Originally posted by Cain
This is an incredible non-response, probably with few counter-parts in the history of JREF.
Thanks, I needed that.
If anything, my responses have been
too thorough. You'd be hard pressed to find a comment in your last post that I did
not respond to. The only other thing that could reasonably be inferred from your description is that, somewhere along the line, you asked me some important question that I did not answer, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case either.
And in the pot/kettle department, there are quite a few relevant questions I've asked
you that
you have failed to answer. And several more in this one as well, which you are sure to respond to with something other than a clear, direct answer, if you respond at all. In light of your chronic evasiveness, I would think you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself further by trying to create false impressions about someone
else's lack of responsiveness.
The errors and obtuse questions have been corrected numerous times, yet you persist, insisting even more so than last time to break apart every single sentence.
You're being extremely careless with what little credibility you have left. Good luck identifying even
one error in my post. And your incompetence at answering questions that are directly relevant to comments you've made does not make those questions "obtuse". In fact, your assertion about "errors and obtuse questions" brings to mind a comment you recently made to someone else: "No specific line of text has ever been provided".
And you'll get no apologies about the way I parse your statements either. It's not my fault that almost everything you say seems to call for some comment or question, and I'm not particularly interested in having to constantly say stuff like "I'm commenting on the third sentence in the second paragraph above". I prefer to be clear about which words I'm responding to. Of course, it doesn't surprise me if you have a problem with this.
If you cannot distinguish reasons, from assumptions, from conclusions, then I see no point discussing these matters at length.
Again, pointing out
your confusing and inconsistent references to these terms does not equate to some failing on
my part.
Instead of going through point-by-point I'll use a couple model examples. Your stubborn desire to require explanation for the most innocous sentences only contributes to and compounds your unrivaled stupidity.
Translation: Cain cannot keep up with point-by-point responses, or answer reasonable questions about the statements he makes, and thinks belittling the person doing the asking is the best way to cover for his failures.
There's no hyperbole because you're using a substantively different example: giving your friend something.
Sorry, wrong again. Your question "So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources?" is what prompted my suggestion that you avoid hyperbole, and that suggestion appeared right after I made reference to "the nation's resources". Nice try.
Once more, as I stated all to clearly, that was a direct reference to and adaption on Warren Buffet's argument.
That's nice, but how does it address whether you used hyperbole?
Interestingly, the original as well as the subsequent arguments are left untouched, unscathed.
What "original"? What "subsequent arguments"? And what does being "left untouched, unscathed" have to do with whether or not you were using hyperbole?
Instead we're subjected to a series of witless comments like "What the hell does that mean?"
Can't say it surprises me that you'd try to create the impression that reasonable calls for clarification are "witless". Just part of the overall pattern of blaming your failures on someone else.
And oh yeah, if you want an example of a truly "witless" response to reasonable commentary, I call your attention to your "Oh, my" at the end of your last post to me.
This is said casually, as though it's a CD. No, a small gift is insignificant. It does not impact choice/circumstances or address the argument in any way.
Why is the size of the gift relevant? If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's usually considered theft. Does that characterization somehow become less appropriate as the amount of the loot increases?
First, this is the crudest, blandest form of libertarianism, referred to earlier as nothing but "it's mine!"
First, they were
questions, not an attempt to characterize any particular "form" of libertarianism. (That's
your hangup.)
Second, are terms like "crudest" and "blandest" the best you can manage to come up with to foster the illusion of a valid criticism?
And third, I'm pretty sure I never made any particular use of the "it's mine!" thing, nor does it have anything to do with the
questions I just asked you. (You really should get someone to explain to you how the whole question/answer process is supposed to work.)
Perhaps you missed it, but I pointed out to someone earlier that when "it's mine!" is used by libertarian critics, it's just a desperate attempt to attribute selfishness to a viewpoint where there is none. A quote that would more accurately reflect the stance of most libertarians is "it's my neighbor's, and he can (or should be allowed to) do what he wants with it". And when "it's mine" is used by libertarians themselves, it's almost always just a shorthand attempt to convey the same point. If you didn't already know this, well, that just gets back to how little you apparently really know about libertarianism.
Of course I challenge the unexamined libertarian assumption that there is a moral continuity between small- and large-scale holdings (especially in the case of land).
Your challenge doesn't amount to much, unless you can clearly identify the value/size at which the moral equivalent of theft becomes something else, and then clearly explain why it does.
