23 Sep 2013

Potpourri

Potpourri 59 Comments

==> Next January I’ll be debating Bill Still (of “Money Masters” fame) at the “Save Long Island” forum. I gather we both dislike the present financial system, but have rather different solutions.

==> A funny post from Matt Walsh on the crucible that is parenting.

==> If you’re a Louis CK fan, check out these three clips from when he recently spent the whole hour talking with Conan (his former boss).

==> This 1981 debate between David Friedman and George Smith is awesome, if only to see everybody looking like they are doing cameos in an episode of CHiPS. As David R. Henderson notes, you can see Jeff Hummel at the 1:44:30 mark. The whole thing is groovy.

==> The best part of this 45-second video (watch out, some naughty words) is the guy in the background trying to be a peacemaker. First he says, “Don’t go down there man!” to the drunk punk talking trash to the ex-boxing champion, and then he says, “Champ don’t do it!” Alas, the champ does it.

==> Greg Morin wonders whom would Jesus bomb?

59 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Gamble says:

    “==> Next January I’ll be debating Bill Still (of “Money Masters” fame) at the “Save Long Island” forum. I gather we both dislike the present financial system, but have rather different solutions”

    The good thing is many people now/finally dislike the present system. The bad thing is most people have no solution and actually cement statist quo.

    I have not always been a libertarian free marketer. The amount of wrong thinking and bad logic I use to have in my head was appalling. I wonder how all that junk got in there. Liberal indoctrination via public school? The Devil?
    I see more clear now and am ready to implement/accept real solutions, fully understanding there is no utopia…

    • 20log55 says:

      No, no, no… You see there is the government that is not corrupted by anyone because it has those people watching it and controlling (the people you know). And the bankers love gold that’s why they sneaked with this fiat we have now, and if we only can bring back the fiat to where it’s supposed to be i.e. tool for the government to take care of any economic calamity – than we will go along and get along.

      I hear ya – long before I was even touched by Austrians, Still was there to tell me that all we need is more paper more centralised, or some wood sticks. I’d like to see this guy used to mop the floor with – that’s how I hate his statist agenda and the way he duped me back then.

      • JFF says:

        G. Edward Griffin will also be there, who’s definitely in our corner.

        Not to belittle you, Bob, but the only other person who I’d like to see just decimate Still is Joe Salerno. I’d bet he’d venture down that night for moral support if you asked nicely.

  2. joeftansey says:

    I’ve watched the Friedman v. Smith debate a couple of times now and have seem it circulated on quite a few blogs. One thing that bugged me about it was that Smith seems like he’s unwilling to compromise on the NAP at all. Like if there were some psychopathic genius scientist who could be tortured into curing all of the world’s diseases or solving some existential threat, I don’t see many libertarians outright refusing to do so.

    Sure there may be a bit of grumbling and lip service to “well, we have to admit we’re committing a crime…”, but at the end of the day they’d still do it. So I find it hard to even buy George Smith’s self-professed100% commitment to libertarian principles, let alone the bulk of the libertarian party.

    Friedman puts it well with his “flag-waving” analogy. Libertarian rhetoric about freedom is good colourful prose to motivate the masses, but when push comes to shove we’d be really worried about it if anarcho capitalism would create a global holocaust.

    • Rick Hull says:

      I think the distinction you are making is between consequentialist and deontological libertarianism. The consequentialist is similar to the utilitarian in that ends justify the means, such that bad acts like torture can be justified if they cause enough positive utility, whereas the deontologicals uphold the NAP as sacrosanct / inviolable.

      Generally, the two sides do not see eye-to-eye. This distinction has been hashed and rehashed endlessly in the blogosphere in the past decade, and I’m sure there is plenty of academic literature as well. I’m more sympathetic to the deontologicals, though certainly consequentalist arguments can be quite useful to all libertarians. Worth noting is that the deontologicals have plenty of responses to the consequentalist points you have brought up.

