# Riboflavin, the question man **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 13, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940 "2003-02-13T22:14:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/101 "2003-02-17T18:45:58Z")
Sorry. Wrong forum. :smack: The one time in a hundred when I didn’t preview. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/102 "2003-02-17T18:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to since this all began. The definition of coercion is _purposely_ fluid. \*\* So the one true principle of Libertaria – noncoercion – is subject to ad hoc reinterpretation at a whim? You are not improving your position.\*\* > [@](#): > > Of course not. He doesn’t have to prove your charges for you.\*\* Oh, so if I need to blow up a reactor because it’s being used to make nukes, I have to be sure to blow it up real-careful-like so I don’t hurt the nukes too badly, lest I have no evidence for my defense at the arbitration? \*\* > [@](#): > > Gah. This has been covered so many times. > > Arbiters arbitrate. When you consented to be governed, you signed a contract agreeing to arbitration. Do you mean to say that you are not familiar with even the most basic fundamentals of Libertaria? If so, you ought to get better acquainted with it before you condemn it. > > If your neighbor is not governed by Libertaria, then he is not protected by the Libertarian government. The government governs _you_. To govern means to protect. You’re used to govern meaning to nanny, apparently. Your. Government. Is. Securing. YOUR. Rights. The arbiter’s concern in that case is with how he is bound to YOU. Not the anarchist. \*\* So the arbiter has no concern for the rights of my non-consenting, nuke-building neighbor? Again: I want my neighbor Saddam to stop building his nuke. I try to take him to arbitration. Saddam says “screw you, I don’t consent to your government and I don’t agree to your arbiter.” I take it I can still get an injunction from the arbiter against Saddam, because the “arbiter’s concern in that case is with how he is bound to YOU. Not the anarchist.” Somehow, one-sided arbitration seems to me to be an abuse of the word “arbitration.” Suppose Saddam does the reverse: goes to his government, finds himself an arbitrator, and tries to get me to arbitrate. I say “screw you, screw you, I don’t consent to your government and I don’t agree to your arbiter.” Saddam gets an injunction to prevent me from blowing up his reactor. What now? Competing injunctions. Who wins? Say I bomb the reactor, citing my injunction permitting it in the event Saddam doesn’t dismantle. Saddam cries foul on the basis of his injunction. Saddam gets his government to try to collect damages against me. My government says “uh-uh, Dewey had a valid arbiter’s order, you get zippo”? Then what? War, most likely. And what’s to stop me from “arbitrating” against every nonconsenting party I can find? Frivolous or not? After all, the arbiter is only concerned with my rights, and if a nonconsenting party just refuses to go to arbitration (and why should he?), it’s only gonna be me presenting evidence. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/103 "2003-02-17T19:39:24Z")
**DCU** : That’s the price they pay for not consenting to be governed. Lib, in our previous discussion (which was abruptly cut short by the flooding at the Chicago Reader) I asked about whether there are different, competing brands of government in Libertaria. Can you address that now? If not, what reasoning would allow the exclusion of a group of like-minded citizens forimg their own government-like association? Specifically, I assume that it would be possible for neighbors to subscribe to two different forms of government. My childless neighbor belongs to a government that will support his mining of the property boundary, viewing every step over that boundary as a coercive act. I have children, and belong to a government that supports the personal bodily integrity rights of those who might honestly step into your property. I bring my neighbor to arbitration for the implicit coercion of having (as I see it) an implied threat against me (through my children). Or, my child dies when she steps onto his mine. He has no obligation to arbitrate with me. How does this issue get resolved? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/104 "2003-02-17T19:44:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > \*\ ***DCU** : That’s the price they pay for not consenting to be governed. \*\* Hardly a coercion-free result, then, eh? At least in the real world, if a court cannot excercise personal jurisdiction over me, I can tell that court to get bent and not have to worry about it. In the real world, it’s the plaintiff’s job to bring suit in a court whose judgment can properly bind the defendant. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/105 "2003-02-17T19:51:48Z")
Dewey wrote: > [@](#): > > The answers to these questions are GD-worthy in and of themselves. The status quo does make efforts to save children. The status quo fails all to frequently in that regard. There are doubtlessly any number of changes that could be made to the status quo that would improve it. What would they be, exactly? Here are the other two questions I asked you that you didn’t answer: What is the status quo doing to guarantee the rights of children? Why are thousands upon thousands of children falling through the cracks? > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean that Libertaria improves on the status quo in this particular area. And in some ways, as I note, it makes it worse. I disagree. Libertaria seeks to establish the importance of children even before they are born. It recognizes their parents as contractually bound to the obligation of child-rearing, and holds them responsible for the welfare of their children. People don’t churn out children like a candy factory and leave them to be the concern of their neighbors. There is built-in disincentive to having more children than you can care for, so there are few orphans and unloved children. When you say that it makes things worse, don’t you really mean that it makes things worse for careless parents? What about the children? How can such a context, where obligations to him are strictly enforced, be anything but good for the child? > [@](#): > > The status quo does pin primary responsibility for a child’s well-being on the parents. That it also recognizes some duties by other parties does not change that fact. What responsibilities did the status quo pin on the mother who found her child in the mouth of her neighbor’s pit bull? I can get plent of examples of this sort of thing if you need them. > [@](#): > > The argument here, of course, is that the neighbor did not behave responsibly. So in the status quo, you have to watch your dog every second of every day? Is that it? The status quo forces you to take more care with your dog than with your child? > [@](#): > > Hold on