Ethical Solution For Our Worst Murderers

Great Debates
41

Shit happenens, you know, and we can’t be prepared for every eventuality. If the private charitites are insufficient and I cannot beg enough food, you bet your booty I’ll steal, and I do not think I or anyone else should be forced into slavery for this sort of thing. I guess I see safeguards for this sort of thing set up by our democratic system as worth a little coercion. I think Libertarianism is a very nice philosophy, but I do not think the end results would be acceptable to me in its pure form.

Side note: my scenario was hardly “giant squid”. Some people can lose their resources through little fault of their own. Starving people will often steal, and may not have the time to find out the philosophies and personalities of those they steal from. Some people are nasty enough to take advantage of the opportunity for a free slave by exaggerating the worth of their loaf of bread.

42

Lib:
I do not ignore or forget your volunteerism requirement. I simply am still waiting for you to discuss any practical means for such a requirement to coexist with large human populations. On the issue of crime and punishment, for instance, how does your utopia deal with crimes committed by a non-volunteer. If you catch him in the act, I suppose, you migt argue for sovreignity and prosecute him under your laws. What if he gets back to his house, though, and rationaly declines to extradite himself to your authority? Do you then “invade” his property and compell him to follow your system of justice? Also, what about accidental property damage. Say you have a flat tire and are forced to pull off the road (of which you are a part owner, of course). Your blown tire throw rubber off of the right of way and hits me in the foot. It hurts my toe. You, of course, have no way of restoring me to a situation in which my foot had never been hurt, so I shoot you in the head. Then I go back to rocking on my porch, secure in my place as a peaceful and honest man living in a non-coersive manner.

How does the system of justice you are proposing correct for such an outrageous scenario?

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

43

Gaudere

If you find yourself in a hypothetical where you must steal to survive, then don’t steal from someone whose chief magistrate will cut off your hands.

[sigh]

I love you, but this is like talking to somebody on amphetamines.

When you are free from coercion and fraud, the end results are simply the effects of decisions you make, including the decision of whom to steal from. That is not different no matter what the underlying contextual philosophy. Like I said, you’d be best off — even as an American — not to go to Tehran to steal your bread. They’ll cut off your hand. Because you’re a woman, they might even kill you.

Like you said yourself, your government is not even relevant. You are making an alibertarian issue into a libertarian one. It would be like my arguing that atheism is nice but it doesn’t cut it for me because I think morality is important.

44

Spiritus

Yes, you do. The record is quite clear on that count. You not only ignore it, you refuse to grant me the dignity of intellectual fairness.

Look at the penumbras in the rest of your post:

Unfair

I will link you one last time to Free-Market where you can find all the hypotheticals, all the essays, all the books, all the writings by all the people who have addressed exactly that and other issues like that. You’re always clamoring for links. Except when I provide them.

Unfair.

Is there a libertarian thread here where I have not cried fould with this snide and gratuitous reference to a utopian concept? What is utopian about hard work? What is utopian about the necessity to make sober decisions? What is utopian about no guarantees of success?

Unfair.

You have heard me say a thousand times (figure of speech, don’t ask for proof) that libertarianism is volunteerism. Who has soverignty over a volunteer? He does.

Unfair.

And now suddenly, he is a rational man and this is a rational scenario. You yourself have stated that criminals are not rational, else they wouldn’t be criminals.

Unfair.

How many times have I said that libertarianism is not a system, but a context in which you may employ whatever “system” makes you happy.

Forgive my French, but dammit!

Yes, by George, my government had better invade and bring him to justice, I don’t care if the resources of its whole army are required. Or else I will hold it in breach of our contract, and have its Executor thrown in prison.

And then this unbelieveable head-shaker:

Unfair.

If I thought a man was so stupid (or so insane) as to recommend a philosophy that posits time machines or replicators, the only reason I think I might discuss anything with him would be as a pretension while I am actually making fun of him.

Restoration simply means paying for the healing of your foot, and for any inconveniences caused by the praxis.

Unfair.