      • joeftansey says:

        “I think the distinction you are making is between consequentialist and deontological libertarianism”

        In my example, I am. But I don’t have to. In the debate, Friedman gives the example of the draft. Libertarians are generally opposed to the draft. However in the neocon worldview, there is no “no-draft” option. You either get drafted by the USA to fight the Soviets, or the USA loses and then you get drafted by your communist government anyway.

        “whereas the deontologicals uphold the NAP as sacrosanct / inviolable.”

        How many deontological libertarians do you know who would support the non-aggression principle in a situation that would mean the extermination of the human race?

        “Worth noting is that the deontologicals have plenty of responses to the consequentalist points you have brought up.”

        I’d love to hear them. George Smith wasn’t very convincing.

        • Rick Hull says:

          > ” In the debate, Friedman gives the example of the draft. Libertarians are generally opposed to the draft. However in the neocon worldview, there is no “no-draft” option.”

          At the risk of exposing my ignorance, particularly in terms of this specific debate, I don’t see how the neocon worldview is relevant to anything libertarian.

          > “I’d love to hear them [deontological responses]. George Smith wasn’t very convincing.”

          They’re out there. I don’t have the time or inclination to dig them up in any sort of presentable fashion.

          • joeftansey says:

            “I don’t see how the neocon worldview is relevant to anything libertarian”

            It’s mechanical, not philosophical. This is obviously not the world we live(d) in, but it is possible for a universe to exist in which your only choices are to live under one of two governments with a draft.

            “They’re out there. I don’t have the time or inclination to dig them up in any sort of presentable fashion.”

            Well thanks for being honest.

            “My sense is that deontological libertarians would not force Alice’s death in order to assure future children. ”

            Maybe maybe not. But you’re talking about guaranteeing the future for people who don’t even exist, and this is itself a controversial issue in utilitarianism. Some utilitarians think that future people count just as much as contemporary people, but all of them agree that existing human life is valuable.

            See my above scientist example for a much more clear cut utilitarian case…

        • Rick Hull says:

          > “How many deontological libertarians do you know who would support the non-aggression principle in a situation that would mean the extermination of the human race?”

          Let me set up a corresponding hypothetical:

          The human race has suffered a radioactive apocalypse, and only Alice has a special reproductive system that guarantees 100% healthy birth rate in this environment, whereas everyone else has 0% reproductive rate under the status quo.

          However, if Alice gives birth, her own death is guaranteed. Thus, society and the human race must compel Alice’s death in order to continue.

          My sense is that deontological libertarians would not force Alice’s death in order to assure future children. They would rather leave it to Alice to sacrifice herself for that end.

          • Rick Hull says:

            If necessary for the thought experiment, further posit that Alice’s offspring share her special reproductive gift.

            • jack says:

              All those scare stories are pretty idiotic albeit powerful ways of justifying whatever the hell you want to do anyways. You just invoke some good or better outcome and voila – you’re not immoral scum anymore. They disguise as mind exercises – they are not. In every single one of them you get to use “objective” utils Keynesian liberals love to employ to forward political violence to bring about “good outcome”. It boils down to – kill 10 millions or this criminal – body counting. For the utils reason alone they should be seen as not logical thus pure ex post facto justifications. Yes I’m saying Alice property right to herself is greater than “human race survival” idiotic scenario and you have no way of disproving that because utils do not make any sense contrary to selfownership.

              • joeftansey says:

                “You just invoke some good or better outcome and voila – you’re not immoral scum anymore”

                You might think that I’m wrong, but I’d hope you think I’m not immoral scum because I admit I’m willing to torture one innocent man to save millions of lives. It’s not like I have a conflict of interest or anything… I am acting in good faith even if you think I’m incorrect.

                “For the utils reason alone they should be seen as not logical thus pure ex post facto justifications”

                Even if you can’t make interpersonal comparisons of utility on case-by-case basis, sacrificing 1 person to save 10 million is almost certainly utilitarian. For it to be unutilitarian, an extreme amount of utils must be concentrated in one single person AND it also has to be the same person you’re sacrificing.

