An innate Kantian moral sense?

As he handily demonstrates @261 and @291, David has no moral sense whatsoever. He's a 14 year old boy who never managed to develop into an adult.

Libertarian arguments are very rarely called to task for the "what now?" aspect that they completely ignore.

We've been asking "what now?" for the better part of forty years as debt, inflation, and the welfare/warfare state have expanded with no end in sight. Leftists don't get to play the responsible adult card on the only people who reason from first principles rather than stringing up an ad hoc spiderweb of authoritarian, unsustainable, and utopian policies.

Assume for a moment that we can somehow configure a society where opting out of, say, fire control, only puts your specific property at risk. (Put aside the inanity of that assumption.) A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?* A very similar argument can be made for healthcare. The Hobbesian fantasyland where there are these isolated choices that don't affect others simply doesn't exist.

Spiel like this demonstrates why it's impossible to engage a dedicated leftist, as every leftist seems to hold the tribalistic belief that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular political clique is an ogre. To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything. But, because leftists generally can't understand why anyone would prefer voluntary cooperation, charity, and mutualism to unbounded and unaccountable state coercion, we're left with sophomoric scenarios like this, where the heroic white knights of government ride in to save that poor family while their heartless neighbors stand by and pick their noses.

We live in a society, where your choices affect me. Deal with it.

The lack of self-awareness in this single line is heartbreaking. Once you stop electing autocrats who destroy people's lives for their private, voluntary choices, then you can crow about the responsibility we all have to our fellow men. Until then, no, just no.

Most of the laws we're talking about don't involve right vs. non-right, but watered-down right vs. slightly different version of watered-down right.

This is correct. Technically speaking, we're discussing various privileges of the state, not natural rights. (Probably because there is no such thing as a "natural right" per se, merely a government that defends certain states of existing as natural rights, above other privileges that they defend less fulsomely.

As he handily demonstrates @261 and @291, David has no moral sense whatsoever. He's a 14 year old boy who never managed to develop into an adult.

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

Freedom in its purest form does in fact mean the freedom to make horrible tragic mistakes and live with them.

Freedom in its purest form also does in fact mean the freedom to beat the crap out of pencil necked "libertarians" and take their crap. Just because they want to pass a "law" against it doesn't mean I'm not free to curb stomp them.

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

I have a whole damned list, Chucky. And the fact that I accept that responsibility and the will to carry it through where required makes me 1000 times more morally engaged than you.

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

He can't reach any Mets or Mets fans in the standings, so no, you're stuck with him.

But, because leftists generally can't understand why anyone would prefer voluntary cooperation, charity, and mutualism to unbounded and unaccountable state coercion, we're left with sophomoric scenarios like this, where the heroic white knights of government ride in to save that poor family while their heartless neighbors stand by and pick their noses.

What's so sophomoric about a scenario where a family's house burns down? Stuff like that happens all the time, and it demands a policy response of some sort or another, even if that response is "do nothing because their friends will probably help out".

Besides which, the post you quoted says nothing about "the heroic white knights of government", and is simply asking what the preferred policy towards government intervention is to people who oppose government intervention.

Spiel like this demonstrates why it's impossible to engage a dedicated leftist, as every leftist seems to hold the tribalistic belief that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular political clique is an ogre. To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything. But, because leftists generally can't understand why anyone would prefer voluntary cooperation, charity, and mutualism to unbounded and unaccountable state coercion, we're left with sophomoric scenarios like this, where the heroic white knights of government ride in to save that poor family while their heartless neighbors stand by and pick their noses.

Correct. (Even Rand didn't have a problem with charity. She just had a problem with the idea that one was morally obligated to provide charity, or that it was a higher moral good than caring for oneself.) (That having been said, I wouldn't characterize someone who chose not to spend $75 a year on fire coverage to be "luckless.") Libertarians can and do give plenty to charity.

Remember: giving your own money is generous. Giving someone else's money is greedy.

Spiel like this demonstrates why it's impossible to engage a dedicated leftist, as every leftist seems to hold the tribalistic belief that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular political clique is an ogre.