there, Sparky. When did I accuse you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children?. You might not have used those exact words, but that’s how you made me feel. Not that you care how I feel. > [@](#): > > That’s a serious allegation, bub. Back that shit up RIGHT NOW. You’re so cute when you’re mad. > [@](#): > > A comprehensive review of every program designed for the protection of children is obviously beyond the scope of a message board post. I would hope that you would be willing to stipulate that there are programs designed to aid at-risk children, that some of those programs are good, some are negligible, and some are abject failures. That’s funny. You seem to want me to write a fucking novel before you can be satisfied. You ask questions about the minutae in the day-to-day operations about Libertaria: who decides what, how will this work and that work. Hell, you even admitted that you dig case studies out of law books and throw them at me. And now, you want leniency when I ask you for specifics? No, sir. Fair for me is fair for you, too. Until you become reasonable yourself, my questions stand. And I’m putting these keywords here so I can refer back to it: Dewey unanswered questions. Otherwise, if you want to search Free-Market and Cato for your answers to libertarian implementations, fine, and I’ll do the same for the status quo. > [@](#): > > Congratulations. I gather you’ve never been watching your kid playing in the yard and had to answer the phone? Let me see. My little girl has just learned how to walk. She still falls down from time to time. There’s a pit bull a few feet away. The phone rings… Let me see. I got it! FUCK THE PHONE! Heck, I’m not even in that situation anyway. I’ve already built a fence for my little girl and a special area where she can play. And I’ve brought a phone out to the yard with us. These are mere basic essentials of parenting. I’ve seen people take better care of their cats than the status quo expects from them for their children. > [@](#): > > The neighbor isn’t expected to watch the children; the neighbor is expected to refrain from activity that is substantially likely to cause harm to a trespassing child when such trespass is foreseeable. Ah. And here’s where we go: But who determines what is substantially likely? You mean the status quo has courts? What if the landowner doesn’t even know the mother has a child? Why should he consider it substantially likely that a two-year-old will waddle over to his place? How can people be expected to “foresee” things. Is everybody in the status quo psychic? > [@](#): > > Define “explore.” Obviously, sending your kid out into the woods completely sans parent is a far cry from sending them into the backyard with plans to follow them a minute or two later. To quote you, “Do you not own a dictionary?” Listen. This. Is. A. Two-Year-Old. He hasn’t even been walking for most of his life. You don’t send him out and follow him later. Do you hear me? Don’t you ever dare do that. > [@](#): > > I never said Libertarianism was an “evil bastard philosophy;” indeed, I have specifically noted that I find much to admire in Libertarianism. I do, however, think there are serious problems with a purely Libertarian state. I would love to hear what it is you admire about it. It would certainly be a breath of fresh air at the very least. There might be problems with a libertarian “state”, and in fact I just enumerated some of them, didn’t I? But it is nothing more than a matter of what sort of problems a person would rather have, those caused mostly by himself or those caused mostly by others. If you were honest, what you would say is that there is a trade-off. Libertaria puts you in the position of taking a lot of responsibility for your actions, but at the same time, it affords you a lot of freedom. > [@](#): > > Obviously, your statement that they are not “mutually exclusive propositions” in Libertaria is false, since by your own argument Libertaria would not prosecute the landowner. Not in this case with what we know. The mother could have accomplished the exact same end by taking her child’s hand, walking him out to the pit bull, and tossing him in. > [@](#): > > In a metaphysical sense, yes, though there’s clearly no penalty if that’s the case. Obviously, there are issues of prosecutorial discretion at play – the evidentiary case vs. mom may well be weaker than the case vs. landowner. Precisely. And that’s what I mean by an ethic of expedience. Why you consider that to be inherently superior to an ethic of noncoercion is beyond me. > [@](#): > > Do you not own a dictionary? Yes, I do. And I still don’t get it. > [@](#): > > A tort is a civil wrong, as opposed to a crime or a contract dispute. When you sue for personal injuries or for trespass or for things like that, you’re suing over a tort. Why isn’t personal injury a crime? Why isn’t trespass? Why do things have to be separated that way? Why does it have to be your way or the highway? Why can’t a system wherein coercion is itself a crime not be a tenable way to do things? > [@](#): > > For all practical purposes, there is little difference in this example between the bear trap and the dog. In both cases, the same rule governs: a landowner owes a duty to foreseeable trespassing children to keep his property free of things likely to cause them serious bodily harm. I’ve asked you before, and I’ll ask you again. What about a swimming pool? What about a lawnmower? What about a car? If a similar dingbat mother let her toddler play in her neighbor’s drive-way under his car, is the neighbor liable when he runs over the child heading out for work? Instead of pinning the onus on the neighbor to look out for the child, why can’t you pin the onus on the people who PRODUCED the child? > [@](#): > > Er…for what? Your question does not compute. For someone being held responsible for someone else who is in their charge. Like when someone is released in your custody. Or when you are responsible for the actions of someone else. > [@](#): > > And indeed, the mother may well also be negligent, and indeed may even be criminally liable. Holding the landowner liable does not preclude liability on the part of the parents. It did this time, unless you mean metaphysical liability. The neighbor is fucked. He hasn’t just been sued. He’s been charged with murder. > [@](#): > > Again, the answer is that both parties owe certain duties to the child. Liability for one does not preclude liability for the other. The question was, “Why should the neighbor have to exercise more care than the child’s own mother?” It’s asking why the man has to watch out for both his dog and her child, but she can just push her babies outside while she yaks on the phone. > [@](#): > > Not so. There is a difference between an answer I just don’t like or one that requests a fuller description of the facts and an answer that attempts to sidestep the principle the example is trying to illuminate. And you think I’ve done that? I