacy.

False. As I said earlier (perhaps you missed it):

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.

False because you say it is? Sorry, you’re wrong. As I said earlier (Perhaps you missed it)

GilesStratton:
By the way, I’d just like to point out that your rejection of the cabin example suggested by Danny led nir to suggest that it would be the moral thing to do if a father let his three children die because he didn’t take a loaf of bread from them.

I would have to disagree with nir, in that case. It would be immoral for a father to allow his children to starve. However, that does not make stealing bread moral, it simply illustrates that sometimes humans find themselves in situations where there is no moral choice – literally the choice of the lesser of two evils. That feeding ones children is moral in no way makes stealing less immoral.

Now there’s an important distinction to make between “moral” and “less immoral” here. To say that an immoral act is magically transformed to a moral act simply because the alternative is an immoral act of a greater magnitude is absurd.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

Now Danny, you’re approaching this topic with the same lack of seriousness with which you approach rights. If only you learned to take rights seriously you could stop wasting everybody’s time and we could all return to repeating “A = A” and apprecation the fire of the intellect in our hands.

Cigarettes are a symbol of the fire of the mind, therefore you are evil if you do not smoke.

[Brainpolice]

@wilderness

@Brainpolice

And I’ve said repeatedly, if I was Tom I would be ok with it as long as Klemm cleans up the mess caused. But again this is not up to me. Why even go through all this. What’s really the point other than cultivate a Tom that would agree with me and show compassion? Are you trying to say this should be law? I’m leaving Tom’s free-will intact. Tom can be ass and not show mercy. I’m protecting liberty and somehow it’s benefiting both Tom and Klemm.

Again, you’re simply sidestepping having to address the question with a fully comprehensive answer. Noone is saying that it’s “up to you” or “up to us” in the sense of some governmental decision-making body, I’m asking you to actually give me a coherant answer to the philosophical question about moral permissibility in the scenario.

Nope, you are making statements. You lack context. Tom is not dead.

@Brainpolice

You have consistently sidestepped doing that by insisting on talking about the matter in an ex-post-facto sense and as a restitutional issue, when the question is one of the agent’s moral permissibility in the scenario. You keep shifting the question to “What can or should Tom do after the scenario occurs?”, when you are being asked “What is it permissible for Klemm to do in the scenario, and why or why not?”.

I said my answer, but Tom is not dead. You are making statements, lack context, and live in a bubble world where only Klemm exists. I recognize Klemm and Tom. Probably due to I recognize liberty.

@Brainpolice

Is Klemm morally obligated to die or do nothing by virtue of the absolute authority of Tom’s property rights? Or is it is morally permissible for Klemm to do that which is necessary to save his life in the scenario?

Making statements. That’s all I’m probably going to say for awhile until you understand the world is not a Klemm Bubble.

palmface

I’m simply forced to conclude that you are incapable of comprehending this discussion. I lack context? I’ve been explaining the context to you for pages and you have yet to understand it. Tom is not dead? Noone ever said Tom was dead, the point is that the context you are being presented with is a question of what it is permissible for Klemm to do, not what Tom can do ex-post-facto. Noone has proposed that the world is a Klemm bubble, you are being asked a question in which the context is centered around what it is morally permissible for Klemm to do. Oh, and those are questions, not statements, which you just completely avoided again. I have clarified this to you for pages on end now and you still have not acted rationally about it.