                You’re basically claiming it’s impossible to deductively prove any policy could ever be utilitarian. That’s fine. I don’t have to deductively prove it for the same reason I don’t have to (and can’t) deductively prove that turning a doorknob will open the door. 99.99% inductive certainty should be good enough for you.

                “Yes I’m saying Alice property right to herself is greater than “human race survival” idiotic scenario and you have no way of disproving that because utils do not make any sense contrary to selfownership.”

                So you’d be willing to accept the extermination of billions of people just because you’re unwilling to use force against Alice (even if Alice herself would be killed in the ensuing holocaust)…

              • joeftansey says:

                Sorry – I can’t edit posts – You can disregard all the interpersonal comparison of utility stuff. You probably will anyway. Oh well…

                But debating the libertarian ethic on consequentialist grounds doesn’t require utils. You just change the hypothetical to say that Alice will also be killed in the holocaust created by not killing her. So the only question left is whether it matters whose hands her blood is on. The fate of the human race hangs in the balance, and the libertarian would claim that it still matters strongly enough to prohibit the premature murder of Alice?

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                What is a human being worth?

                Can you even answer that?

                You will be a long way toward resolving this dilemma if you can make any progress on a coherent answer.

                (Hint: What is an apple worth?)

                Careful now, you’re abandoning subjective value theory here.

              • joeftansey says:

                @Valueprax,

                I dunno. But I’d imagine that a randomly selected human has an expected value the same as any other randomly selected human.

                You have to choose one of the following options. 1 person dies, or 100000 people die. These people are chosen completely randomly.

                Are you telling me you can’t make the choice?

              • joeftansey says:

                @Dan,

                Murphy’s piece doesn’t actually tackle the issue of utilitarianism vs. rights. The closest he comes is to say “well the government is dysfunctional and we could solve this without government anyway”. But notice that I never actually invoked government in any of my hypotheticals. Just regular people in situations where aggression would avert catastrophe. Is that soooooo hard to imagine?

              • Dan says:

                Joe, libertarianism doesn’t prevent you from murdering anyone. If this scenario arises then feel free to kill that person to save the world. I just believe you’d still be guilty of murder and should suffer the consequences.

              • joeftansey says:

                Sure. But the title of “murderer” is something that even utilitarians will grant.

                The thought experiment is meant to break strict commitment to the non-aggression principle.

              • Dan says:

                The NAP doesn’t prevent you from doing wrong. It’s followers just believe it is immoral to initiate force and believe it should be illegal to violate it.

                This is like people who try to invalidate pacifism by showing examples where a pacifist might use violence. Just because man is fallible and will do things he views as wrong or immoral doesn’t invalidate the principle.

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                You’re running and tumbling ahead of yourself. We need to crawl before we can walk here.

                You said you imagine a human being has an “expected value”.

                To whom?

                Measured as what?

                Do you have any idea what you’re talking about right now?

                Your task is to demonstrate the “objective value of a human being”. Much as one would try to demonstrate the “objective value of an apple.”

                Let’s work on that a bit before we try to address your calculus.

                What value framework is the reference point for “the expected value of a human being”?

              • joeftansey says:

                @Dan,

                “The NAP doesn’t prevent you from doing wrong. It’s followers just believe it is immoral to initiate force and believe it should be illegal to violate it. ”

                What do you mean “illegal”? As in, prevented from doing so? Or punished? Would these libertarians really prohibit Alice’s murder?

                “This is like people who try to invalidate pacifism by showing examples where a pacifist might use violence.”

                Trying to invalidate strict adherence to pacifism*. It’s one thing to walk around with a moral theory that you violate for practical reasons, but concede that it makes you unethical. It’s another thing to advocate that we actually strictly adhere to these moral theories.

              • joeftansey says:

                @valueprax,

                “You’re running and tumbling ahead of yourself. We need to crawl before we can walk here.”

                Don’t talk down to me. You’re getting outplayed hard here. Sad attempts at the Socratic method notwithstanding.

                “To whom?

                Measured as what?”

                The answers to both questions do not matter one iota. I’m making an apples to apple comparison. Randomly selected humans.