assure you, I have not. Your continued insistence that I have is the whole source of the enmity between us. You do not seem satisfied with fair debate. You seem more intent on winning at whatever cost. You do not seem able to accept that there might exist a view that is both different from your own and respectable. > [@](#): > > Oh, I agree that that is the result in Libertaria: total liability for the parents, zero liability for the landowner. I think that’s 100% accurate. I’ve never said otherwise. No, dangit. It depends. There are situations where the man might have behaved coercively. He might have _lured_ the children onto his property and to his trap. In such cases, _he_ is liable. It is in cases where coercion is not a consideration that the parent is liable. Didn’t you see the “so long as her neighbor is not coercing her” clause in the sentence? > [@](#): > > I do think that most people will see that result as less satsifactory than the status quo. Which is why I continue to bring it up: it illustrates a shortcoming of Libertaria. Well, shit. If they looked at it the way you paint it, they’d run screaming in terror. And so would I. But you paint a caricature. > [@](#): > > But the how liability is allocated does affect how things will happen. If a dock owner knows he has no right to evict a trespasser when trespass is bourne of necessity, and that he will be held responsibile for damages if he does so, then he won’t evict the sailor during the storm. The allocation of liability has real-world consequences. People in the status quo break the law every day. That’s why the prisons are bulging at the seams and the courts are choked. You’re depending on his good nature to obey the law. And you’re depending on the fact that he will not survive a my-word-against-yours case in court. He can untie the boat and claim that he didn’t, just as a bigot can send an Indian away and claim that the position is filled. If I’m going to depend on people’s good nature, I’d rather depend on their conscience than on their sense of duty to The State. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/106 "2003-02-17T19:59:06Z")
Dewey wrote: > [@](#): > > So the one true principle of Libertaria – noncoercion – is subject to ad hoc reinterpretation at a whim? > > You are not improving your position. Is that how judges in the status quo rule? On whim? Your dishonesty erodes your position. Arbiters are sworn to interpret on the basis of noncoercion. In fact, they are so bound to that responsiblity that they themselves face the possibility of being charged with coercion if they have misrepresented their intentions when they took their oath. > [@](#): > > Oh, so if I need to blow up a reactor because it’s being used to make nukes, I have to be sure to blow it up real-careful-like so I don’t hurt the nukes too badly, lest I have no evidence for my defense at the arbitration? You’re taunting and being deliberately obtuse. In other words, it’s business as usual. Like Desmo said, I’ve answered the question about the nukes. > [@](#): > > So the arbiter has no concern for the rights of my non-consenting, nuke-building neighbor? Again: I want my neighbor Saddam to stop building his nuke. I try to take him to arbitration. Saddam says “screw you, I don’t consent to your government and I don’t agree to your arbiter.” I take it I can still get an injunction from the arbiter against Saddam, because the “arbiter’s concern in that case is with how he is bound to YOU. Not the anarchist.” > > Somehow, one-sided arbitration seems to me to be an abuse of the word “arbitration.” > > Suppose Saddam does the reverse: goes to his government, finds himself an arbitrator, and tries to get me to arbitrate. I say “screw you, screw you, I don’t consent to your government and I don’t agree to your arbiter.” Saddam gets an injunction to prevent me from blowing up his reactor. > > What now? Competing injunctions. Who wins? Say I bomb the reactor, citing my injunction permitting it in the event Saddam doesn’t dismantle. Saddam cries foul on the basis of his injunction. Saddam gets his government to try to collect damages against me. My government says “uh-uh, Dewey had a valid arbiter’s order, you get zippo”? Then what? War, most likely. > > And what’s to stop me from “arbitrating” against every nonconsenting party I can find? Frivolous or not? After all, the arbiter is only concerned with my rights, and if a nonconsenting party just refuses to go to arbitration (and why should he?), it’s only gonna be me presenting evidence. What Nogginhead said. A government unwilling to go to war to secure the rights of its citizens is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/107 "2003-02-17T20:08:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > \*\ ***DCU** : That’s the price they pay for not consenting to be governed. > > Lib, in our previous discussion (which was abruptly cut short by the flooding at the Chicago Reader) I asked about whether there are different, competing brands of government in Libertaria. Can you address that now? If not, what reasoning would allow the exclusion of a group of like-minded citizens forimg their own government-like association? > > Specifically, I assume that it would be possible for neighbors to subscribe to two different forms of government. My childless neighbor belongs to a government that will support his mining of the property boundary, viewing every step over that boundary as a coercive act. I have children, and belong to a government that supports the personal bodily integrity rights of those who might honestly step into your property. > > I bring my neighbor to arbitration for the implicit coercion of having (as I see it) an implied threat against me (through my children). Or, my child dies when she steps onto his mine. He has no obligation to arbitrate with me. How does this issue get resolved? \*\* There is nothing to prevent competing governments, and that’s rather the whole point! 🙂 The idea is that the best government will surface — but only if people may freely choose. The notion you mention of “like-minded citizens forming their own government-like association” is exactly what America was built on: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies, In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 Issues that cannot be resolved by arbitration must be resolved by force, but I’m confident that, unlike Dewey, you can recall that responsive force is not coercive. Whichever government is most willing and able to secure the rights of its citizens will prevail. But that in and of itself is a form of arbitration, since it is the stronger case in court that prevails. Even in the status quo, when reason fails, differences are solved by force. But in the status quo, that happens all too readily. The United States has military forces stationed in more than half the nations of earth. And it is about to attack Saddam Hussein, whom it installed into power and equiped with WMDs, when it is al-Qaeda who has harmed Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/108 "2003-02-17T20:10:12Z")
