I never said Libertaria had to be perfect to be viable.
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.
Do trespassing children get bitten by vicious fight-trained dogs in our world? Yes, and that is tragic. But in our world, the parents have a remedy against the landowner. Yes, that is cold comfort to the parent and child, but it’s more than they get in Libertaria. Libertaria just tells the parents “sorry, you shouldn’t have taken your eyes off your toddler for two seconds; we don’t care how dangerous an activity your neighbor was involved with, it was on his property and your kid was trespassing.” **
To the extent that I agree with how the status quo handles a given problem, I would indeed answer your question. Note, however, that just because I think a full implentation of Libertaria would be harmful does not mean I think everything about the status quo is peachy keen. **
Obviously, we can’t deny what you subjectively believe. Apparently you have an odd sense that unless a questioner takes your answer as the recieved word of God, the questioner is insincere. Believe what you want; I assure you, your interpretation is wrong.**
And now you try guilt by association, and with a banned poster who trivialized the Holocaust, no less. That’s a pretty low tactic.**
No, but it will leave in the minds of the readers of those threads “why is he ignoring that perfectly valid question?” You can refuse to answer alright, but at a cost to your own credibility.
True, he might have. However, looking at other posts of his, I don’t see a repetetive pattern of him taking what of your time he could and abusing it, disrespecting you and so forth. Indeed I take it as a measure of respect that he was discussing the issue with you at all. It shows, to me, that he thinks you have the knowledge to explain disagreement to him, or at least to do a better job of it than most. I take it in the same light that people say “A thread for Polycarp: discussing [religious issue]” or “A thread for Esprix, matt, hastur, gobear and others: is my opinion of this aspect of gay/civil rights accurate?” or why in my recent GD thread I addressed the last question in it to those who were active in GD and who had served in the military: I figured if anyone knew, they did.
I understand why you might come to that conclusion, but might another, equally valid one, be that the criteria he believed you had set forth as being present for a libertarian society allowed for the premise he was presenting? It also possibly sets him (using the male pronoun in this case because DCU is male) up for a mighty ugly fall; if you are able to show that he is incorrect, you could hypothetically (as in, I am not looking at present at any of the points DCU made in the post you reference as I write this portion of my response) end your post “Sooooooooooo, what I am saying is that you’re incorrect on points one, three and five, and your misunderstanding of them, as I showed, renders two and four moot. Six is an interesting point of contention, and one which I have had difficulty reconciling with the social structure you outline in your post. Would you be interested in a separate GD discussing it?”
However, as I said in the first pit thread of yours stemming from that IMHO thread, IMHO that thread would have been more suited to GD. I imagine, too, that threads on libertarianism would be easier for you to handle (in terms of the volume of posts they generate so easily and quickly) if there were another well-learned libertarian on this board (at least of whom I am aware. I don’t generally read them because I rarely venture into GD save for sports or sexuality threads) who was willing to give the amount of time I’ve seen you contribute to such a thread.
Sincerity of post is something I don’t think I’m really qualified to tell you about, since I’m not you and I don’t really think it’s my place to tell you, unless I feel strongly enough about it, that someone is sincere. That’s their call to make and yours to accept or not. I do believe DCU was sincere in his “soooooooo” question, though I can also understand the mood you believe it represented on his part.
I answer all questions that I see from people I believe are sincere. You cannot deny that, at least not honestly.
In the last thread about Libertarianism, you brought up a point about privately owned nuclear weapons. You brought it up, I didn’t. I suggested that there were some problems with your idea. I asked you how Libertaria would deal with the problems. I asked you twice,in very clear and simple language. You ignored my questions. Do you believe that I’m not sincere? Why?
But that’s not right. Just because you assume it doesn’t make it so.
What remedies the parents might have depends on the circumstances. In the cite that I gave you, the child was two years old. — Two. Years. Old. — It was twilight. The dog was chained in the neighbor’s field. What sort of mother so neglects a two-year-old toddler that he can slip out of the house at night and make his way across a field where his mother knows that a pit bull is chained up?
Placing all the blame upon the landowner is outrageous. The dog was there before the child. The mother would have to be a hopeless dingbat not to give any consideration to that dog when she decided to fuck the child’s father (whoever he is — he apparently isn’t around).
Instead, the landowner has been charged with murder. — Murder. — In-fucking-credible.