                So if you wanted to maximize utility, you wouldn’t need to look at “utils”. No matter what standard for utils you actually selected, the correct answer would always be to prioritize the masses over the few, so long as everyone is randomly selected.

                “What value framework is the reference point for “the expected value of a human being”?”

                You really don’t get it. It doesn’t matter how we measure “utils” in this example. Let me know when you catch up.

              • Dan says:

                Yes, libertarians would have a prohibition against murder.

                Yes, if you managed to murder Alice you would be guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.

                “Trying to invalidate strict adherence to pacifism*. It’s one thing to walk around with a moral theory that you violate for practical reasons, but concede that it makes you unethical. It’s another thing to advocate that we actually strictly adhere to these moral theories.”

                Yes, those are two different things.

              • joeftansey says:

                “Yes, libertarians would have a prohibition against murder.”

                I don’t believe most libertarians would actually prohibit Alice’s murder if millions of lives hung in the balance.

                I don’t believe most libertarians would even believe that Alice’s murderer should be punished, since he is obviously acting in good faith.

                Both reactions indicate an unwillingness to actually enforce rights when the stakes get past a certain point.

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                That wasn’t an attempt to talk down. It was an attempt to illustrate where we are in the discussion. I think you’re trying to have a discussion about premises which are neither shared nor understood similarly by both parties. Thus, let’s work on crawling before we talk about walking.

                This isn’t an ego battle. I am here to learn why I am incorrect, or why you are incorrect. Either way, I am here to learn.

                Let me try a different tack here.

                From Alice’s perspective, wherein it is assumed that Alice values herself more highly than any randomly chosen individual, what would be the correct decision? To let herself be killed, or to let humanity dwindle?

                In this alternate reality I am trying to leave all else equal, ie, I am assuming that Alice is not an altruist or some other kind of “social philanthropist”. I assume she values her life more than she values the lives of others.

                With such a value scale, why would she willingly trade her life for any number of other people’s?

              • joeftansey says:

                “From Alice’s perspective, wherein it is assumed that Alice values herself more highly than any randomly chosen individual, what would be the correct decision? To let herself be killed, or to let humanity dwindle?”

                That’s not what’s going on. Just consider the example where Alice is going to die anyway. You know, cus meteors kill everyone…

                Let us also suppose that Alice is indifferent to being murdered vs crushed. Perhaps she is in a coma and cannot distinguish the sensations from one another, or that she herself explicitly states that she is indifferent to being murdered versus crushed.

                NOW do you understand why interpersonal comparisons of utility aren’t necessary to violate the libertarian ethic? Alice is already screwed. You’re not screwing her over more by killing her. The only thing that changes is whether she dies via natural accident or human intent.

                As long as you think that other people have utility functions that value not being crushed by a meteor (in fact, LET US POSIT THAT EVERYONE ON EARTH HAS SIGNED A FORM SAYING THEY WISH NOT TO BE CRUSHED), killing Alice increases utility. Probably.

                I don’t know if I put enough stipulations on that.

                Oh yeah, also assume that people aren’t all lying when they claim they don’t want to die a horrible fiery death.

                etc…

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                I don’t get what your point is.

                “Let us suppose a person says they’re indifferent to dying of natural causes or dying at the hands of another person… if I run this person over intentionally with my car is it murder?”

                No. You defined murder away in the context of the problem you constructed.

                Just like if someone is terminally ill and asks someone to assist them with suicide, that wouldn’t be murder because they asked the person to do it (we assume here that they’re of sound mind and are capable of making such a decision… a context where their illness or other conditions prevent them from thinking rationally is entirely different and requires a separate conclusion, potentially).

                The example, as you’ve set it up, is kind of silly to debate because it answers itself. If Alice doesn’t mind being killed by another person, it’s not really murder. Murder as a concept implies taking a person’s life against their will. But in your scenario this killing isn’t happening against Alice’s will.

                Now, let’s say Alice is not indifferent to dying at another’s hands, and even though she knows she’ll be crushed anyway, she prefers to be crushed than to be killed by another person.