I have to stop now. My fingers hurt. I’m going to visit some lighter threads. Thanks, everyone. Even you, Dewey. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/109 "2003-02-17T20:59:01Z")
> [@](#): > > - Lib\* > Neither do I think everything about Libertaria is peachy keen. Here are just a couple of the > things that I have (often) conceded are problems: > > 1. Corruption — in any governmental system, it is possible that governors will become corrupt, > and in Libertaria, governors could corruptly apply the noncoercion principle. > > 2. Facility — there is no satisfactory way of implementing libertarianism in an already > established authoritarian context, since there is too much dependence on government. Suddenly > removing the teat will almost surely starve the kittens. > > 3. Vulnerability — a libertarian government must of necessity maintain an extremely strong > military/police presence because it may be called upon to secure its citizens’ rights anywhere > in the world at any time, and so must be prepared to fight the strongest adversary in the world. > [@](#): > > _DCU_ > > 1. I never said the status quo was perfect. > > 2. I never said Libertaria had to be perfect to be viable. > > 3. My position is, and always has been, that Libertaria (or whatever radical social > restructuring is being proposed) is flawed because it makes things worse than the status quo. There are two Libertarias: One is the idealized version (Libert-utopia) where people mostly act in enlightened self-interest and the difficulties suggested by Dewey and Ribo just don’t come up very often. When they do, they are resolved adequately by arbitration. In that world, Lib’s problem #1 is not a problem: Arbitration against governors who are currupt will make sure justice is done in the rare cases where threat of arbitration keeps the governors on the straight and narrow. The second version is Libert-dystopia, where human nature remains unchanged. In this version, people do whatever the hell they can get away with: mine their property, carry arms that many would consider coercive by their very nature, and do all the naughty things that are part of the real-world hypotheticals that Dewey presents. There, there are competing governments that embody different well-intentioned standards of non-coercion that inevitably conflict with one another. And let’s not even bring up monopolies, poverty, and slavery! (oops. sorry.) I think that Lib is generally an optimist. [No, really! Well, about humans in the abstract, if not in the particular based on their posts.] And is often thinking of Libert-utopia. This is a fine abstract world to dwell upon; it has many valuable lessons for justice and human behavior. On the other hand, given Lib’s problem #2 above, many people have trouble imagining it. We get stuck thinking about how the people we know so well will behave in the too-free land where the Bill Gateses and Ted Turners own everything. We bring up these examples based on real life, and to some extent they don’t make sense in Libert-utopia. They are so obvious with libert-dystopia in mind, though, that we might well seem dismissive and disrespectful in bringing them up. Sorry, Lib. With this in mind, I believe the status quo argument is a red herring. Real life is varied, and I suspect that many examples of how libert-utopia bests the status quo abound, as do the examples of how libert-dystopia is worse. Perhaps to facilitate discussion, which model is considered should be specified. E.g.: In libert-dystopia, how could radical environmentalists and radical industrialists resolve their differences? Or: In libert-utopia, how could there be comptetition to supply a home with water? Then the reader could decide for themselves whether the discussed libertopia would be better or worse than the status quo. Personally, I think the status quo would be improved upon in many ways in either Libertaria, with obvious examples including those often cited by Lib in his initial encounters with newcomers: flag-burning, marijuana, gun control… On the other hand, IMO, it’s not possible to get to a Libert-utopia, and, IMO, Dewey is right in his #3 above: the status quo under any reachable libertaria is likely to be worse than the status quo at present, in many (IMO many more) example areas. In fact, I often find myself thinking that the US of A we live in right now is maybe not too far from the best reachable Libertaria. We are forced to do few things: pay our taxes, mostly. Also, I would argue that the court system often screws up liability, protecting those that do wrong and failing to redress wrongs, but also over-compansating the wronged and over-punishing the wrong-doers as well. In general, our elected leaders attempt to serve our best interests as they honestly see them (ok, call me an optimist too) however misguided they may be in those judgements. The state attempts to protect us from initial (and retributive) force and fraud although it often fails miserably, particularly WRT the latter. Many, many aspects of the state as it presently exists seem to me to be fairly natural results if we were all magically transported to a libertarian world: it would be extremely awkward for neighbors to have different governments with different goals, and I suspect that pretty soon we would all (who live near and think more or less the same) agree to subscribe to the same government and to require our non-consenting neighbors to pony up for our projects and the mutual defense they benefit from. Those neighbors would be bitter and think (rightly) that their right to non-consent had been stripped from them and that they were being coerced. And they would use the free-speech rights provided by the government they abhorred to express their dissatisfaction. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/110 "2003-02-17T21:00:46Z")