Think about it for two seconds: You don't think there's a difference between somebody controlling a acre of land versus the entire planet?
Sure. But have you ever
met anyone who controls the entire planet?
In any case, thanks for providing another example of the hyperbole that critics of libertarianism often have to resort to in order to create the impression of having a point.
I dismissed Shanek's accusation of selfishness as both beside the point and humorously ironic. Yet, you continue to press it, as though it possesses any meaning beyond a simple ad hominem.
Well, it's
your response to that accusation that I'm trying to get you to explain. It isn't surprising that you thought it was humorously ironic, or at least, that you wanted to created the
impression that you did. But if you ever get around to a coherent explanation of
why, something tells me that view won't hold up very well under the spotlight. That's probably why I "continue to press it".
Libertarians do, generally, fit into those categories. In fact on the Internet I have never once seen a libertarian that falls into the contractarian position. Which is why Victor (thread linked earlier) ignored it as a possible foundation.
That's nice. But the thread you started was about "Libertarianism and Inheritance", not "Some-particular-type-of-libertarianism and Inheritance".
Oh, man. The initial argument challenges a (particularly utilitarian-) libertarian's near-intuitive belief that their system is meritocratic.
Let's take another look at some of those initial comments ...
One of the arguments against libertarianism that I've been experimenting with lately questions its commitment to meritocracy.
...
Though libertarians tend to disagree among themselves over the most just form of taxation (or the least unjust, if any), they generally stand together, in my experience, against the estate tax.
...
I do not see how a libertarian can substantively challenge the analogy or the observation.
...
Would a libertarian then agree an estate tax is justified in the interest of fostering a society more liable to reward talent and ability?
...
Instead I think libertarians appeal to an alternative set of values, one that claims (nearly) absolute property rights take precedence over a system that is more inclined to compensate an individual's natural capabilities.
All of which appeared before any attempt to make this about any particular
type of libertarianism. No mention of the word "utilitarian" in that opening post, by the way. Nor is there any particular explanation of what makes you think libertarians (or any particular
type of libertarian) has a "near-intuitive belief that their system is meritocratic".
And of course, it was also in that opening post that we got ...
Well, the problem -- and this cuts to the heart of liberty -- is that they are in effect arguing for a social-economic system that allows a person's place in life to be determined by uncontrollable circumstances rather than free choices -- the anti-thesis of libertarianism's stated ideals.
And so far, you seem unable to clearly identify what you believe those ideals to be - that is, unless all you really meant by the expression is the "self-shaping" thing. That, by the way, is something else I've asked you to make clear - another one of those calls for clarification that you've ignored, or perhaps dismissed as "witless".
Since and throughout I have been the one emphasizing the distinction between these views because their objections will be different.
The key words being "since and throughout". So has this emphasis been an attempt to correct what you failed to make clear in your initial commentary? And are you now admitting that you were never really talking about libertarians?
When someone starts to say, "It's mine!! Natural rights!" the assumptions behind that view then need to be examined.
Who is it that you're quoting here? And whether they mention "natural rights" or not,
do you think it's worthwhile to also examine whether someone claiming "it's mine!" is actually talking about something that belongs to someone else?
They were subjected to fairly extensive criticism in my above post, blithely ignored.
With all the reasonable inquiry that
you've been ducking, it is incredible that you would attempt to make phony points about what anyone
else has ignored. And it's even more so in this particular case, given the thoroughess of my responses to you. However, just out of curiosity, are you under the impression that I should be prepared to comment on
everything in
all of your posts in order to question
anything in
any of them?
Interestingly, even if a person is destitute -- through no fault of their own -- starvation and hunger is what they deserve. The Market says so.
Do you have an actual quote?
In addition it's worth noting that most of us, including libertarians, lived off the resources of their parents for the beginning of our lives.
And in just about every case, that was probably the
choice of those parents, a distinction that seems to be lost on you.
But even putting that aside, living off the resources of those who are
responsible for bringing you into the world is a bit different from living off the resources of
total strangers, who had
no such responsibility. Perhaps another distinction that's lost on you?
I dispute libertarianism's definition of freedom and its committment to free choices.
Can you identify precisely what you think "libertarianism's definition of freedom" is, so we can get a clear idea of what you're claiming to "dispute"?
And can you cite at least one clear example of "free choices" that most libertarians would oppose - that is, a "free choice" that does not force someone
else to foot the bill, violating
their "free choice"?