                Here, clearly, we have murder. Even if it’s done in the name of saving humanity.

                Do you agree? Or do you think murder is socially defined? (ie, it’s murder if the community is against it, not if the victim is against it)

              • Dan says:

                “Both reactions indicate an unwillingness to actually enforce rights when the stakes get past a certain point”

                You mean both reactions that you came up with in your head, right?

                Anyways, at this point I’m not sure what we are even discussing anymore. I agree that people are fallible and will do immoral things even when they should know better. I also believe when people violate the NAP that they should face the consequences for their actions. I also believe that some people will get away with violating the NAP because the victim doesn’t press charges, they don’t get caught, etc.

                It seems like you want adherents to the NAP to say it should be legal to initiate force in certain situations, but that is simply not how we view things. Sorry.

              • joeftansey says:

                @valueprax,

                “No. You defined murder away in the context of the problem you constructed.”

                Nope. It’s still murder even if the person subjectively experiences no difference in the phenomena. You’re claiming that I can’t murder someone who is in a coma? Lol.

                Imagine that Alice will die via lightening bolt, but that I also have the option to press a button and create an artificial (but indistinguishable) lightening bolt to kill her.

                “Just like if someone is terminally ill and asks someone to assist them with suicide, that wouldn’t be murder because they asked the person to do it”

                Yeah, so, posit that for some reason, Alice has said: “You know, I really really don’t want to die at the hands of my fellow man even though I can’t tell the difference because I’m in a coma”.

                “If Alice doesn’t mind being killed by another person, it’s not really murder. ”

                Nonsense. If you walk up to a random person on the street and kill them, it’s murder NO MATTER WHAT. No matter if they secretly wanted you to kill them. You did not procure their consent.

                Now, maybe you’d make some kind of hypothetical consent argument, but most libertarians throw those out the window when they’re used in “social contract” arguments. I assume you do as well.

                “Do you agree? Or do you think murder is socially defined? (ie, it’s murder if the community is against it, not if the victim is against it)”

                No. You’re rambling. Try to stay on topic.

              • joeftansey says:

                @Dan,

                “You mean both reactions that you came up with in your head, right?”

                Yeah this is what George Smith did too. He just pretended like he had no idea what Friedman was talking about and asked for an extensive survey of the whole human race.

                If I have to convince you that the bulk of libertarians would desire and encourage Alice’s death in order to save the whole human race, I don’t know what to do.

                ” I also believe when people violate the NAP that they should face the consequences for their actions.”

                Really? Why do you think Alice’s murderer should be punished? He acted in good faith and saved a lot of people.

                Now, let us posit that in your libertarian society, the punishment for murder (of any sort) are so great as to stop anyone from murdering Alice. The human race is destroyed, and you are presumably not comfortable with this result…?

                i.e. modify the hypothetical such that if you punish Alice’s murderer, he won’t act.

                “It seems like you want adherents to the NAP to say it should be legal to initiate force in certain situations, but that is simply not how we view things.”

                I know it’s not how you claim you view things, but I don’t buy it. David Friedman doesn’t buy it either. You’d need a psychopathic level of commitment to the NAP to let the human race die over a small infraction.

              • Dan says:

                “Really? Why do you think Alice’s murderer should be punished? He acted in good faith and saved a lot of people.”

                Because he committed murder. But there is nothing in the NAP that forces victims to press charges, so it wouldn’t surprise me if nothing happened to the murderer in your example.

                “i.e. modify the hypothetical such that if you punish Alice’s murderer, he won’t act.”

                If nobody decided to murder Alice then I would say they are doing the moral thing.

                “I know it’s not how you claim you view things, but I don’t buy it. David Friedman doesn’t buy it either. You’d need a psychopathic level of commitment to the NAP to let the human race die over a small infraction.”

                Buy it or not, I genuinely believe in the NAP. I genuinely believe that it is immoral to violate it. I genuinely believe that when someone violates it that their victim(s) should be able to seek restitution.

