Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[K. A. Pital]

Such a nice place to live this society would be.

Remember, he brought up fucking Somalia as a stabilizing anarchy.

[PeZook]

Such a nice place to live this society would be.

Remember, he brought up fucking Somalia as a stabilizing anarchy.

Heh...yeah. Frankly, even the worst Stalinist dystopias are probably a better place to live than a libertarian "paradise". If you are a peasant under an Orwellian government, you just need to toe the party line, scream loud enough at rallies and work dillgently. You live in constant fear, but at least you don't starve, and don't get random thugs trying to bash your face in.

In a libertarian paradise, you're either filthy rich and have no worries at all (if you're in the 0,001% of the population), have a mediocre job and live in fear of losing it (because then you die if you so much as break a leg), or live as a starving pauper in continouous fear of sadistic fucks who are not accountable to anyone. Because if you can't afford to pay protection, you can be abused by anybody who feels like it.

Hell, medieval peasants had more security than that, and they could be killed by their lord if he felt like it.

[Aaron]

Ok, some great points folks, keep it coming.

First of all.

Can we let the Katrina shit rest? Katrina is an example of a breakdown in civil government causing chaos and misery. I have cited a specific and driectly analogous counter-example that I experienced first hand, where a similar breakdown in civil government had no such effect. Katrina doesn't refute me. Fran doesn't refute you. These are just two potentially instructive historical examples.

Your anecodote proves shit. I can post one that shows that a break down of civil government lead to chaos in the Ottawa Valley area:

The place: Ottawa, The Ottawa Valley and Quebec
The Time: January and Febuary 1998
The Crisis: The 1998 Ice Storm

Basically a massive ice storm hit Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec in January and Feb of 1998 and knocked out power to the entire region. The Army (of which I was a part of) was called out to restore order and help with disaster assistance. In the cities everything was pretty much ok as the OPP and QPP were still able to move around but in the outlying areas it was chaos. People were stealing wood from their neighbors to keep wood and even breaking into houses to steal charcoal to heat their homes. Generators left at rail crossings had to be guarded by shotgun armed soldiers with live rounds as they were stolen within hours and gasoline was hoarded and stolen in massive amounts. There's even stories told by the infantry guys about having to butt-stroke looters.

So you see, for every anecdote proving good things about citizens helping in a crisis there's ones about bad things. That's why anecdotal evidence isnt worth shit.

[Knife]

Can we let the Katrina shit rest? Katrina is an example of a breakdown in civil government causing chaos and misery. I have cited a specific and driectly analogous counter-example that I experienced first hand, where a similar breakdown in civil government had no such effect. Katrina doesn't refute me. Fran doesn't refute you. These are just two potentially instructive historical examples.

Except there was no break down in your senario. You even trumpet this little fact then turn around and say the two instances are comparable. In truth, your little comunity was little more than cut off from the outside world and surprise surprise banded together to attack the problem.

However, when you leave poh-dunk whereever and go to a city, it's not one community. It is a shit load of communities living next to, ontop of and all around each other. And in Katrina, there were not really cut off from the outside world as much as their fucking city was destroyed underneath them.

There were plenty of examples in Katrina that mimic yours, in that people banded together and attacked the problem. Only the problem wasn't downed trees, it was a lack of food and medical supplies. So those communitites went out and got those supplies-from other victims.

Your cute little story might have evolved into a Katrina like senario if your little town had been cut off from the outside world for a week or two. With limited food and no way to get more; no medical aid for the couple people bound to get hurt cutting lumber trying to get out, your tight nit community would sooner or later desolve too.

[Rye]

Ok, some great points folks, keep it coming.

First of all.

Can we let the Katrina shit rest? Katrina is an example of a breakdown in civil government causing chaos and misery. I have cited a specific and driectly analogous counter-example that I experienced first hand, where a similar breakdown in civil government had no such effect. Katrina doesn't refute me.

Do you think that Katrina would've been better dealt with absent any governmental intervention at all? What makes you think charities alone would've dealt with it better? If you hated black people, why would it be ethically viable for you to let the survivors of Katrina suffer?

Why are you holding to a position in which it would be viable for other people to let people suffer and die?

Why is the abstinence from the initiation of force (in the weakest sense of the term) against you in the form of taxes more important than the lives of other people? That's the crux of the whole libertarian argument, I feel, and it's not something I've seen satisfactorily explained.

[Kanastrous]

Why are you holding to a position in which it would be viable for other people to let people suffer and die?