It is not a matter that the mother took her eyes off the child for two seconds, so your argument does not apply. She utterly, totally, and completely neglected the child to the extent that is humanly possible.
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:
Corruption — in any governmental system, it is possible that governors will become corrupt, and in Libertaria, governors could corruptly apply the noncoercion principle.
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.
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.
I do the best I can. If someone asks ten questions, they can type out those questions in ten minutes if they type very slowly. But if I give any thought at all to those ten questions, it will take me ten times as long to answer them.
It often happens that, in the middle of composing a response, more posts come in with more questions, and it reaches a point where I have to be discriminating about what I can answer. Naturally, people whom I perceive as merely sniping or asking questions that were asked two years ago and answered repeatedly have to be set aside.
(On preview, I see that that exact thing has happened now. As I’ve been responding to you, Mapache has arrived with a question. And I haven’t even yet begun my response to Pun.)
As I said before, asking questions is easy. Answering questions properly requires thoughtful consideration of them. I’m not a machine here. You have the advantage that you can create the perception of dodging by asking as many questions as you can in as short a period as possible.
I promise you that, if you would ask a single question at a time and allow it to be answered before asking another, and allow me to give attention only to your questions without having to deal with the other fifty questions from the other five people, I would never miss one of yours. Assuming, of course, that your questions weren’t phrased as taunting, but were phrased respectfully — just as my answers would be.
No, Mapache. You and I have made peace. I didn’t see your questions. You must have asked them after I gave up on the thread. Please stand by, and I will go look them up and answer them here. Please, if possible, hold any further questions until I respond. Thanks.
I don’t see how being libertarian or being authoritarian makes any difference in what you know about your neighbor, unless as an authoritarian you have authority to inspect his home against his will. Of course, that raises the question of how you suspected he has a nuclear weapon, unless you have authority to search his home without suspicions. Whatever it is that lets you know now lets you know then. How would you know right know if your neighbor had a nuclear weapon? If there are no clues, you do not know.
I don’t know what an NEC is, so I had to Google that, but all I got on the first three pages was a bunch of electrical companies. But I will assume that an NEC is some sort of government agency that regulates nukes. Given that, I’m not sure how effective the NEC is. They have never searched my home nor anyone’s home that I know of. Have they ever searched your home? I would wager that they would search the home of whoever has been reported to them. But in that, the NEC is no different from the arbitration arm of Libertarian government. It may reasonably search for evidence in cases of coercion charges.
(To anticipate a question asked and answered a couple of times over the years, remember that government is acting on your behalf. If arbitration determines that a charge of coercion was capricious, then you yourself may be chaged with coercion. So, if a search yields nothing, then you may be liable, as the one who brought charges, for any damage to property or usurpation of the rights of the person searched.)
Right. But if a person is smuggling a nuclear weapon, then he has to smuggle it by private landowners who are jealously guarding their land. It seems reasonable to me that a man will care as much about his own land as a customs service agent will. The owner of the airport, the seaport, or the river will likely take an interest in what people are bringing onto his property. He will inspect with great care.
In all cases like this, it is merely a matter of the difference between a status quo system and a different system. But there are systems either way. The customs agent in the status quo is hired by the government. The customs agent in Libertaria is hired by the landowner, airport owner, etc.
But there IS. The owner of the airport is not going to let you bring a nuke into his airport. When you arrive, you are on his property.
And once they get it past customs, they’re pretty much home-free with ordinary care, aren’t they? They will be driving on roads that nobody owns until they arrive at their house.
On the contrary, suppose he miraculously manages to get into and out of the airport with it. He is going to traverse private property every step of the way from the airport to his home. At any juncture, the property owner has the right to disallow his nuclear weapon from crossing the property. He faces the exact same sort of risk of being pulled over or whatever that he does in the status quo, except that his risk is much greater since people who actually own property tend to protect it with more vigilance than people who merely protect it by proxy.
The same sort of force you would use if your customs agent found it at the status quo airport. What sort of force would you use right now if you found a man with a nuclear weapon? Why would that be any different?
I imagine that a sort of Navy SEAL swat team would be most effective, although I am no expert in security matters.
Would that not be true in the status quo as well? There were no nukes at Waco, but the government still used heavy armor to gas and burn the children there. It seems probable that a government that specializes in military operations will know how to deal with the man.