As I've maintained for quite some time now, libertarians do not advocate institutions that foster free choice -- yet, free choice is allegedly what libertarianism is about.
Can you clearly identify any institution that supports what you're saying - either an example of one that most libertarians oppose, which fosters "free choice" (and without violating anyone else's "free choice" in the process), or one that they support, but which clearly violates "free choice"?
As I've maintained for quite some time now, libertarians do not advocate institutions that foster free choice -- yet, free choice is allegedly what libertarianism is about. For this reason I suggested an alternative monicker -- propertarianism.
Can anyone else explain how Cain's second sentence here follows logically from the first?
If want to take another example, I also believe that if libertarian premises of non-aggression are taken to their logical conclusion, then the result is a rejection of minarchism in favor of anarcho-capitalism.
Actually, if precision is of any importance to you, that should be "libertarian premises of non-
initiation-of-aggression". Still another distinction that's lost on you?
I think that if libertarians were committed to their first principles, they would not call themselves libertarians.
Can you identify what these "first principles" are? Or are you just as confused about what you mean by this term as you apparently are about what you meant by "libertarianism's stated ideals"?
No, I'm saying that libertarians lack a defensible view of liberty (as in free choices).
If you were more forthcoming with straight answers about some of the stuff you post, I think we'd start to see just how defensible your own claims about that view really are, like the one just quoted. For instance,
how about identifying exactly what you consider to be the "view of liberty" of most libertarians?
Why would I claim that libertarians are actually in favor of fairness? Should they be? Yes, if they're committed to more robust, respectable and ratioanl view of liberty.
And what view of liberty would that be?
(I won't hold my breath waiting for a clear answer.)
Once more, as I've maintained throughout, liberty, freedom, justice, and other controversial political terms are open to interpretation and should be subjected to rigorous discussion.
Does this include your own interpretations? 'Cause your inability to clearly and politely answer reasonable questions about the things you post would certainly suggest otherwise. For instance, here comes another one ...
No, not any more than I say libertarians believe in fairness.
Are you saying libertarians specifically
oppose fairness? Or that libertarian philosophy is
neutral towards it? Like it or not, this is a key point.
I suspect that just about all libertarians actually do
believe in fairness, since doing so is completely compatible with libertarianism. After all, one can believe in fairness, but oppose the idea of any one person's (or group's) ideas
about fairness being imposed on everyone
else.
Don't you agree?
Your identity confusion is not unlike Oedipus's. Does Oedipus believe that Jocasta is his mother? No, not until the end. Can he honestly say throughout most of the play that he is not screwing his mom? Yes, he can. Do we the audience say Oedipus BELIEVES that he's banging his mom? No, not any more than I say libertarians believe in fairness.
Can anyone else make sense out of this attempt to make a point, or explain what most of the above paragraph has to do with its last sentence?
And oh yeah,
whose "identity confusion"?
BoulderHead:
You do much more than that, actually, for you assume your definition to be correct, then expect others to just to take your word for it.
Cain:
I'm sorry, but this nonsense. I'm rather open to disputes on these matters.
Yes, that's so evident from the manner in which you've responded to those who have disagreed with you in this thread.
Cain:
As I've maintained for quite some time now, libertarians do not advocate institutions that foster free choice -- yet, free choice is allegedly what libertarianism is about. For this reason I suggested an alternative monicker -- propertarianism.
BoulderHead:
See what I mean? Here you are assuming your definition of free choice to be correct once again. By what authority do you expect others to accept your definition without so much as first asking politely?
Cain:
Feel free to dispute it. Many libertarians maintain that free choices are made in the absence of human interference (negative liberty). I attempted to engage on Shanek on this point...
Let me see if I can help you through this. This will require you to answer a reasonable, relevant question, in a clear and direct manner, so it could be problematic for you. But what the hell, I'll give it a shot.
Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?
Now, pay close attention:
If your answer is "yes", then your statement "free choice is allegedly what libertarianism is about" is false.
If your answer is "no", then your statement "libertarians do not advocate institutions that foster free choice" is false.
Now, which statement would you like to reconsider?
"absoluteness" here by using absolute in a relative sense. Now, even treating this usage as unproblematic, we'd quickly discover that the property owner has obligations with regard to their management of the ownership of that property, as well as to the discharge of their ownership; they carnt simply do what they want with it.