Because the root ethic of Libertarianism is I've got mine and fuck everybody else?

[K. A. Pital]

Why is the abstinence from the initiation of force (in the weakest sense of the term) against you in the form of taxes more important than the lives of other people? That's the crux of the whole libertarian argument, I feel, and it's not something I've seen satisfactorily explained.

Because libertarianism is a rights ideology. Not just a rights ideology, but only negative rights ideology. Mostly the "natural" right to property.

Other "rights" - such as right to life - do not exist. They are positive. If you need to infringe on someone's property to support someone's life, that's a big no-no in libertarianism. Just as other positive rights - healthcare, education, etc. are repudiated by libertarianism, so is basically the right to live.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The entire concept of rights-based morality is founded upon an entirely untenable position which differentiates man from the 'lower orders' by virtue of his sentience. Which is not to say that utilitarianism is any better - any code of morality which separates man from his conduct is false.

[K. A. Pital]

The entire concept of rights-based morality is founded upon an entirely untenable position which differentiates man from the 'lower orders' by virtue of his sentience.

Sentience as it exists is a strong differentiator, but it clearly does not give any "natural rights". It does give human life a higher value than nonsentient life, but that's it. "Rights" are nowhere to be seen.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The entire concept of rights-based morality is founded upon an entirely untenable position which differentiates man from the 'lower orders' by virtue of his sentience.

Sentience as it exists is a strong differentiator, but it clearly does not give any "natural rights". It does give human life a higher value than nonsentient life, but that's it. "Rights" are nowhere to be seen.

Your argument presupposes that human sapience is something more than simply a highly refined tool developed over long ages to better ensure the survival of a species. One could just as easily say that flight is a strong differentiator, or strength, or speed, etc.

There is no difference between man and other primates, or even other animals. Man is the weakest of all primates; to this end he has developed consciousness as a means of compensation. 'Consciousness' is not synonymous with 'soul'.

[Kanastrous]

Why is the abstinence from the initiation of force (in the weakest sense of the term) against you in the form of taxes more important than the lives of other people? That's the crux of the whole libertarian argument, I feel, and it's not something I've seen satisfactorily explained.

Because libertarianism is a rights ideology. Not just a rights ideology, but only negative rights ideology. Mostly the "natural" right to property.

Other "rights" - such as right to life - do not exist. They are positive. If you need to infringe on someone's property to support someone's life, that's a big no-no in libertarianism. Just as other positive rights - healthcare, education, etc. are repudiated by libertarianism, so is basically the right to live.

I once heard a Libertarian friend explain that if he happened to be carrying some insulin with him, and got on an elevator with a diabetic, and the elevator got stuck, he'd feel no ethical or moral obligation to share his insulin with the diabetic individual, even as they began sliding into hyperglycemia, even if he didn't need it and couldn't use it, himself.

I told him that he'd better hope I wasn't on the elevator too, because I would have zero compunction about taking the insulin and administering it where needed, using as much force as necessary.

[K. A. Pital]

Your argument presupposes that human sapience is something more than simply a highly refined tool developed over long ages to better ensure the survival of a species.

Of course it's something more. It is the most developed higher nervous activity system that allows abstract thinking and the development of technology, as well as exploration of the natural world. Were there a more developed higher nervous system, a higher intelligence with a new level of cognitive strength, it would become the ultimate utility in it's own system of values, and rightly so. Frankly, for an impartial, but intelligent observer, it would also be logical.

Man is the weakest of all primates; to this end he has developed consciousness as a means of compensation. 'Consciousness' is not synonymous with 'soul'.

What soul? There's only matter.

[Rye]

The entire concept of rights-based morality is founded upon an entirely untenable position which differentiates man from the 'lower orders' by virtue of his sentience. Which is not to say that utilitarianism is any better - any code of morality which separates man from his conduct is false.

How does utilitarianism separate man from his conduct, and how is it false? And yes, utilitarianism is better since it doesn't consider sociopathic abstinence from action (for instance letting an ill person stumble into traffic) to be moral choices merely because you didn't contravene any "negative rights". If you have more people surviving in larger comfort in one system, it's demonstrably superior as a moral code to another that has less.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Of course it's something more. It is the most developed higher nervous activity system that allows abstract thinking and the development of technology, as well as exploration of the natural world. Were there a more developed higher nervous system, a higher intelligence with a new level of cognitive strength, it would become the ultimate utility in it's own system of values, and rightly so. Frankly, for an impartial, but intelligent observer, it would also be logical.