I mean, just because I am not omniscient about everything such as what is the best means to disarm a heavily armed man does not mean that such knowledge does not exist. If I have to answer your questions about how to disarm people, then you have to answer mine as well. How would you disarm a terrorist who had a suitcase nuke in New York?
In fact, it has as many ways as it has citizens. Somehow, you’ve neglected all the other people that live there. A terrorist in Libertaria is like a mouse in a roomful of mousetraps.
Sheesh, indeed. That’s a misrepresentation of what I’ve said. I said plainly that the mere possession of certain weapons — like nukes and anthrax — constitutes an immediate thread to you and your property. I’ve said many times that you don’t have to wait until a mugger shoots you to defend yourself.
(On preview…)
It is the only time of day that I have any hope at all of thoughtfully addressing questions before being hopelessly swamped with more. Plus, I like earliness. I enjoy my early morning sobriety.
May we say that I have answered your questions?
(On further preview…)
Desmo
See my response just above. Thanks.
I’ve decided to start color-coding my questions so that people will know that I, too, ask questions, and that they, too, are often not answered.
I read your post, and you and I simply disagree. Perhaps we can revisit the issue again whenever you believe that you have been disrespected by someone and mention it here. At that time, I will seek clarification from you so that I can learn how you discern disrespect.
FTR, Lib is referring to this story, which he posted in another thread. Three points:
Twilight is not nighttime; it’s the period between sunset and nighttime. Here in the northeast, that starts around 4:30. God forbid a child be out playing at that “late hour.” :rolleyes:
I can’t help but notice that the “twilight” description came from the mouth of the defendant; kind of a self-serving description, wouldn’t you say?
What possible difference does it make what time of day the incident occurred? If this happened at noon, would you suddenly think the defendant guilty? I think not.**
The modern rule in tort law is comparative negligence. In the suit Mother vs. Landowner, Mother will see her recovery reduced in accord with her own percentage of negligence. In the suit Child vs. Landowner, Landowner will implead Mother, and fault will be allocated among them.
See, the status quo doesn’t place all blame on the Landowner. But neither does it pretend he’s wholly innocent, either. Unlike Libertaria.**
Are criminal charges inappropriate here? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the specific facts of the case, something we really can’t judge from the brief description in that website. Most states treat as murder activity so reckless as to amount to a willful disregard for human life. I really don’t know enough about what happened to make that judgment call, and neither do you.**
And you know this how? You were there?
Two year olds can dart off pretty quickly. Your post reads like someone who’s never had to watch small children.
**
First of all, I have never done this. The only sense in which I’ve asked a “lot of questions” is in the sense that you will post a reply, to which I will reply, to which you will reply, etc, etc, etc. That’s called discussion, not burying one with questions.
You don’t have to respond to my posts the second they hit the SDMB server. But if you do respond, and I happen to still be on the boards, I’ll write a reply. Again, you need not reply immediately.
I am not particularly bothered by delays. I do take umbrage when you specifically and clearly single out my posts to ignore (oftentimes even taking the time to let the world know you’re ignoring me). **
This from a guy who is perfectly content to call his ideological opponents “rats.”
Say I’m building a nuclear reactor on my land. You suspect I may be covertly building a nuclear weapon in the facility. Now you say that you can invade my land and use force to remove that bomb.
Basically, your logic goes that my building a bomb – a bomb which, I’ll add, you aren’t even sure exists – is an “initiation of force” against you. Even though I’ve never used the bomb. Even though, assuming I am building the bomb, I’m not interested in using it on you or your government. Even though all I’ve done, essentially, is construct a mechanical device on my own property, without bothering anyone, that mere act alone is an “initiation of force.”
Is that correct?
Because if it is, it sure as hell sounds like you’re just redefining “initiation of force” to suit your own needs.
PS: who decides when blowing up my reactor changes from initial to responsive force? You and you alone?
Dewey, forgive me if I’m wrong, but it now does seem that you aren’t reading Libertarian’s posts. Libertarian’s response to Mapache seemed (IMHO) to adequately address the nuclear weapons issue.
If that’s how you tend to two-year-old toddlers in the northeast, I suppose it’s no wonder that the Governor of New Jersey has ordered an investigation of the state’s child-welfare agency. That agency has an average caseload of 35, while the recommended caseload is 25. Union leaders and state officials disagree over how many cases were being handled by the clerk assigned to the famousFaheem Williams case — the union says it was 107; the state says it was only 53, nearly double the recommended load.