Eek! Sorry about the formatting! Looked much better in preview, I swear. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/111 "2003-02-17T21:43:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > \*\*Eek! Sorry about the formatting! Looked much better in preview, I swear. \*\* Formatting 2, content 10: you summed it up perfectly. Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/112 "2003-02-17T21:54:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **What would they be [efforts in the status quo to prevent children falling through the cracks], exactly? Here are the other two questions I asked you that you didn’t answer: What is the status quo doing to guarantee the rights of children? Why are thousands upon thousands of children falling through the cracks?** Er…I _did_ answer them…the language you quote from me was directly below those questions. IOW, that response _was_ a reply to those questions. To reiterate: there are many programs to prevent terrible things from happening to children; some work well, others are abject failures; the reasons for this are complicated and could easily consume multiple GD threads. \*\* > [@](#): > > People don’t churn out children like a candy factory and leave them to be the concern of their neighbors. \*\* Where the fuck did this come from? How many times do I have to repeat that just because landowners owe duties to trespassing children does not abrogate a parent’s duty to care for his child? \*\* > [@](#): > > There is built-in disincentive to having more children than you can care for, so there are few orphans and unloved children.\*\* Please change your username to “Pollyanna.” \*\* > [@](#): > > When you say that it makes things worse, don’t you really mean that it makes things worse for careless parents? What about the children? How can such a context, where obligations to him are strictly enforced, be anything but good for the child?\*\* It makes things worse for the child because the child loses the ability to pursue one of the parties responsible for his injury. Yes, I said “one of.” A parent is liable for the negligent supervision of the child. Again – and I’m repeating this for the umpteenth time – **liability is apportioned by fault; the parent does not get off scott-free**. (The above answers all your questions inclusively) \*\* > [@](#): > > What responsibilities did the status quo pin on the mother who found her child in the mouth of her neighbor’s pit bull? I can get plent of examples of this sort of thing if you need them.\*\* The mother may, depending on the facts, be liable to the child in tort and may actually be criminally liable. Why is the mother not prosecuted or otherwise pursued here? Probably for evidentiary reasons. I suspect that the kid really did dart over the property line, that mom was watching her kid but couldn’t prevent that dash, and that the proffered testimony would bear out that conclusion. \*\* > [@](#): > > So in the status quo, you have to watch your dog every second of every day? Is that it? The status quo forces you to take more care with your dog than with your child?\*\* No, the status quo requires that you keep your dog in a safe manner if you are aware of the liklihood of trespassing children. That may be as simple as keeping your dog muzzled. It may be as simple as keeping your dog chained on a shorter leash, or confined to a walled pen. It’s important to bear in mind that this isn’t Fido the friendly mutt; it’s an attack dog specifically bred to fight. That fact heightens the dog owner’s duty because it represents a substantial increase in the likelihood of injury. The point is to keep the dog in a manner such that when a kid wanders over, the kid won’t get badly hurt. (again, the above answers each of the questions proffered) \*\* > [@](#): > > You might not have used those exact words, but that’s how you made me feel. Not that you care how I feel.\*\* Boo hoo. You made a specific claim. Your subjective feelings are not relevant to that claim. Either provide proof that I accused you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children or back off that claim. Otherwise, readers of this thread will be forced to conclude that your claim is a deliberate falsehood, i.e., a lie. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s funny. You seem to want me to write a fucking novel before you can be satisfied. \*\* No, I’d rather you answers be short and concise, but that they actually answer the question asked. \*\* > [@](#): > > You ask questions about the minutae in the day-to-day operations about Libertaria: who decides what, how will this work and that work.\*\* Yes, because these things are of the utmost importance. \*\* > [@](#): > > Hell, you even admitted that you dig case studies out of law books and throw them at me.\*\* I’m not “digging” anything out of anywhere. I’m throwing fact patterns at you from basic first-year law school texts that are designed to illustrate certain principles. I’m doing it from memory, and not because I’m Karnac, but because they are simple examples that illustrate important points. \*\* > [@](#): > > And now, you want leniency when I ask you for specifics? No, sir. Fair for me is fair for you, too. Until you become reasonable yourself, my questions stand. And I’m putting these keywords here so I can refer back to it: Dewey unanswered questions. Otherwise, if you want to search Free-Market and Cato for your answers to libertarian implementations, fine, and I’ll do the same for the status quo. \*\* You asked what the status quo does to secure the rights of children. Obviously, that entails a complex web of government programs at the federal, state, and local levels, plus the efforts of private groups. Simply listing every such program could fill books. So let’s be realistic: you know that various programs exist. You know that some are good, some are OK, and some are abysmal failures. Do you seriously dispute that characterization? Assuming that we agree on that characterization, I agree that a lot could be done to improve the way many of those programs operate. If you’ve got a particular program in mind, we can certainly discuss the specifics of that program. Otherwise, your question is simply to vague to answer. It’s not the details that I have a problem with; it’s the fact that it’s so wide-ranging that I scarcely know where to start. \*\* > [@](#): > > Ah. And here’s where we go: But who determines what is substantially likely? You mean the status quo has courts? What if the landowner doesn’t even know the mother has a child? Why should he consider it substantially likely that a two-year-old will waddle over to his place? How can people be expected to “foresee” things. Is everybody in the status quo psychic?\*\* 1. The court (actually, the jury). 2. Yes. 3. Then he is not liable, as “foreseeability” is an element of that tort. 4. Because two-year olds are apt to waddle about, virtually by definition. 5. The test is what a reasonable person would find foreseeable. 6. This has nothing to do with psychic powers, and everything to do with anticipating the natural results of your actions. \*\* > [@](#): > > Listen. This. Is. A. Two-Year-Old. He hasn’t even been walking for most of his life. You don’t send him out and follow him later. Do you hear me? Don’t you ever dare do that.\*\* My, my, it’s a wonder I survived childhood. Furthermore, I think you’re a little hung up on the specifics of the case you linked to. The principle I referred to relates to duties to all children. That principle applies to an 8 year old as well as a 2 year old. \*\* > [@](#): > > I would love to hear what it is you admire about it. It would certainly be a breath of fresh air at the very least. \*\* Follow my posts on this board. I’m pretty consistently a pro-property rights, limited government, private-sector-solution kind of guy.\*\* > [@](#): > > There might be problems with a libertarian “state”, and in fact I just enumerated some of them, didn’t I?