Over in GD, I presented legitimate questions in the latest Libertarian thread. You specifically said you were ignoring me, not because my questions were ill-conceived, but because you’ve got a problem with me personally. I think the phrase “petty grudge” is appropriate. **
That little bit of hyperbole extends from a question you’ve never answered about your philosophy: how to deal with landowners who make their own property excessively dangerous in a place where children are likely to trespass? The absurd result that Libertopia demands is that parents be aware of what their children are doing every second of every day – a standard that even the best of parents will tell you is impossible to meet. So in Libertopia, to avoid liability, parents will have to restrain their children from wandering somehow – by chaining them to the porch, locking them in their rooms, or in some other fashion. **
Respect != kid gloves. In that other thread, I am every bit as aggressive in my questioning as I am with you. Yet I think minty and Poly (to name two) would not describe me as being disrepectful.
I am not responsible for your thin skin.**
Actually, I do use both terms interchangeably. But you don’t get to pick those labels; why should you? Again, I am not responsible for your thin skin.**
I would readily admit there are many shortcomings with the status quo. I have never – not once – suggested that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Indeed, as I noted earlier, I belive a heavy dose of libertarianism could be very useful in improving the status quo.
But I think the radical vision you subscribe to would make a lot of things worse than they are now. And I think the physician’s credo is applicable: “First, do no harm.” **
Cite? Every question I’ve asked relates to a real potential failing of Libertopia. Asking those questions isn’t obfuscation; refusing to answer them, on the other hand, is. **
Cite? When have I ever said I have a problem with you personally? **
Arising from or going to a root or source; basic:* proposed a radical solution to the problem.*
Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
Yes, I think radical is a perfectly appropriate word to describe the changes you want to make to society. **
Again, the issue is not “is Libertaria perfect”?; the issue is, “is Libertaria worse than the status quo”? In many ways, it is. **
When have I ever “lectured” you about the law? I really cannot recall. Cite, please?
And what on earth does linking to prior threads about Libertarianism or even your personal feelings have to do with your factual claim that I lecture you?
Lib, I’m a Catholic. In this religion, if you confess your sins and take Holy Communion, your sould will be cleansed. Until the next time. By the time I was ten or eleven, I figured out that this was a damn good loophole.
This one is almost as good:
You’re going to have to look a lot deeper, and a lot harder, than a message board to learn how to love.
If you were a disciple, you would be Peter. You are steady as a rock. Let me see whether I can act on your good advice. Thanks. I’ll respond to Dewey’s latest post, and we’ll see how it goes.
Dewey
Greetings. It is good to hear from you.
Please understand that it is the term “petty” to which I respectfully object. I do not consider it petty to be characterized as cowardly and evasive. I think it is reasonable to say that most good people, like yourself, would be offended by such a charge.
I just don’t agree. In America, if you live beside a chemical plant, or an industrial mine, or a rock quarry, do you respond by chaining your children to a tree? If your neighbor has a swimming pool, do you lock your child in his room? If the man across the street has a dangerous pit bull, will you strap your children into their beds and close the curtains? Certainly not. But if you fail to exercize due care as a parent, something might happen to your child. If you are a good parent, your concern is not that you would be liable if your child were hurt. If you are a good parent, your concern is that your child be safe.
Libertaria is no different from America with respect to caring about the safety of children. The only difference is that liability in Libertaria is decided on the basis of noncoercion. You cannot declare that one ethic is superior to another as a basis of law unless you are the objective judge of ethical standards.
And as I’ve shown with the links about the abused and abandoned children, it isn’t just that the present system is not perfect. It is a failure. It has failed untold thousands of children, wouldn’t you agree? It’s all right to say that a proposed solution might not work, but it doesn’t seem right to assume a priori that it would be worse. At least libertarianism forces parents to think carefully over whether they should have children at all.
It is a fine line, I think. If you refered to Poly’s faith as Christopianism and told him that his interpretation of it is looney, I rather imagine that he would discern a certain disrespect, don’t you think? I don’t mind assertiveness, but when assertiveness crosses over into aggression, it is too much in my opinion.
Practically every time we correspond. You just finished saying, “What I do have a problem with is the ideologically radical vision of Libertopia you describe…” That’s my vision and my description. How can you have a problem with those but not with me? What do you suppose remains when you strip from me my worldview?
I agree, but that wasn’t my complaint. My complaint was that you despise the changes merely because you perceive them as radical.
And maybe it isn’t. I don’t think it’s fair for anyone — including you or me — to claim to be the judge and jury on that. Have you stopped to consider that not one hypothetical that you have brought up is inapplicable to the present system?
Every day, there are children hurt or killed by carelessness, neglegence, and dangerous circumstances. If you ask about a mean old local landowner in Libertaria, you open the door to a mean old local political boss in America. If you ask about a monopoly in Libertaria, you can’t ignore Microsoft in America. Heck, even the government itself is a monopoly.