An ogre? Ogres are big. David's a goblin at best, and Ray's a troll. Duh.

Libertarians can and do give plenty to charity

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

We've been asking "what now?" for the better part of forty years as debt, inflation, and the welfare/warfare state have expanded with no end in sight. Leftists don't get to play the responsible adult card on the only people who reason from first principles rather than stringing up an ad hoc spiderweb of authoritarian, unsustainable, and utopian policies.

This is satire, right?

Charity is like clutch hitting. It makes for a great narative and is wonderful and all that, but it is not reliable enough. I want my safety net to be there (for everyone) no matter what, not if they happen to have a heartwarming/wrenching story that goes viral on the internet and causes buckets of money to appear (looking at you bus monitor lady).

See I even brought some baseball (or at least sports) into the talk.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

Amen.

There's a very good reason the world is no longer ruled from Rome... Society happens.

To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything.

I'm not a libertarian, but either I know a hell of a lot more of them than you do, or I've met a VERY unrepresentative sample...

We've been asking "what now?" for the better part of forty years as debt, inflation, and the welfare/warfare state have expanded with no end in sight.

Well of course we're always going to have debt; as our first CEO president pointed out in the 2000 debates, if the government is running a revenue surplus, that means it's taking too much money from honest hard-working people, necessitating tax cuts.

Also Al Gore wears earth tones. Ha!

All of your examples center around government action/expediture. Do you believe that humans have any rights that do not stem from the government?


History would say unequivocally no... The Vatican can claim otherwise with various myths and I'm sure other religions have theirs, too -- but since the dawn of time, only governments have been able to guarantee them.

So you're saying that if a right is violated, it's no longer a right?

Because we are talking about government and health care, and you brought up expenditures. I am interested in what human rights you were refering to. What differentiates them from health care as a right? How is it a category error?

The category error stems from making the assumption that stuff provided by the government is a human right.

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

apparently he's moved onto other forms of anti-person violence

To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything.

Tough is (I think) the correct governmental response. Sympathy and charity is the correct personal response. That is what I am guessing from what is said, but I am not libertarian.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

...for government parasites.

The category error stems from making the assumption that stuff provided by the government is a human right.

But I didn't say that. I think haelth care is a human right. Because it is such Government should (ideally) help protect/provide for/enable that right. Everything the Government does is not a right, but the Government should protect/provide for/enable human rights - else what the heck is it doing?

But you still have not spoken to what rights you think there are and how they are different from health care.

OK. Take your ball and go home.

Is this a new drinking game? You keep repeating it.

It's just amusing, that's all. The idea that purportedly principled libertarians would strike off on their own to form a new society and suffer the inevitable misfortunes that would surely ensue is just RDF.

Frankly I'm a big supporter of the Christian Exodus movement for similar reasons. Once you get all the snake-handling wackos in one place and leave them to their own devices endless hilarity would be sure to follow. Well, I mean it would be funny to the people on the outside, the folks on the inside might find the weight of their spiritual burden a bit more cumbersome once the normal folks and their secular laws aren't around to keep them safe anymore.

The category error stems from making the assumption that stuff provided by the government is a human right.

what are Human Rights?

From the UN's "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I assume that you agree with that, I also assume that Islamic Fundamentalists do not.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

I assume that you (GF) do not agree, or regard this as meaningless

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

:-) I assume there are people in this thread who would dissent...

Tough is (I think) the correct governmental response. Sympathy and charity is the correct personal response. That is what I am guessing from what is said, but I am not libertarian.

Right. The conflation of "it's not the government's responsibility" with "it's not our responsibility" is mind-boggling.

Everything the Government does is not a right, but the Government should protect/provide for/enable human rights - else what the heck is it doing?

Duh, its supposed to employ its police powers, to well, protect individual property rights...

The debate surrounding Obamacare suffers from occurring in this environment. Why are liberals/progressives even engaging folks like RDP/DN in debates as silly as what "affordable" means, or whether this is wealth redistribution? Of course it is wealth redistribution...but why aren't we standing up, and proudly proclaiming, for all to hear, that yes, this is wealth redistribution.