                I’m sorry that you feel this need for people like me to give you our blessing to initiate violence, but we don’t.

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                Maybe our confusion lies around different definitions of words.

                My understanding of murder as separate from killing is that murder implies intent.

                For example, if we’re jogging along the edge of a cliff and I bump into you and you fall to your death, I have killed you, but I haven’t murdered you.

                But if we were jogging along the same cliff and I hated you and had wished for your demise and then I pushed you, that would be murder.

                “Killing” describes a purely physical act.

                “Murder” introduces the concept of a certain psychological state attached to that physical act. It represents the application of human ethical norms to that physical act.

                I think a lot of the confusion we’re experiencing over this issue is that we aren’t using the words the same way, and maybe on top of that, you think that the only way to use certain words is the way you use them and everyone else is an intolerable idiot for thinking any differently about the subject of word usage than you.

                Do I have that right? If you find yourself easily frustrated and angry when people use words differently I probably won’t be able to do much in discussing the issue with you as I do so I’d rather just refrain from further dialog if that’s the case. If you think you can discuss the subject without projecting your assumption that I am a petulant moron out to piss you off (a la Brad Delong) I will try to respond to your most recent comment.

              • joeftansey says:

                Dan,

                “But there is nothing in the NAP that forces victims to press charges, so it wouldn’t surprise me if nothing happened to the murderer in your example. ”

                No, we’re not talking about what other people might do. We’re talking about your view. Do YOU think he should be punished? He’s the savior of the human race.

                “If nobody decided to murder Alice then I would say they are doing the moral thing. ”

                Stop retreating into mere moral identification and out of application. Yes, I know you are adamant about maintaining that murder is wrong. What I’m wondering is if you’re seriously committed (as in, willing to actually implement) libertarian law that would prohibit Alice’s murder and lead to the destruction of the human race.

                “I’m sorry that you feel this need for people like me to give you our blessing to initiate violence, but we don’t.”

                This isn’t about me. The subject of my inquiry has always been whether you are seriously committed to a society where NO ONE can kill Alice because legal institutions prevent it.

                … which would mean you care more about whether someone is *technically* a murderer than about billions of human lives.

              • joeftansey says:

                @Valueprax,

                ““Murder” introduces the concept of a certain psychological state attached to that physical act.”

                Uhh… even if I grant this distinction (which I don’t), if I “accidentally” bump you, you’re saying I’m not guilty of ANY libertarian crime? I’ve never heard any libertarian theory which allows me to steal things or kill people accidentally…

                “I think a lot of the confusion we’re experiencing over this issue is that we aren’t using the words the same way, and maybe on top of that, you think that the only way to use certain words is the way you use them and everyone else is an intolerable idiot for thinking any differently about the subject of word usage than you”

                Completely wrong. There is ZERO ambiguity over the term murder. You are MURDERING Alice. You do not have her consent. You have a piece of paper signed by Alice saying she does not want to be killed, but you snipe her off at a distance and she dies in a way indistinguishable (from her perspective) from the way she was already going to die.

                That’s all.

                I think I win, and I think you’re just playing dumb to try and get some sort of conciliatory dialogue going on to obfuscate this fact.

                “If you find yourself easily frustrated and angry when people use words differently I probably won’t be able to do much in discussing the issue with you as I do so I’d rather just refrain from further dialog if that’s the case.”

                If you find yourself easily confused by really simple hypotheticals and aren’t seriously committed to any of your objections (You stopped talking about interpersonal comparisons of utility because, as we both know, it was a total red herring), I dunno what I can do for you.

                ” If you think you can discuss the subject without projecting your assumption that I am a petulant moron out to piss you off (a la Brad Delong) I will try to respond to your most recent comment.”

                Why shouldn’t I assume that you aren’t a petulant moron who only cares about his stupid political identity and saw this as an opportunity to smack down some utilitarian using the “hurdur what r utils lol” argument?

                Your cheap shot missed by a mile because you didn’t realize what I was getting at, and now it’s just backpedaling with you to the point where you claim you’re confused about what counts as murder.

                lol.