And physical strength permits the manipulation of the world to better ensure the survival of the individual or species. What, pray tell, is special about abstract thinking that it permits an entire species to be hoisted above 'the rest' in regards to value? This is an example of cognitive bias in a very literal sense, nothing more. That man is biased towards viewing himself as the center of things is certain; this does not make it so. Viewed 'objectively', or as nearly-objectively as we can view it, sapience is simply an evolved survival mechanism with no 'value' either positive or negative distinct from the operation of survival.

What soul? There's only matter.

I have to agree with PETA on this one: man has grown accustomed to treating cognition as synonymous with (or, at least, similar to) 'soul'.

[andrewgpaul]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is currency. All of the libertarian arguments seem to be based on the free market. Yet, without a central government, who provides the medium of exchange? IIRC, most states now no longer have their money supply fully backed by gold (or whatever); a pound buys me a hamburger, or a bus into town, or 10 minutes of internet access because the government says it does.

Now, there may well be an obvious answer to this, and I'm being an idiot again. Fair enough; enlighten me

[ArcturusMengsk]

How does utilitarianism separate man from his conduct, and how is it false?

Because it presupposes from the start that 'the greatest good for all' (or, in hedonistic strains, 'the greatest pleasure for all') is distinct from force, obtainable without the use of force, and that pain and pleasure, good and bad, and 'harmful' and 'helpful' are fundamentally opposed dualisms. The objections to it are manifold:

* There is no universal writ commanding that the individual act in the greatest interest of all; therefore utilitarian morality is rightly described as an 'ethics';

* 'Good' is innately subjective and interwound with what is 'bad'. For a sociopath, brutalizing another individual becomes 'good'; in a society of sociopaths, inflicting harm upon others quite literally becomes good under utilitarianism;

* Because it presupposes that the interest of the individual is inevitably the same as the interest of the commons. This is quite demonstratably false; there are many instances wherein an individual is required to do harm to the majority to ensure his own safety and security (e.g. in a democracy which ensures the safety and satisfaction of the minority, i.e. civil rights);

* It presupposes the freedom of the will on the part of the individual to act in the interest of the commons.

[K. A. Pital]

Viewed 'objectively', or as nearly-objectively as we can view it, sapience is simply an evolved survival mechanism with no 'value' either positive or negative distinct from the operation of survival.

Not really. As of now, abstract thinking has devised concepts that are not forced by survival pressures already.

What, pray tell, is special about abstract thinking that it permits an entire species to be hoisted above 'the rest' in regards to value?

Knowledge of nature is a value, and higher nervous activity couped with abstract thinking improves knowledge many times.

Objectivism doesn't really work since human is not only the observer but also a participant; a foreign observer has to be intelligent to observe at the very least, so his perception will also force him to put a higher value to conscience.

A non-sentient observer cannot iterpret the observation; and without abstract thinking, he cannot use rules of logic, since logic itself does not exist for a non-sentient observer. In fact, logic itself demands that sentience be put as a primal value, because logic can only be used by a sentience. The rest comes after that.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Not really. As of now, abstract thinking has devised concepts that are not forced by survival pressures already.

But life does not struggle for survival. The better part of organic life is flourishing, expenditure of energy, and, in sentient life, creative activity; all of this has only a roundabout effect on survival. All other positing of a 'higher value' for sentience in relationship to other characteristics of non-sentient organisms is mere backdoor Christianity.

Objectivism doesn't really work since human is not only the observer but also a participant; a foreign observer has to be intelligent to observe at the very least, so his perception will also force him to put a higher value to conscience.

'Observing' and 'participating' (the subject/object dichotomy) are not distinct modes of 'being'.

Furthermore, it is quite imaginable that there exist creatures (on other worlds) who would not recognize us as sentient beings, distinguishable from the 'lower orders', by virtue of the superiority of their sentience.

A non-sentient observer cannot iterpret the observation; and without abstract thinking, he cannot use rules of logic, since logic itself does not exist for a non-sentient observer. In fact, logic itself demands that sentience be put as a primal value, because logic can only be used by a sentience. The rest comes after that.

And all of this is the mere 'side-effect' of sentience; and one might easily add here that sentience is nearly-synonymous with 'dissimulation'. The chief activity of sapience is creation - sentience quite actively creates the world which it perceives, and it lies to itself (by projecting value, aesthetic qualities, etc. onto the world) in order to maintain itself.