Because you'll lose elections?

Just a wild stab in the dark.

So you're saying that if a right is violated, it's no longer a right?

If there is no consensus demand - to the point that the powers that be in the world are concerned for their own well being should they violate it, no right exists. So, more or less, yes. If your government claims the right to throw Jose Padilla in a cell and torture him into insanity, without access to trial or representation, and no one bothers to come to his defense and hold the men who violated his "rights" responsible, then neither you nor he had any rights to begin with.

Your right ends at your willingness and ability to defend it.

Seriously, wasn't the quote given earlier in the thread $75/year? Any homeowner, or anyone with enough possessions to be worrying about fire protection in the first place, can afford that.

I always have a tough time with these stories. On the one hand, the liberal in me thinks it's particularly cold hearted for the fire department to respond and then sit there and watch the fire burn. I mean, presumably if they aren't being kept from another fire, as long as they're there, they should put it out. On the other hand, the fees in this cases, as mentioned, are often nominal. I would imagine if someone literally can't afford it, there are mechanisms to make sure the person is covered. And if it's a clerical mistake of some sort, the person should be allowed to rectify it.

But I also figure there's a chance that the people who don't pay it are probably tea partying anti-government "screw the big government and their fees!" type people, who actual probably deserve some measure of pain when their ideology comes back to bite them in the ass. I realize that we can't really subject them to a political questionnaire when their house is burning down, but if these people decided to forego the $75 because of political reasons, they deserve to suffer. Unfortunately, there are probably innocent children who took part in the decision who are forced to suffer as well. If only there was some mechanism to require the people to pay the fee, some sort of government mandated "tax" or something...

Because you'll lose elections?

And you'll lose your head. Marie Antoinette says hello.

Right. The conflation of "it's not the government's responsibility" with "it's not our responsibility" is mind-boggling.

The government is "us". That's the whole point of democracy.

...for government parasites.

Little bureaucrats running about their little desks, suckling from the teat of the Castle's sacrosanct law, reducing others to "parasites" is always funny, Davey.

Because you'll lose elections?

Just a wild stab in the dark.

Funny that most of the states that elect people who believe that wealth distribution is evil are also states that take more government money than they pay in. Wealth distribution is apparently bad when it means that rich people have to help out poor people, but fine and dandy when rich states have to distribute to poor states. I have no idea in which state Ray lives, so this isn't necessarily directed at him, but "wealth redistribution is evil!" argument sounds a lot like the "keep government away from my Medicare!" argument.

Duh, its supposed to employ its police powers, to well, protect individual property rights...

These things I want to call "rights" must be protected by the police state, in all brutality necessary, but those other things that others call "rights," they must be ignored, for they do not benefit me at all. Again, the moral reasoning of a 14 year old.

You don't get anywhere discussing rights unless they are considered in a social context That is what the history of the development of socialization and societies shows. There is no instance in history of the expression of rights except through a social context. Go and see what happens in the natural state. Consider what would happen to you if you were in a natural state. See what your demand for what you think is your natural right will get you. Then consider how from the very first social organizations those individual rights are necessarily compromised. There has been no society ever that has allowed the unfettered expression of rights--getting what you want with impunity. There can't be. At some point, people, you got to come down from the treehouse. Who'd like some S'Mores?

The government is "us". That's the whole point of democracy.

No. The government is "everyone." "Our responsibility" refers to those of us who want to help the underprivileged.

I don't have the arrogance to dictate your morals.

If there is no consensus demand - to the point that the powers that be in the world are concerned for their own well being should they violate it, no right exists.

Ah, the "antebellum southern blacks weren't actually deprived of a right" argument. That's always a classic.

Right. The conflation of "it's not the government's responsibility" with "it's not our responsibility" is mind-boggling.

But I don't view the government as some exogenous force that operates independently of us. Our democracy is far from perfect, but it does a pretty good job of representing our interests and acting collectively on our behalf. To me, there's a ton of overlap between "the government's responsibility" and "our responsibility."

EDIT: too slow. Brian C was faster and more concise.