              • Dan says:

                “What I’m wondering is if you’re seriously committed (as in, willing to actually implement) libertarian law that would prohibit Alice’s murder and lead to the destruction of the human race.”

                Well, since I believe it is immoral to murder someone then of course I would welcome a situation that made it impossible for people to commit murder.

                “This isn’t about me. The subject of my inquiry has always been whether you are seriously committed to a society where NO ONE can kill Alice because legal institutions prevent it.”

                Yep, I am.

                Let me ask you a question. What if someone devised a way that would make it impossible for anyone to ever commit murder again, would you oppose it because there might come a time where you feel murder is necessary?

              • joeftansey says:

                “of course I would welcome a situation that made it impossible for people to commit murder”

                No no. Be specific. Would you welcome a situation that made it impossible for people to murder AND brought about the destruction of the human race as a direct consequence?

                “Yep, I am.”

                So you’re so committed to the NAP, that you’d rather see the human race get exterminated than allow a single instance of murder.

                “Let me ask you a question. What if someone devised a way that would make it impossible for anyone to ever commit murder again, would you oppose it because there might come a time where you feel murder is necessary?”

                There’s actually a pretty high chance that murder could be useful for the preservation of the human race. If someone is about to develop and release unfriendly AI, for example. This could all be hundreds of years down the road, but you’re talking about the word “never”.

                Then there’s all these fringe cases where, at the time you kill someone, you’re not really sure whether it’s murder. Like if you think someone is threatening you, but they’re really not, and you kill them by mistake, etc.

                Look man there’s 7 billion people now and many, many times that will be born in the future. There are so many unique scenarios likely to be more crazy than any sort of lifeboat hypothetical I could make up. So yeah, I’d want to keep the “murder” option open.

              • Dan says:

                “So yeah, I’d want to keep the “murder” option open.”

                OK, I wouldn’t. So I guess we settled that.

              • joeftansey says:

                No we didn’t. I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you’d prefer the human race to be exterminated just to *technically* uphold the NAP.

              • Dan says:

                Well, I don’t care whether you believe me or not, so it’s as settled as it’s going to be.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                What if Joe doesn’t believe you that you don’t care whether he believes you? It’s not settled yet. But, if torturing Joe would settle it, would you do it?

              • Dan says:

                Ha

              • joeftansey says:

                Can I at least ask what reason you’d give for preferring the NAP over billions of lives?

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                I learned a lot from this about you.

                Nice blog, by the way: http://joeftansey.blogspot.com/

                Very sorry to hear about your bowels and all that. Perhaps this is why you’re such an irritable young man?

                Anyway, my health isn’t perfect either so good luck to you in your quest for recovery.

              • joeftansey says:

                Nice counterargument. Better luck next time.

                I also don’t want any pity. I’m doing completely fine. Inb4 more feigned sympathy.

                You’re mentally sick for stalking me and trying to embarrass me over my Chron’s.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                joeftansey:

                “Can I at least ask what reason you’d give for preferring the NAP over billions of lives?”

                Can I ask what reason you have for preferring billions of lives over the NAP?

                I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m being serious.

              • joeftansey says:

                I like billions of people more than I like 100% compliance with the NAP.

                Like, I dunno if you followed the example, but it boiled down to a situation in which the NAP would technically be violated, but there is no possible consequentialist reason to care. You literally have to have supreme and unwavering commitment to the NAP to the point where you prefer global holocaust.

                I don’t think anyone here is actually like that.

                Maybe it’s just me…

              • valueprax says:

                joeftansey,

                “You’re mentally sick for stalking me and trying to embarrass me over my Chron’s.”

                Says the guy who puts his private medical information on a public blog.

                It must be weird to be you. Go around accusing your opponents of not being serious and untrustworthy while filling your responses with witty internet memes as if the whole exercise is a joke for your amusement on a message board.

                It’s very easy to “win” arguments when you refuse to allow your opponent to make a point by simply claiming his attempts to do so are invalid from your judgment.