I’m not proposing any system, except one particular way to implement the libertarian context. How does your proposed system (if any) deal with it?

If all this happens on your “public” road, and you can’t sue your government, and a guy accidentally runs over a rock that is thrown through your windshield and puts out your eye, what do you do?

45

Lib:
I think one difference between Gaudere’s point and your Tehran illustration is that both the boundaries and legal systems of nations are relatively static in our world. Under the entirely voluntary associations you propose, in which people may secede individually from any and all governing organizations, it seems hardly possible to know at al times the laws by which the strangers on the street might live. You often speak of knowing your “neighbors”. This is an idea that translates much easier to a rural community than to a major city.

There is also the question of unintentional property damage. his does happen, and it hardly seems reasonable to kill, maim, or enslave a person for having an accident.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

46

Then, dammit, stay away from lunatics.

:rolleyes:

47

Once again, your solution depends upon a degree of social, economic and geographic mobility that is not necessarily available to everybody. Besides, how can I know whether the house I drive by is owned by a lunatic?

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

48

I don’t know, Spiritus. How do you know that now?

Tell me the truth, did you honestly believe that libertarianism, based on what I’ve told you and linked you to, is some sort of system that helps you deal with lunatics? Or makes them disappear?

49

Libertarian, I don’t expect a libertarian government to make lunatics disappear. But you’re saying that a lunatic would not be prevented from performing lunatic acts.

e.g. To take Gaudere’s example above, if I steal a loaf of bread from a lunatic, and that lunatic decides that my punishment should be slavery for life, then the lunatic has the legal right to force me to lifelong slavery? That is what you’re saying, isn’t it?

I will be the first to say a libertarian society is not for me, and I would fight any attempted introduction of libertarian rule. But I’m not denying your right to try and attempt to convince people of the benefits of libertarianism. Good luck.

50

Nope. That was my point. (Well, actually that was my gloss of Gaudere’s point. My point was that the system of justice you have proposed is far too simplistic to cope with the complexities and shadings of the real world, and is therefore not just.)

Our legal system has several protections in place to guard against some of the abuses which would seem to be uncorrectable under the Libertarian system. They do not function perfectly, but I am glad they are there nontheless.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

51

[A wispy scent of parody is a precursor…]

Gosh, y’know what? You’re right.

[…to a hailstorm of invective satire.]

I can’t imagine what I’ve been thinking for these past several years. This mighty weight upon my shoulders, that I mistook for tyranny, is in reality my safeguard nanny. The overlapping folds of flab around my neck are her protective thighs. The stagnant stench from her crotch bacteria is my secure assurance that she’s there.

Surely, the notion of enforcing noncoercion fails because if I find myself on foreign soil or in the clutches of a lunatic, I will have no fat bitch on my back to insulate me. If I am free from the coercion and fraud of others, God only knows what mischief I might conjure up. Perhaps I’ll go and raid my neighbors, steal their bread, manufacture children like jugs of moonshine, children that I can’t afford to have, sacrificial children for all the fat nannies in waiting.

Surely in Libertaria, I can assume that children have no rights, and neither do my neighbors, right?

Oh, woe is me for my myopia!

So long as I am draped in the oozing corpulence of my fat nanny, I can go to Teheran and steal bread! I can go to Tiajuana, hawk some drugs beside the nose-picking tortilla makers, and never worry that I might disappear into the bowels of a Mexican prison while the American embassy expresses its sympathy — and its impotency — to my desparate family.

Hell, with this bitch riding me I can stomp on the rights of people everywhere, like a hippo on speed in a forest full of campfires, and no one will touch me! Because see, other places don’t have their own laws, not here in the real world. And here in the real world, I can’t stumble onto a place where I don’t know all the laws and the personality profiles of everybody who lives there, because here in the real world, I already know all these things! I know every law of every town of every county of every province of every nation-state! And I know every hapless fucker living in them!

That’s what’s so scary to me about libertarianism — I might lose my omniscience.