I can speak only for myself, but I would never put a two-year-old out in the backyard as darkness approaches and leave him all alone, knowing that there is a pit bull chained up in the neighbors yard. Would you?
Granted. At what time of day do you believe it would be appropriate to send a child who has only recently learned to walk outside to explore by himself when you know there is a dangerous animal nearby?
[…shrug…] You’re making the big deal about the time of day. My point isn’t about the time of day at all, but about the culpability in the incident. Upon what ethical principle does the status quo base charging the neighbor with murder and holding the mother blameless?
Sorry, I don’t speak legalese. I’ll concede up front that you can dance circles around me with tort and impleading. I just thought that murder was a criminal charge, not a civil one.
Not necessarily. As I’ve said for the third time now, it depends. If the landowner’s dog trespasses on the mother’s property, the landowner is fully liable. But why is it fair that the landowner be charged with murder when he had chained his dog in place and was sitting in his house minding his own business when the mother abandoned her child in her backyard?
But why do you presuppose that “facts in the case” make a difference in the status quo, but make no difference in Libertaria? It seems reasonable to me that an arbiter will want to know the facts surrounding the case.
Also, it is incredibly weird that you’re protesting about not enough information being at the website when you yourself are more than willing to posit hypotheticals that haven’t even really happened. Isn’t it reasonable to say that your hypotheticals are also incomplete and are missing crucial facts when you present them? I’ve often asked for clarification of your hypotheticals only to have you charge back at me that I’m evading them.
You make my case. If two-year-olds can dart off pretty quickly, then it stands to reason that extraodinary care ought to be exercized as a parent when taking care of them. How could the child get outside? If he was placed outside on his own, why? If his mother was with him outside, why was she not mindful of the dog?
But in our “discussions”, you declare my responses to be evasive. You equate your dissatisfaction with my answers to my failure to provide them. Why should I spend an hour parsing your post and responding to your questions only to encounter, “But that doesn’t really answer my question.”
I’ve never called Xeno a rat. Or Fenris. Or Phoenix Dragon. I was once preceived as rude by Mapache, but he brought that to my attention, and I apologized. He forgave me. An opponent is not necessarily a rat.
No. As I’ve explained before, a situation can be so threatening in and of itself that it is coercive. For example, a man walks up to you and says, “Your money or your life.” You see no gun because his hand is in his pocket. Nevertheless, his threat is tantamount to the use of force, and you may respond. Likewise, a nuclear weapon in your neighbor’s basement, by its very proximity, places you and your property in imminent danger.
Also, as I’ve said, if your charge turns out to be frivolous, then you are liable for fraud.
I might not have mentioned this before, but Libertaria has a system of arbitration designed to settle disputes like that.
Hmm. So, nuclear power and biological firms would be illegal in Libertaria, then? I mean, if you have the capacity to stick some FEV genes into the common cold, would that not constitute a potential threat, under the logic given above, even if you don’t actually produce the plague from hell? Is this a different situation from having an unassembled nuke in your basement?
Under the standard definition of coercion, isn’t the 5-pound cannon that your neighbor keeps pointed at your house noncoercive until the grapeshot crosses the property line? True, I may shoot you. I may also break into your house and tear your throat out with my teeth. However, teeth do not constitute coercion. Why?
At its foundation, that is the only real difference between Libertaria and the status quo. Judgments are based on noncoercion rather than political expedience. So, there are things that are legal here that aren’t legal there, and vice-versa. Want to smoke a joint? If you own the property, or the owner gives you permission, go ahead. Want to seize someone’s property with special legislation so you can build your railroad? Forget about it.
A nuclear power plant would be legal if the owner has taken care to ensure its safety to the satisfaction of its neighbors. If not, then he will have to close down. Same same for a chemical plant.
I don’t know enough about nuclear physics to answer your question about an unassembled nuke. I think that’s the first time that the adjective “unassembled” has been used. But like anything else, if it immediately threatens you and your property, it is illegal.
Pointing a cannon (or a gun) at someone might or might not be coercive. If you are standing in your backyard and holding a rifle, you might be aiming it at someone somewhere. But unless you pose an imminent threat to someone, you are not behaving coercively.
The same with your teeth. If you use them to threaten me, then I may knock them out.