                Oh well. Major_Freedom got you to make the point for me that I had been poking at the whole time. You prefer billions of people, someone else prefers the NAP, and you think you’re an objectively better person with a superior value scale for seeing the world this way.

                As I said at the outset, “There goes subjective value theory.”

                Thanks for playing.

              • valueprax says:

                For all interested observers:

                I think this is a good example of the classic act of talking past one another.

                The “joeftanseys” of the world are trying to have a discussion about how they’d act in a given scenario.

                The libertarians (or non-joeftanseys) are talking about how, regardless of what we want in any given moment, regardless of how we might potentially act in various contexts, the ethical rules of the universe don’t bend or change with the circumstances.

                And the “joeftanseys” take this as a preposterous, unbelievable load of crap from the libertarian ideologues who would choose principle over survival!!

                But that’s not what they’re choosing and that’s not what they’re saying. It is two different conversations that are being had.

                For example… if we posited some absurd scenario (where we ignore property rights, we ignore the context of how I found myself in such a situation and whether I “deserved” the consequences I am in or not, etc., essentially drop a lot of meaningful information that would make the scenario more realistic in and of itself, and easier to judge as well)…

                Let’s say I find myself starving. And my ONLY option is to steal the baker’s bread.

                Would I steal it? Or fall on the NAP sword and die for my principles?

                Libertarian: Whether I am hungry or not, to take the bread would be stealing and a violation of NAP.

                joeftansey: OMG! I DON’T BELIEVE THIS YOU IDIOT. YOU’RE SAYING 99.9% OF LIBERTARIANS WOULD STARVE RATHER THAN IGNORE THE NAP IN THIS SITUATION?!

                Me: I am a libertarian, I accept the NAP. In this absurd scenario, set up as it is, I’d take the bread and not starve as I value my own life over social norms, everything else held constant. That doesn’t mean when I take the bread I am not violating the NAP, I am not stealing, and the baker would be outside his rights to try to stop me or seek restitution for my criminal act.

                I hope that squares the circle for anyone confusedly reading this and thinking we have to reject libertarian principles because it forces us to do unpragmatic things like starve for principles.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                joeftansey:

                ME: “Can I ask what reason you have for preferring billions of lives over the NAP?”

                YOU: “I like billions of people more than I like 100% compliance with the NAP.”

                Can I ask why you like “billions of people” more than you like “the NAP”?

                I thought that’s what I asked.

                What is the reason why you prefer billions of people, is preferable to abstaining from against individual people and/or their property?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Yikes, that was horrible grammar. Sorry.

  3. Bob Roddis says:

    I recommend Prof. Hummel’s book “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War”.

    It will disavow you of romanticizing the nasty confederacy. Or the nasty northern states.

    http://tinyurl.com/pkqsjhh

  4. Joseph Fetz says:

    Wow, you’re going to be entirely surrounded by Greenbackers at that event. Have fun!

  5. Terry Hulsey says:

    Pope Francis has attacked capitalist “ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good”. Do you stand behind the Pope on these two points?
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/17/pope-francis-attacks-cult-money

  6. Terry Hulsey says:

    @ R.P. Murphy

    • Terry Hulsey says:

      >>R.P. Murphy would say: His Holiness speaks only as an economist in the Guardian quote. As such, he is open to emendation, and indeed reproof, which I, a defender of capitalism, have amply provided elsewhere.

      >>I would then ask: Would you stand behind Centesimus Annus and Rerum Novarum? While not necessarily ex cathedra in their claims of infallibility, they were certainly issued as encyclicals, and as such intended to be obeyed by Catholics. And they are manifestly hostile to capitalism.

      • BnB Bob says:

        Bob Murphy isn’t Catholic.

  7. steveZ says:

    Dr Murphy, if you’re gonna debate Stills, be sure to watch his bs movie, Money Masters, or the Secret of Oz. Gary North did some good work debunking this garbage. Maybe don’t wear the kid gloves this time…

Leave a Reply to Bob Roddis

Cancel Reply