But that’s what makes our system work. It’s complicated like the real world, a world we did not make for ourselves, a magical mystical world that was put here for us to endure “as is”, like a cheap warranty on a used car. We can’t change the world any more than a cog can change a gearbox. The world has ust always been exactly this way.

Well, I feel better now that I’ve given up my blasphemy. Freedom? It was quaint two-hundred years ago, but hey, we’re enlightened these days, right? … Oops, gotta hurry. Springer’s on in fifteen minutes.

As I think of it, surely someone you’ve elected knows what’s better for me than I do. And if they live a thousand miles away from me, in a social setting vastly different from my own, why hell, so much the better! Gore, Bradley, Bush, McCain, these guys — they and their sycophants live to serve me. They feed my fat nanny so she can squeeze her thighs and pop something useful out of me, something useful for society.

Like Emperor Kennedy said, “Ask not what The State can do for you. Ask what you can do for The State.”

Yeah, those libertarians ain’t gonna fool me no more. Our system ain’t perfect yet, but it just gets better all the time. School kids now are safer than they’ve ever been, and corruption seems almost vestigial these days. Y’know, when I lost my home to asset forfeiture because my garage tenant sold a bag of pot to an undercover officer, I should have stopped then to consider this was really our system at its finest. Thanks to the DEA’s auction of my property, there’ll be enough money now to buy some pens and paper for the bureaucrats, and maybe a few well deserved perks for their politician bosses.

Whoa, dude, gotta go now fer sure! My fat nanny’s squeezin’ on my neck pretty hard. I think she needs to pee.

52

So, libertarian-

You feel the law should be put in the hands of victims?

R.J.D.

53

Dammit, Upstatic, the name is “Nuwanda”.

54

You know what Libertarian? Shut up. No, really, just shut up.

You are proposing (and proposing and proposing and proposing to the point that this entire forum has Libby Libby Libby on the label label label) a philosophy that is very nearly a 180 degree turn from the governing philosophy of every advanced society currently existing (and arguably 180 degrees from every advanced society that has ever existed. And every time people ask you specific questions about how it works you have a hissy fit and lament that it should be obvious and that no thinking person could imagine otherwise.

It is not obvious, and plenty of thinking people think otherwise. You yourself are fond of pointing out that every member on this board lives in (by your definition) a tyranny and has always done so. So did their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents. The system of “involuntarily surrender some rights and income to a government in exchange for common services, a modicum of protection and a central arbiter of laws” is what everybody knows. No one posting to this board has ever known about any other.

The use of real life examples, often based on the extreme case, is an important way for people to make sense of things to themselves. A Marxian posting to the board would get a lot of “why would one bother to innovate” questions. An atheist posting would get (and got, from you) “why bother to me moral” questions. Gun control advocates get “how do we protect ourselves from tyranny” questions even though the current system has no chance of defeating a modern army.

If you are unable to see that, than there’s no point in further arguing. Either gain some patience or just shut up and go live in your utopia.

Change Your Password, Please and don’t use HTML, as it has been disabled

55

Oh, be nice.

56

ROFL!

Lib, I am convinced. How could anyone ever doubt the practicality of a philosophy that is expounded so rationally and clearly? And if those other nations don’t agree with our new utopia, we shall RANT them into submission.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

57

Oh, let’s just occupy them with our army bases, as we do now in the real world.

58

If the fractured landscape of conclaves and microstates that you propose were going to be capable of maintaining military bases on foreign soil that might be an option. Instead, it appears to be just another example of your unwillingness to directly explore any possible problems with your utopian vision.

My surprise is endless.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

59

As is my incredulity.

Kindly do not attribute your presumptions about conclaves and microstates to my propositions about free people spontaneously forming robust societies.

I explore problems with what you errantly, disrespectfully, and repeatedly call my “utopian vision” at the links where I’ve sent you. I have yet to see any responses from you to any of the articles there. It’s easier, I suppose, to shoot down straw men than the published works of real men.

60

Why do you feel it is too simplistic? What are the complexities and shadings of the “real world” that you refer to?

Ah, what abuses are you referring to?

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-