\*\* Am I seriously supposed to answer this? \*\* > [@](#): > > Not in this case with what we know. The mother could have accomplished the exact same end by taking her child’s hand, walking him out to the pit bull, and tossing him in.\*\* Actually, in that instance, the landowner would probably _not_be liable, since mothers throwing their children to the dogs is most likely unforeseeable. \*\* > [@](#): > > ## [Dewey Sez: In a metaphysical sense, yes, though there’s clearly no penalty if that’s the case. Obviously, there are issues of prosecutorial discretion at play – the evidentiary case vs. mom may well be weaker than the case vs. landowner.] > > Precisely. And that’s what I mean by an ethic of expedience. Why you consider that to be inherently superior to an ethic of noncoercion is beyond me.\*\* Oh, so Libertaria dispenses for the needs of nifty little things like “evidence” and “juries”? It’s a good thing that prosecutors don’t waste their time on cases where they lack the evidence to secure a prosecution; I mean, really, what would be the point?\*\* > [@](#): > > Yes, I do. And I still don’t get it.\*\* This is not difficult. A tort is a civil wrong, as distinguished from breach of contract and from criminal law. The remedy for a tort is money damages. \*\* > [@](#): > > Why isn’t personal injury a crime? Why isn’t trespass? Why do things have to be separated that way? Why does it have to be your way or the highway? Why can’t a system wherein coercion is itself a crime not be a tenable way to do things?\*\* 1. Some torts are also crimes (e.g., trespass, assault, battery). They can be prosecuted as well as the victim seeking monetary redress. Some crimes also include torts (e.g., murder and wrongful death; see OJ Simpson). 2. Civil trespass nets you damages. Criminal trespass puts the trespasser in jail. The same conduct can be both civil and criminal in nature. 3. Civil penalties redress the victim. Criminal penalties redress harm to society. 4. Cite for that proposition? Just because I think your vision isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn’t mean I categorically reject any alternatives presented to me. 5. So…what? You want to make simple negligence (a tort) into a criminal act? \*\* > [@](#): > > I’ve asked you before, and I’ll ask you again. What about a swimming pool? What about a lawnmower?\*\* 1. Some cases do recognize a swimming pool as an “attractive nuisance,” a similar doctrine. Personally, I think that’s a bad rule and one I would change where it is adopted. My personal view is that the landowner should only be required to keep his property free of unusually dangerous risks, and a swimming pool is not such a risk. 2. I don’t see how an idle lawnmower would be dangerous. If the landowner is mowing his lawn, however, he does owe a duty to be alert to children running across his path.\*\* > [@](#): > > What about a car? If a similar dingbat mother let her toddler play in her neighbor’s drive-way under his car, is the neighbor liable when he runs over the child heading out for work? Instead of pinning the onus on the neighbor to look out for the child, why can’t you pin the onus on the people who PRODUCED the child?\*\* 1. An idle car? Probably not. 2. Then dingbat mom is liable for negligent supervision. Neighbor may also be liable for negligent operation of a motor vehicle, since he has a duty to be aware of his surroundings when operating the car. 3. For the umpteenth time, you pin the onus on BOTH PARTIES. \*\* > [@](#): > > For someone being held responsible for someone else who is in their charge. Like when someone is released in your custody. Or when you are responsible for the actions of someone else.\*\* The closest thing I can think of is “fiduciary duty,” though it’s probably more accurate to just say parents owe a duty of due care to their children. Which, of course, I haven’t disputed in the slightest. \*\* > [@](#): > > ## [Dewey Sez"And indeed, the mother may well also be negligent, and indeed may even be criminally liable. Holding the landowner liable does not preclude liability on the part of the parents."] > > It did this time, unless you mean metaphysical liability. The neighbor is fucked. He hasn’t just been sued. He’s been charged with murder.\*\* Ah, no, it doesn’t. Even on the facts presented, nothing precludes a suit by the child against his parent or even a prosecution of that parent. The mere fact that the neighbor is being prosecuted does not bar those outcomes as well. The prosecutor may decide he lacks sufficient evidence to convict mom, but that doesn’t mean he’s legally barred from doing so. \*\* > [@](#): > > The question was, “Why should the neighbor have to exercise more care than the child’s own mother?” It’s asking why the man has to watch out for both his dog and her child, but she can just push her babies outside while she yaks on the phone. \*\* The answer is, the landowner doesn’t owe “more care” than the parent. He owes a narrow duty to potentially trespassing children that can be fulfilled in ways simpler than constant watching of dog and child. Parent owes a duty to adequately supervise her kids. “Adequate” != every passing second, but it still a substantial duty to the child. \*\* > [@](#): > > No, dangit. It depends. There are situations where the man might have behaved coercively. He might have _lured_ the children onto his property and to his trap. In such cases, _he_ is liable. It is in cases where coercion is not a consideration that the parent is liable. Didn’t you see the “so long as her neighbor is not coercing her” clause in the sentence?\*\* You are changing the facts of the hypothetical. In our hypo, kid just wanders onto landowner’s land and gets caught in the trap. In that situation, I think we agree, Libertaria gives total liability to parent, zero liability to landowner. And again, I think that’s a shitty result, and that most folks would agree.\*\* > [@](#): > > People in the status quo break the law every day. That’s why the prisons are bulging at the seams and the courts are choked. You’re depending on his good nature to obey the law. And you’re depending on the fact that he will not survive a my-word-against-yours case in court. He can untie the boat and claim that he didn’t, just as a bigot can send an Indian away and claim that the position is filled. If I’m going to depend on people’s good nature, I’d rather depend on their conscience than on their sense of duty to The State. \*\* I’m not depending on people’s good nature. I’m depending on their love of their own pocketbooks. If the dockowner wants to cast away the sailor, he does so at some considerable risk to his own well-being. Even if we presuppose that he’s willing to lie about casting the boat adrift, he risks there being no other witnessess to the event and no other physical evidence that would demonstrate the facts happened as they did. Put simply, in the status quo, more dockowners will grudgingly let sailors tie up during a storm than they would in Libertaria. Nice dockowners would do so regardless of which system he lived owner. Mean dockowners need more persuasion. The current system provides that persuasion via the risk of tort liability. Even if that isn’t the result 100% of the time, the fact remains that there is a stronger incentive in the current system and that thus _more_ dockowners will allow tieups. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/113 "2003-02-17T22:03:55Z")