Supposing this and hypothesizing that does not prove anything about whether libertarianism is better or worse than the status quo.
From the very beginning of our correspondence, you have pretty much charged at me like a wild bull. It all began here. I stated my opinions in response to 5 specific questions from Hamlet. Now, you had already opined on some things in the thread and were receiving praise and accolades. Maybe you thought I had stepped on your toes or something, who knows? But you didn’t waste any time. This was your response to me in full. It was your very first post to me on this matter:
Before I could even respond to you, Minty already had taken the time to point out to you that there is no such thing as “public” in Libertaria. So I just responded by pointing out that in the present system, the public is owned by the people with the most political clout. You can do what they tell you and nothing more.
It was in your second post to me in our whole history of correspondence on this matter that you began refering to “Libertopia” even after quoting it from me as “Libertaria”. Was there any reason to change the terminology? Was it necessary to your argument? Did it facilitate communication between us? Or didn’t you in fact consider it to be a clever rhetorical construct that would be sufficiently “aggressive”?
Right away, you were ridiculing me. You asked me whether there would be a full moon in “Libertopia” that night. If your ridicule is based on a fair assessment of my philosophy as you claim, then how could you begin your ridicule as early as your second post? You asked nothing about the noncoercion principle. Nothing about libertarian ethics. Nothing at all except whether you could walk naked in public and would there be a full moon. And yet, from this, you have already formed an opinion sufficient to decide that I was a radical who deserved to be mocked and ridiculed?
It just doesn’t add up.
I even bothered to answer your question, ridiculous as it was, and told you that if you owned the courthouse steps, you could go naked on them.
But by your third post, you already established what became a permanent pattern. By the third post, you were saying that I was dodging your questions. You wrote:
The question? The question was whether you could go naked in public. I answered your question, that there is no public. You wanted to know if you could go naked on the courthouse steps. I answered your question, that you could if you owned them. The result of answering your questions? You told me that I wasn’t answering them.
You wrote:
Keep in mind that we’ve only just started here. I’ve already told you that there are not public spaces, and yet you ignored what I told you. Why, there must be public spaces, you declared.
You’re ridiculing. You’re taunting. You’re condescending. You’re ignoring. You’re falsely charging me with dodging, and it’s your third post!
And if there were any doubt that you didn’t think you were just shadow-boxing with an idiot, this was the rest of the post:
Does that honestly seem to you in retrospect to be respectful and genuine inquiry? Heck, it’s not even aggression. It’s downright contempt.
By the 5th post, you were already raising issues of tort law, damages, contract cases, statutes, controlling judicial opinions, breach of contract, and the penal system. I answered your post in detail, even though by now others were already asking questions as well.
It was in your next post that you lowered your boom. You quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes and instructed me on how good law is set up:
And you and I went downhill from there.
It’s easy to ask questions, which you do a lot of. It’s hard to answer them, and I spent a lot of time answering yours before giving up. If you had given me credit just for that much, I would have hung in there with you. But what’s the point if all you’re going to do is mock me from the very first post and accuse me of dodging almost immediately?
Do you honestly have no conception of how I might have thought you held me in utter contempt? Isn’t there just a wee chance that you flew off the handle a bit prematurely and started us off on the wrong foot? Do you hold yourself entirely blameless for my perception of you as a careless and contemptuous lout?
I’ve tried to keep this post as nice as I could in light of Xeno’s advice. And I repeat once again my willingness to put our problems behind us. But your pretending they aren’t there or that I have no basis for claiming they exist doesn’t help. What do you want to do?
I see, so whenever somebody disagrees with another persons’ worldview they might as well just be enemies. So my friend that lives, breathes and sleeps football shouldn’t be a friend since I obviously have a problem with him and should hate his guts because of his interests and opinions. Now that is a strange worldview.
You work for Readers Digest condensed books, don’t you?
When you hold your friend’s worldview in utter contempt, when you ridicule him, mock him, taunt him, call him evasive, have no regard for what he says, and deliberately use words that offend him — now that is a strange friendship.
Libertarian, I’m trying to figure this out. I would appreciate it if you would post links to those threads you quote. It’s important to read them in context.
No, because in the real world you can seek injunctive relief against the man who lets his pit bull wander loose in a yard where children are likely to trespass. In Libertaria, you can’t do that. **
I most certainly can and I most certainly will. I think an ethic that allocates liability away from a landowner creating an extraordinarily dangerous circumstance on land where children are likely to trespass is a poor ethic. I think most would agree with me. **
You, yourself, admit that “radical” is an accurate adjective to apply to your views. How can you then turn around and say it’s a pejorative? Epimetheus got this one exactly right. **
I don’t despise them, I just strongly disagree with them, and not because they are “radical” but because I see them as causing more harm than good. **
Oh, I agree. Most of the hypotheticals I’ve brought are real world examples that are handled in a certain way existing law. The bear trap example and the pier in a storm example in particular come from actual tort cases that are typically used in law schools to illustrate specific principles of law. And I bring them up for the precise reason that they illustrate key differences between the way Libertaria and the real world deal with particular problems (I also use them because, since they are actual cases, it’s hard to suggest they are “giant squid” hypos).