[Starglider]

Your argument presupposes that human sapience is something more than simply a highly refined tool developed over long ages to better ensure the survival of a species.

Which is correct.

One could just as easily say that flight is a strong differentiator, or strength, or speed, etc.

You could but you'd be spouting nonsense. Self awareness is what permitts complex forms of suffering to exist. Dogs don't worry about not being able to vote. Intelligence and language are what permitts us to conceive or discuss about any of these issues in the first place. No other species has any concept of rights or abstract ethics. That's a massive difference. In practical, physical terms, sapience has allowed humans to take over the planet - other large animals exist at our sufferance.

There is no difference between man and other primates, or even other animals.

You are a fucking moron. If there was 'no difference' the other primates would a) be flying jet aircraft and b) not be living on a few protected preserves, still threatened by extinction by just a few poachers and farmers.

'Consciousness' is not synonymous with 'soul'.

No it isn't, because 'consciousness' is something that actually exists (albeit difficult to precisely describe), whereas any definition of 'soul' is meaningless, nebulous, made-up bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

Furthermore, it is quite imaginable that there exist creatures (on other worlds) who would not recognize us as sentient beings, distinguishable from the 'lower orders', by virtue of the superiority of their sentience.

Indeed. But we can judge by our example. We do distinguish between animals with a higher nervous activity and those without. As side observers, we place the suffering of a god with higher nervous activity higher than the supposed suffering of a worm who hardly has any higher nervous activity, or organisms like bacteria and virus, which border between organism action and mechanistic chemistry.

So if we were so low that the side observer would not give us distinction from "lower orders", it must be that it places it's own value so high that the value treshold unit (perception of difference in valued conscience) encompasses both humans, anything lower and something a bit higher - at the very lowest levels, since we must be VERY far from that intelligence for such an observation to occur.

But life does not struggle for survival.

It was you who said that abstract thinking is merely a survival mechanism, weren't you?

The chief activity of sapience is creation

That is also impossible without self-perception and sapience itself. Is sapient creative activity superior to non-sapient? From a point of intelligent observer, it must be - judging by us as typical intelligent observers, we also do place a higher value upon sapient creation than upon non-sapient activity. For example, we do not place a dog's hunt for food on the same level as a human creating a painting, right? What makes you think ANY possible intelligent observer could behave otherwise?

[ArcturusMengsk]

You could but you'd be spouting nonsense. Self awareness is what permitts complex forms of suffering to exist. Dogs don't worry about not being able to vote. Intelligence and language are what permitts us to conceive or discuss about any of these issues in the first place. No other species has any concept of rights or abstract ethics. That's a massive difference. In practical, physical terms, sapience has allowed humans to take over the planet - other large animals exist at our sufferance.

Imbecility. You do not take into consideration the concept of degree; sapience is not something which one either possesses or which one does not. Dolphins are sapient; chimpanzees, to a lesser degree, also are; in man, it has simply been refined to the highest degree on Earth, and is itself proportional to his other attributes (man is weak and slow, for instance - but also dexterous to a degree not found in other primates). Thia does not distinguish man from the other animals objectively. And why does one take offense to the notion that he is indistinguishable from other creatures? Because - because of his intelligence.

You are a fucking moron. If there was 'no difference' the other primates would a) be flying jet aircraft and b) not be living on a few protected preserves, still threatened by extinction by just a few poachers and farmers.

So you mean to deny that man is an animal? Alright.

[K. A. Pital]

So you mean to deny that man is an animal?

What he means to say is that higher nervous activity and abstract thinking allowed man to become the undisputed superior species on Earth. Even the hardest opponents - bacteria and viruses - were forced to bow down when science broke the needed limits. All other species are inferior to humans at both protecting their own species from a HUMAN, and at slaughtering other species as means of competition. A human protects itself most effectively against other species of the Earth, and it is also, thanks to abstract thinking, the most efficient exterminator species on Earth. Thus human dominate Earth - not by Christian divine rights, but because of sentience.

If sentience allows a species reach planetary dominance, it must have a value, doesn't it follow?

[K. A. Pital]

Thia does not distinguish man from the other animals objectively.

Domination is pretty much objective. It follows that the highest degree of sentience in humans ensures their species domination, so sentience would be an advantage for any species OBJECTIVELY, wouldn't it? And if so, sentience has value for both a sentient and a non-sentient species.