Errr…“lived _under_” in that last paragraph. Long post, so forgive any other typos. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/114 "2003-02-18T04:22:50Z")
Lib: may we move the questions about the Nukular Threat to GD? I am not really comfortable in the Pit, and I don’t want to get involved with the ongoing dustup between you and DCuH. I have several comments to make about your posts; I’m going to have to ask questions; and I don’t want to start a fight. I hesitate to start threads of my own because sometimes I can’t post for two or three days; living in the Third World means that the Internet is a hit-or-miss proposition. (Prodigy has disconnected itself twice while I was typing this.) But if you’re willing, and not overwhelmed with the arguments you’re already involved in, I’ll give it a try. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/115 "2003-02-18T05:07:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > If I had responded to one of your questions that way, you would have cried foul so loud the board would have crashed. > > I want answers. What is the status quo doing to guarantee the rights of children? Why are thousands upon thousands of children falling through the cracks? (I gave you links already.) Why is the status quo failing? I want answers too. What relevance does your railing on failures of the current system have to how the system you propose actually functions? You see, simply saying ‘X is bad’ doesn’t automatically mean ‘Y is good’. What evidence is there that your proposed change from the status quo would result in a situation better than the status quo, where thousands of children are falling through the cracks One could use your ‘thousands falling through the cracks’ argument to argue for Communism just as well as Libertarianism. Further, Why do you presume that anyone who disagrees with you, or who asks enough questions to determine whether they agree with you or not, absolutely supports the status quo? While the false dichotomy is all the rage in some arguments, it’s fallacious in all. Someone can, in fact, both say that the current system needs changes **and** that your proposed system is not the changes that are needed. And at the very base of it Why do you start in with the ‘the current system has failed’ in response to someone asking how child support works in Libertaria? Sure, I didn’t just say ‘gosh, parents support their children’ or ‘ohh, unary contracts, I don’t know what it means but it must be the answer’, but **you** told us that parents are someone who [c]consented\*\* to a unary contract to protect a child; it’s perfectly fair to ask just how one consents to such a contract or how one gets out of it (you provided examples of people who were biological parents but would not be considered ‘parents’ in Libertaria). > [@](#): > > What about the status quo makes it superior to pinning responsibility for children onto parents? That’s easy; “Pinning responsibility for children onto parents” is a simple sound-bite, not any kind of plan for doing good things for children. Considering that you dodged around how Libertaria “pins” the unary contract that deals with “responsibility” onto “parents”, and refused to answer the question about who are “children” in Libertaira, I don’t think it’s even reasonable to use your phrase to describe the system you advocate. > [@](#): > > I’m not accusing you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children the way you did me. Where is the quoted material from Dewey or me accusing you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children > [@](#): > > I’m just asking what your system does to secure their rights to their lives, their bodies, and their minds. Where is the quoted material from Dewey or me identifying the status quo as one of our systems? > [@](#): > > They aren’t in Libertaria either. So why is libertarianism the big evil bastard philosophy that you make it out to be? Why do you keep asserting that people who ask you how your version of Libertarianism actually believe that libertariansim is “evil”? When are you going to either provide quotes form posts backing up your oft-repeated assertion or admit that you’re just making it up? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/116 "2003-02-18T05:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*There is nothing to prevent competing governments, and that’s rather the whole point! 🙂 How do the compteing governments in what you advocate differ from the competing private protective services in anarcho-capitalism? Is it just that you use the term governments while anarcho-capitalists use a different term, or is there a substantive difference? ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/117 "2003-02-18T07:31:38Z")
Sorry it took so long to get back and reply. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **I’ve said many times that libertarianism does not make any pretense at solving peoples problems for them, but merely seeks to provide them a context in which they can solve them for themselves.** Let me rephrase, then. Your _portrayal_ of “Libertaria” _comes across_ as a depiction of a “perfect government.” Or at least, if you’ll pardon the term, “more perfect than others.” (I hadn’t even thought about it before I started to type it, but that story actually seems oddly comparable to Libertaria, as it’s been presented so far…) > [@](#): > > **I don’t think there are. You put a different standard on me than you do on Dewey. I asked him about the children in America, for example. I gave him four links that showed children abused, neglected, and even completely lost and unaccounted for, not just as anomolies, but as rampant nightmares prevalent in a crippled system of social services. His response? The system isn’t perfect. After that brush-off, he proceded with the same old tail-feather display.** > [@](#): > > **Do you think that if I opened a thread on status quo political ethics and asked a bunch of questions that Dewey would answer them?** He’s already answered these before I could, and his answer was almost exactly what I thought it would be upon reading the questions. > [@](#): > > **I answer all questions that I see from people I believe are sincere. You cannot deny that, at least not honestly.