The key point is not that Libertaria would have terrible things happen in it that don’t happen in the real world, but that Libertaria allocates responsibility for those terrible things in a way most people find disturbing. Most people find the idea that a person keeping a bear trap on his property where children are apt to wander an act of the sort that ought to carry with it legal liability. But the property rights absolutism of Libertopia won’t let that happen. And that’s not something most people will be comfortable with.**
I’m not going to re-litigate that thread, but I encourage other Dopers so inclined to take a gander; the questions I ask, particularly later on, do deal with legal matters, but it’s hardly a lecture on the law. The quote from Holmes is just there to illustrate the “bad man” theory, which I still stand by and which Lib doesn’t seriously dispute.
I’ll admit I probably was a bit thick on the public nudity stuff, but c’mon – the jokes were totally worth it. **
No, no, and yes. I honestly have nothing to apologize for. I treat you in the same manner I treat other posters, some of whom I’ve been far harsher with (ask Olentzero or elucidator). None of them have seen fit to Pit me. I’m sorry your feelings are hurt and I’m sorry that you don’t think very highly of me, but that’s a function of your own thin skin, not my posts. I am more than willing to debate in a civil manner, but I won’t put on kid gloves, either.
It’s a play on Utopia. Thomas More wasn’t disparaging anything when he described his perfect world. Neither is Libertopia a pejorative; it is used to describe a perfect Libertarian society.
In fact, I would suggest that “Libertopia” rather than “Libertaria” is actually a better label, since we’re discussing a perfect Libertarian world, and I think it’s safe to say that there’s no such thing as a society that conforms perfectly to any particular idelogical worldview. The “-topia” suffix more clearly indicates that this is all a purely theoretical exercise.
Not that it matters, of course; I’m pretty sure all participants understand that the discussion is theoretical. Thus, the label debate is pretty much academic.
Hmm, Libertarian, what’s the number of posts required for people telling you that you’ve failed to think a position through before they get a Pitting from you? This is, oh, what, half a dozen times in just the last few months that you’ve called individuals out for the sin of not only failing to acknowledge your unmatched brilliance and moral virtue, but even pointing out why.
Okay, so you won’t answer my question or address the issues I raised. All the while, that has been your baseless complaint against me from our very first couple of correspondences, as I proved above. I guess your answer is clear enough. It seems that everything I assumed about you and your intentions was right. Thanks at least for confirming that.
Pit bull on leash kills two-year-old who wandered from his home into a neighbor’s field at twilight. Pit bull owner charged with murder. Defendent silenced by gag order. Mother not charged.
Those wacky two-year-olds. You just can’t keep track of them.
Lib, dude, you’re one of my favorite posters. Dewey is too – a smart cookie and a level headed debater. I see nothing to justify your OP, Lib, and think you’re reading waaaay too much into Dewey’s comments.
And if we only used the term the way Tommy did then perhaps you would be absolutely right.
Well, I don’t think I can miss that. But I also find, as does Lib, that “utopia” is a word used pejoratively, almost always to indicate that it is some hackneyed scheme for social organization in the eyes of the speaker. The use always seems sarcastic, and even when it isn’t, the use always seems to indicate…
So then you are saying it is a pipe dream right there. Now, maybe you consider calling other people’s views as “impossible to exist” a trivial matter and no offense, but I think at least you might consider, not that it really is possible, but that if you are going to be debating it anyway there is not much purpose in both granting it hypothetical consideration in one breath and disparaging it in another, unless you plan some deft reduction to absurdity, in which case let’s see the logical symbols, bub.
In a sense, yes, but not because it’s wacky or daft or stupid, but because such purity is simply impossible in a world populated by fallible humans. Just as there are no pure communist states and no pure capitalist states, there can be no pure libertarian state. I think it a bit silly to be offended by a term that simply pays homage to that simple fact of life.
Yep, that’s the problem. Libertarianism, even Lib’s version du jour of it, is not based on human nature or the real requirements of a society. It is an unrealizable fantasy and thereby not worth discussing except as a fantasy. You might as well debate the proper nature of intellectual property laws in The Merry Old Land of Oz.
The problem arises when the fantasizing ideologues start to think they’re discussing something real or realizable, or even logically consistent or complete. That requires a smackdown occasionally.
Odd that you would cite that story, since it appears to support my position. Or do you think the owner/trainer of the dog should be free from liability because the toddler was trespassing on his property? That would be the result in Libertaria, right? Liability would rest entirely with the parents, and not with the landowner?
It’s just a pity that poor woman didn’t seek injunctive relief before this tragedy happened. Maybe she would have succeeded, maybe not, but at least in the real world she has that option. She’d be unable to pursue such a solution in Libertaria.
Obviously I got that part.