[Starglider]

Now, there may well be an obvious answer to this, and I'm being an idiot again. Fair enough; enlighten me

The standard Libertarian answer is 'gold backed currencies are the only true currency'! The hardcore libertarians literally masurbate over the assorted small companies making non-tenderable gold coins and offering to let you 'own gold' in their vault over the Internet. Of course this is an entirely impractical basis for modern economies. What you'd get in practice is interlocking systems of corporate scrip, with some gold-backed currencies for the very wealthy. Plus the current trend of getting as much of the population as possible into debt and then soaking them for it would accelerate, since there's nothing to stop corporations enforcing arbitrarily brutal contracts (via contractors of course).

But life does not struggle for survival.

And the bullshit continues. Every single time a prey animal runs from a predator, that's a life-and-death struggle. Every single time two plants compete to reach the light, it's a life-and-death struggle. Disease is rampant. Infant mortality is rampant. Nature is pain and death and suffering on a truly global scale, repeated over and over for a billion years. Factory farms are remarkable only in that they dole out low level suffering over a long period, rather than concentrating it into bursts of savagery - and in fact even in that they are nothing compared to a good epidemic.

You've taken the already idiotic 'noble savage' fallacy and amplified it to even more moronic proportions.

The better part of organic life is flourishing,

Which only a tiny fraction of newborns can do given limited food and the ensuing competition. Then there's the fact that >99.99% of all species are extinct. Nature is insanely wasteful. Beyond this your 'better' is utterly arbitrary, as you yourself pointed out earlier. If I chose to define strip mining as 'better' what's your rebuttal? You know the moon is utterly peaceful and serene, compared to earth's teaming brutish chaos. Let's end it all now by nuking the earth into a moonscape. It'll be better that way*.

* Hint: this is sarcasm.

Furthermore, it is quite imaginable that there exist creatures (on other worlds) who would not recognize us as sentient beings

Imaginable, yes. Likely, no. Technology is pretty much a giveaway. And don't give me that 'insect hives are technology' crap. Technology is intelligently designed using an understanding of the basic physical laws of the universe. It's a runaway process and no other species has crossed the threshold (only chimpanzees are anywhere near it).

sentience quite actively creates the world which it perceives, and it lies to itself (by projecting value, aesthetic qualities, etc. onto the world) in order to maintain itself.

You're describing a mental condition, believing invented characteristics are intrinsic properties of objects, which regrettably a lot of humans do have (and you appear to have in spades). But this is not a requirement for sentience; rational humans minimise it quite effectively and designed or highly evolved alien intelligences needn't have it at all. The only reason humans have it is because humans suck as general intelligences; we're just over the threshold and most of our brain design is hacked together from preexisting wetware. Not bothering to track which assigned object properties are (believed to be) intrinsic and which are invented for convenience is mental laziness - which wasn't a priority for selection pressure because it's relatively harmless (and in some cases even adaptive) in a prescientific, pretechnological society.

[Starglider]

Imbecility. You do not take into consideration the concept of degree; sapience is not something which one either possesses or which one does not.

Oh good, you've given up on the rest of the animal kingdom and restricted your arguments to dolphins and chimps.

Of course concepts of self (and self models) exists in varied different levels. But in this specific dimension, humans are vastly ahead of every other species. You have no rebuttal to the fact that no other animal can entertain notions of rights and personal identity - because there is none.

Regrettably this is an argument that cannot be conculsively closed until we have a full understanding of brain structure and function (of humans and animals), but that doesn't change the fact that you're spouting nonsense.

and is itself proportional to his other attributes

Which are ethically irrelevant, and for that matter practically irrelevant too since humans have augmented their biological abilities with technological ones vastly in excess of anything possible in biology, never mind actually extant on earth.

That does not distinguish man from the other animals objectively.

What part of 'easily took over the planet' are you having trouble with? Are you seriously suggesting that an intelligence looking at the planet from space would somehow fail to perceive that humans have many orders of magnitude more influence over every aspect of the planet than any other species? You don't think they'd notice the fact that every attempt at communication they're receiving is from humans?

And why does one take offense to the notion that he is indistinguishable from other creatures?

You're seriously claiming that you can't tell the difference between a man and a dog. Please have yourself committed to a mental institution immediately.

You are a fucking moron. If there was 'no difference' the other primates would a) be flying jet aircraft and b) not be living on a few protected preserves, still threatened by extinction by just a few poachers and farmers.

So you mean to deny that man is an animal? Alright.

Things have to be idential to be in a category? Tell me, do you even manage to win arguments with four year olds using logic like that?