** Well, if it’s being based off your “belief,” then no, I guess I can’t adequatly deny it. I can, however, infer that your belief of others sincerity may be rather off in quite a few cases. I also question your comments about nuclear weapons and force used to remove these “percieved threats.” Especially the bit about nuclear power plants, and only allowing them if your _neighbors_ feel it is safe. That seems like a sudden departure from the general principles you’ve been promoting so far. Or do you mean that he can only be shut down if the neighbors feel it is unsafe, and the plant then has to be _shown_ to be unsafe to neighboring lands (Since I’m assuming it would be irrelevant if it were only dangerous to someone on the land owned by its owner)? And would the neighbors then be subject to fraud charges if it ends up being perfectly safe? About nukes, why would simply having them be coercive? The person might not intend to ever use them, after all… And does this only apply to nukes? What if the guy had a small plot of land, where he stored large quantities of explosives that he could sell to local mining opperations? Would you be allowed to destroy his stockpile simply because it’s dangerous sitting there near you? Um… One more question, which I didn’t see addressed anywhere. Would Libertaria have taxes? I saw that you stated people would have to pay for police/fire protection, in another thread (I’m assuming these would be private entities?). But how about that massive military you said it would need? Does it only get paid for by the people who want to? I can’t imagine a well-funded millitary supported on such a opt-in basis; Yes, you get the support that you pay for, but given the option between an effective millitary force and not having to pay, I’m sure many many more would opt not to pay, even if it isn’t in their best interests (You can not rely on people always acting in their best interests! Humans seem to have a bad habit of not doing so…). And would people be able to refuse to let the military onto their land, if they wanted to, if the military was not carrying out action against that person? (Being, after all, a “non-coercive” state) Overall, it doesn’t seem like Libertaria would be stable at all. Is there anything binding preventing people from leaving Libertaria, land-and-all? I wouldn’t be surprised if it rapidly broke down into multiple city-states. Local areas have for all of history tried to influence laws and politics into their favor, and without defined borders to prevent or disuade trade or travel to them, I can imagine any city or community that wanted laws to be a certain way could quickly change into their own government, and say “screw you” to everyone else. And for a particularly hard case, how about a “Berlin” scenario; A whole bunch of people declare their own state, trapping a few other, un-aligned people inside. They don’t do anything active against these ‘trapped’ people, just refuse to let anyone through their land for food, water, or even electricity. Nothing active or coercive, just not going out of their way to help. They will, of course, let the people leave through their land, if they turn the land over to them. Kind of like a real-world game of Go. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/118 "2003-02-18T08:45:17Z")
It might be advisable to pay closer attention to those posters who bring knowledge and experience to bear on any particular issue. Likewise, one might lightly skim over the output of those posters who offer little but loquacious bile. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/119 "2003-02-18T13:00:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mapache \* > \*\*Lib: may we move the questions about the Nukular Threat to GD? I am not really comfortable in the Pit, and I don’t want to get involved with the ongoing dustup between you and DCuH. > I have several comments to make about your posts; I’m going to have to ask questions; and I don’t want to start a fight. > I hesitate to start threads of my own because sometimes I can’t post for two or three days; living in the Third World means that the Internet is a hit-or-miss proposition. (Prodigy has disconnected itself twice while I was typing this.) But if you’re willing, and not overwhelmed with the arguments you’re already involved in, I’ll give it a try. \*\* I would be glad to participate in your GD thread. These “arguments” have come full circle anyway, and Dewey is clearly not going to answer my questions about the status quo other than to say they’re doing lots of things and none of it works. I’m even being asked now whether there are any taxes in Libertaria. Flowbark has given me an idea, so tell you what I’ll do. I have received official confirmation from an authority that one is not required to respond to any particular posters. If you open your thread, I will give you 100% of my attention and answer all your questions as best I can. I will ignore all others. If you see one from someone that interests you, merely present it yourself and I will address it. All I ask is that you either copy and paste it or restate it so I don’t have to surf through a bunch of crap from Riboflavin and Dewey. If okay by you, then okay by me. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940/120 "2003-02-18T13:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*These “arguments” have come full circle anyway, and Dewey is clearly not going to answer my questions about the status quo other than to say they’re doing lots of things and none of it works. \*\* 1. What more _can_ I say? I’d happily answer any question you have, but I need a little focus here. 2. What possible _relevance_ does this line of inquiry have? Yes, there are failures in the status quo. I utterly fail to see how Libertaria would redress those failures, and I see plenty of ways in which Libertaria would make things worse. 3. Hi Opal!\*\* > [@](#): > > I’m even being asked now whether there are any taxes in Libertaria. \*\* So is **Phoenix Dragon** now a member of the “Lib ignores me because I asked him a question” club? \*\* > [@](#): > > I have received official confirmation from an authority that one is not required to respond to any particular posters. \*\* Tee-hee! You needed “official confirmation” of this fact? It’s a freakin’ message board, f’rcryinoutloud. I think it’s fairly self-evident that you can ignore whoever you want. Of course, ignoring perfectly valid questions comes at the expense of your own credibility. But it obviously isn’t forbidden.\*\* > [@](#): > > If you open your thread, I will give you 100% of my attention and answer all your questions as best I can. I will ignore all others. If you see one from someone that interests you, merely present it yourself and I will address it. All I ask is that you either copy and paste it or restate it so I don’t have to surf through a bunch of crap from Riboflavin and Dewey. If okay by you, then okay by me. \*\* And so another thread ends with **Lib** refusing to answer perfectly legitimate questions about his vision for remaking the world. You really had me going there for awhile, **Lib** ; I thought maybe, just maybe, you had turned over a new leaf. Guess I was wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/riboflavin-the-question-man/154940.md?page=7)