What you "fail to understand" is that this is another one of your f*cking lies. It's a strawman version of libertarian arguments. And whenever someone calls you on your strawmen, you whine and moan that the other person (no matter how prominent a libertarian that person is) just doesn't really understand it, and then you go on with the ad hominems and the appeals to authority.
[more of Cain telling me what I believe excised]
And this is what you omitted:
Someone's having difficulty with the concept... You need a foundation for natural rights, otherwise they are a mere set of assertions, one among many. What is to prevent others from claiming their own account of natural rights?
For instance Samuel Scheffler (quoted in J. Wolff) has offered the following version:
"Every person has a natural right to a sufficient share of every distributable good whose enjoyment is a necessary condition of the person's having a reasonable chance of living a decent and fulfilling life, subject only ot the following qualification. No person has a natural right to any good which can be obtained by preventing someone else from having a reasonable chance of living a decent and fulfilling life."
Where in there do I tell you what you believe? I'm only pointing out that you need to appropriately ground your beliefs, which can be rather troublesome for libertarianism.
For example, here's what Nozick wrote of Locke's failure to provide a firm moral foundation: "That task is so crucial, the gap left without its accomplishment os yawning, that it is only a minor comfort to note that we here are following the respectable tradition of Locke, who does not provide anything remotely resembling a satisfactory explanation of the status and basis of the law of nature in his
Second Treatise."
And the moral philosopher Thomas Nagel titled
his own review of _A,S & U_ "Libertarianism without Foundations".
It's a serious problem.
Because I asked you a serious question, and you answered it seriously, no smilies or anything. Backpedal away...
I suggest you read again what I wrote before embarrassing yourself further.
You said: "So you think it's perfectly all right to pick someone's pocket as long as you give the money to the needy."
And I replied, after much talk about alleged "straw men":
Yes, that's what I believe. That's exactly what I believe. Well, perhaps a slight modification is in order: so long as the person getting his wallet stolen is rich. I'm sure you'll continue to identify and explain the numerous straw men as you see them.
Of course, I suppose a person could reasonably misinterpret... but after I've clarified, more than once, by saying, "No, really, I was being sarcastic," one begins to wonder... This is comically then misinterpreted as "backpedaling."
Keep it up, Costello.
The POINT is that you would unfairly descriminate against people based on their wealth, as I have been saying since the first f*cking page!!!
f anything, this is a secondary objection not at all uniquely libertarian. If one instead said, "Okay, all estates should be taxed (so as not to discriminate)" would you say, "alright"? Of course not. The point is that the state is interfering with a voluntary transfer. In Nozick's terms, it is using an individual as a "resource," and therefore disrespecting their rational will, natural rights, negative liberty, or whatever.
This next bit is just full of immature whining to avoid answering the question:
Oh? Whom would you use to enforce it, cats? You're talking about a LAW. That DOES necessitate the government.
Psychedelic, man. Hey, how much do you pay for your acid? Translation: I have no idea what you're talking about.
You aren't financing the enforcement of others' rights. You're financing the enforcement of YOURS. The fact that you fail to see that just shows how pigheaded you've been throughout all of these discussions.
*Sigh* I like how you constantly blather about me avoiding questions when you cannot even understand them.
Premise: negative rights: All adult human beings of sound mind possess the freedom from interference (i.e. force) of other conscious, moral agents.
Example: Jack cannot murder John, since murder is an initation of force (violates natural rights, negative liberty, et cetera).
Complications: Suppose John is poor and weak, and further suppose the local government is ideally libertarian (taxes are fully voluntary, like donations). (1) Though John has never paid taxes (because of poverty) minarchist libertarians nevertheless maintain that the government has an obligation to protect everyone within its boundaries from violence. (Right?) Moreover, the government cannot view the enforcement of rights as a for-profit business. That is to say, it cannot favor wealthy benefactors over the destitute; it should enforce all rights equally.(2)
Anarcho-capitalist reservations: Why should all paying citizens subsidize the poor, thus diverting resources from themselves? Instead all paying citizens should (and
would in a free society) pay for services from a private defense agency in the free-market (in effect dissolving the state by withdrawing their support). If an individual feels their chosen company is doing an inadequate job of providing protection, then they can switch firms, form their own, or heavily arm themselves. (3)
Alternatively, what if someone does not offer their consent to this state? Suppose that John is in fact John Wayne; a tough, wealthy, do-it-yourself individualist. John Wayne easily subdues his attacker and puts him in a private cell. He wishes to enforce his natural rights himself since he never personally consented to any government. He feels the government's punishment will not adequately deter Jack from launching future attacks.(4)
The argument (summarized again): negative rights entail positive obligations. Why should others have a claim on assistance in defense of their rights?
(1) Temporarily ignore the inevitable problem of free-ridership. Any libertarian society with anything but voluntary taxes is endanger of "enslaving" its citizens.
(2)An interesting question/dilemma arises here. What if the state DOES have faster response times and provide better service to the wealthy (She who pays the piper...)? What if this happens because the wealthy threaten to "punish" the minimal state by with-holding financial aid? Sure, the poor can cry "unfair," but isn't life unfair? Besides, no one is preventing them from becoming rich (unless you count the murderers and thieves, of which libertarians cannot be held responsible). Some people are better at defending their rights because they're physically stronger, so is that "unfair"? The rich have access to better lawyers when they're charged with a crime. Should the poor be entitled to the "best defense possible"? Why should they even be entitled to a public defender?
(3) Robert Nozick and others believe that a government will eventually emerge from a market where protection is bought and sold because defense is a natural monopoly.
(4) This is why the need for democratic institutions is sufficiently clear to most people. A person who talks about "natural rights" is often unwilling to compromise but all too willing to impose their idea, which they contest is not imposed at all, on others.
[more blatantly avoiding the question deleted]
No, it isn't. You did not specify in any way, shape, or form, how the concepts are undermined and by whom. That is necessary to answer the question. But you don't want to do that, because you don't really want to know what libertarians think; you want to ask trick or loaded questions to shoehorn what they say into your strawman versions of what libertarians really believe.
Yes, I did; I have listed the compelling reasons ad nauseum, which above you describe as "blatantly avoiding the question."
More stuff on Libertarianism and libertarianism:
Capital 'L' Libertarians generally believe in a set of institutions, but for different reasons. This is why when discussing libertarianism it is necessary to distinguish utilitarianism from natural rights.
Still more stuff:
You're a bloody f*cking idiot guilty of lying to himself. This is pathetic, (intellecutally) dishonest, and all of that other crap you've been projecting onto others for years.