No. The government is "everyone." "Our responsibility" refers to those of us who want to help the underprivileged.

By voting for folks who vote for things like ACA I am helping the underprivileged. Not in a way you like, but to each their own.

It continues to amuse me to no end that people provide studies when David asks for them, but never demand he supply any data of his own... I'm developing a very strong suspicion that I might be finally getting to the bottom of the Six Sigma fad...

It continues to amuse me to no end that people cite studies as if they prove their conclusions, when the studies do no such thing.

And since I presume that people are arguing in good faith, that means they either couldn't understand what the study showed, or were just copying it from somewhere else and proclaiming victory without actually reading it.

Ah, the "antebellum southern blacks weren't actually deprived of a right" argument. That's always a classic.

You keep going with this, because it makes you feel clever, not because it counters anything I've said.

I think that's a pretty universal trait. I think I speak for the pro-ACA side of the argument that Ray and David's insinuation that we hate freedom is more than a little insulting, so hostility ensued because hostility always ensues when differing philosophies clash.

I did not insinuate that. I outright stated it.

You do hate freedom. Period times 10,000.

Except for when it comes to sex.

Remember: giving your own money is generous. Giving someone else's money is greedy.

To paraphrase what Lincoln told Meade: it's all our money.

The "all" being the community. To claim otherwise is a dumb and a dangerous pretense. The rich in all societies, along a spectrum from the most elemental to the most advanced, have had to pay the piper. And they know this. They have the money—who else is going to pay? They know this; that's why they always want government--they just want to own it, not do away with it. The Libertarian approach to government is not a politically stable strategy.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

If anything, it is the charitable who get charity--in multitudinous tax breaks, that come in the form of property tax exemptions, income tax write-offs, tax-free and tax-evading foundations. Sometimes, you have to pay for your special privileges. Most of the times if you are rich, charitable or not, you get the government to act on your behalf.

You do hate freedom. Period times 10,000

So do you, Ray. So do you.

You do hate freedom. Period times 10,000.

Except for sex.

And weed. And the right to occupy privately owned buildings in protest against the man, man. Don't forget those.

As much practice as you give yourself attacking liberal strawmen and spouting the same familiar cliches, one would expect your stereotyping chops to be a little less rusty.

But I don't view the government as some exogenous force that operates independently of us.

And people talk about libertarians as not engaging with the real world. The government is an exogenous force that operates independently of us. You don't vote for very much of it -- nobody alive has; it's a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that only occasionally even answers to elected officials. Who also are an exogenous force that operates independently of us.

Ah, the "antebellum southern blacks weren't actually deprived of a right" argument. That's always a classic.

The philosophical/theoretical idea of 'antebellum southern blacks having rights' didn't do them an ounce of good -- it was government action, through war, legislation, more legislation, and then government coercion that secured those rights.

I thought you said you were pragmatic?

How does one support the ACA and then claim with a straight face that they don't hate freedom?

Whatever the merits of the ACA, it results in more control over people, not less. Are people now pretending that the mandate is not in the ACA?

If only.

If anything, it is the charitable who get charity--in multitudinous tax breaks, that come in the form of property tax exemptions, income tax write-offs, tax-free and tax-evading foundations.

Note how Morty conflates people keeping their own money as "charity."

You keep going with this, because it makes you feel clever, not because it counters anything I've said.

You said that rights don't exist without a consensus demand.

There was no consensus demand in the southern United States (and in decades well before that, the whole United States) that there was an inherent right to not be s slave.

Under what you just said, you have exactly three choices:

1) A right is more than what is granted with consensus demand.
2) 1850s Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. had a consensus demand for the rights for blacks to not be slaves.
3) You believe that blacks in 1850s Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. had no inherent right to not be enslaved.

So, your statement was either wrong, you're stupid, or you're racist, respectively. Go ahead and pick one, prove that you're not "all talk, no walk" for a change. I'm just playing your game by the rules that you laid out.

By voting for folks who vote for things like ACA I am helping the underprivileged. Not in a way you like, but to each their own.

No, it's the exact opposite of "to each their own." You're forcing others to participate in your personal compassion for the underprivileged.