All Men Are Angels
BretCahill
Ask a libertopist if all men are angels and they do the
dodge.
Why?
Because all it takes is one bad guy statist to impose
government on others and libertopia becomes impossible.
Looneytopians must deny any bad guys exist or their
entire political philosophy becomes an absurd waste
of time.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
Carl Alexander Miller
BretCahill wrote:
> Ask a libertopist if all men are angels and they do the
> dodge.
>
> Why?
>
> Because all it takes is one bad guy statist to impose
> government on others and libertopia becomes impossible.
>
> Looneytopians must deny any bad guys exist or their
> entire political philosophy becomes an absurd waste
> of time.
Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a strong
libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature, which
is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live at the
expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
Victor Levis
Carl Alexander Miller <ca...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<34930A1C...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu>...
> BretCahill wrote:
>
> > Ask a libertopist if all men are angels and they do the
> > dodge.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because all it takes is one bad guy statist to impose
> > government on others and libertopia becomes impossible.
> >
> > Looneytopians must deny any bad guys exist or their
> > entire political philosophy becomes an absurd waste
> > of time.
>
> Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a strong
> libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
Just curious. This 'strong libertarian government' would presumably be
supported by 'strong libertarians'. So, even if there were hypothetically
NO ***single*** government over a vast territory, explain to me how one
bad guy statist could be any more successful imposing stuff on a strong
libertarian society.
> As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
> conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature, which
> is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live at the
> expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
I think people are capable of both good and bad, which is why the
institutional structure is so very important.
Cheers,
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Carl Alexander Miller
Victor Levis wrote:
> > Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a
> strong
> > libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
>
> Just curious. This 'strong libertarian government' would presumably be
> supported by 'strong libertarians'. So, even if there were
> hypothetically
> NO ***single*** government over a vast territory, explain to me how one
> bad guy statist could be any more successful imposing stuff on a strong
> libertarian society.
There's no reason why he should be more successful; that statement was an
'if,' not an 'if and only if.'
> > As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
> > conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature,
> which
> > is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live at
> the
> > expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
>
> I think people are capable of both good and bad, which is why the
> institutional structure is so very important.
Of course, most libertarians have nothing against institutional structure,
as long as it is voluntary.
BretCahill
Carl Alexander Miller <ca...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu> in
Message-id: <34932B9F...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu>
and message-id: <34930A1C...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu>
<BretCahill wrote:
<> Ask a libertopist if all men are angels and they do the
<> dodge.
<> Why?
<> Because all it takes is one bad guy statist to impose
<> government on others and libertopia becomes impossible.
<> Looneytopians must deny any bad guys exist or their
<> entire political philosophy becomes an absurd waste
<> of time.
<Victor Levis wrote:
[Carl Alexander Miller wrote:]
<> > Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a
strong
<> > libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
A "strong libertarian government" . . .
What is the adjective or adverb "strong" modifying?
Government or libertarian?
Is that a strong government that's libertarian?
Or is that weak government because it's strongly libertarian?
<> Just curious. This 'strong libertarian government' would presumably be
<> supported by 'strong libertarians'. So, even if there were
<> hypothetically
<> NO ***single*** government over a vast territory, explain to me how one
<> bad guy statist could be any more successful imposing stuff on a strong
<> libertarian society.
What I would like to know is how would you distinguish
between the bad guy statists and the strong libertarian
government (whatever that is).
<There's no reason why he should be more successful; that statement was an
<'if,' not an 'if and only if.'
<> > As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
<> > conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature,
Anti-human?
> which
<> > is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live
The emphasis, the primary goal is keeping people from
living?
Why am I not surprised?
<> >at
the
<> > expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
This is certainly true for the unelective landlord style
governments conservative libertarians support.
The landlord is living on property originally acquired
by force at the expense of others.
Visit the real libertarians:
<> I think people are capable of both good and bad, which is why the
<> institutional structure is so very important.
<Of course, most libertarians have nothing against institutional structure,
<as long as it is voluntary.
Which brings us right back to the original problem of the
one bad guy statist who doesn't volunteer to support the
"strong libertarian government."
Carl Alexander Miller
BretCahill wrote:
> [Carl Alexander Miller wrote:]
>
> <> > Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a
> strong
> <> > libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
>
> A "strong libertarian government" . . .
>
> What is the adjective or adverb "strong" modifying?
> Government or libertarian?
"Strong" modifies "government." Strong, i.e., having enough resources to
protect the rights of its citizens. Libertarians do not advocate a weak
government.
> What I would like to know is how would you distinguish
> between the bad guy statists and the strong libertarian
> government (whatever that is).
It isn't hard. The statists put the state before the people. The
libertarians do not.
> <> > As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
> <> > conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature,
>
> Anti-human?
Whoa! In the last message Cahill informed us that Libertarians viewed all
men as angels. Now he springs back full force: libertarians are
anti-human. Maybe we can settle these oscillations with a relevant quote:
Thomas Sowell: "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of
civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too
late."This contrasts with the 'malevolent universe' view (supported by, I
believe, many liberals) that everyone has at birth a noble and altruistic
spirit, and it is society that corrupts them.
> > which
> <> > is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live
>
> The emphasis, the primary goal is keeping people from
> living?
>
> Why am I not surprised?
A keen bit of grammatical chicanery: cut off the quote in mid-sentence.
But I doubt anyone was fooled.
> <> >at
> the
> <> > expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
>
> This is certainly true for the unelective landlord style
> governments conservative libertarians support.
>
> The landlord is living on property originally acquired
> by force at the expense of others.
Obviously every piece of property was, at one time, taken by force and at
the expense of the former owners. This hardly distinguishes the
libertarian system.
> Visit the real libertarians:
>
> http://www.progress.org/dfc/
Is "real libertarians" a compliment or a pejorative? The DFC site says
that land property and natural resources should have a different status
than personal property, but they do not say what this different status is.
Also, they do not explain at what point on the transition from bare
materials (which are taken from natural resources) personal property loses
this different status. Thus it is difficult to judge whether the DFC are
indeed "real libertarians."
> <Of course, most libertarians have nothing against institutional
> structure,
> <as long as it is voluntary.
>
> Which brings us right back to the original problem of the
> one bad guy statist who doesn't volunteer to support the
> "strong libertarian government."
... right back to where Cahill explains how one bad guy statist can
overthrow a libertarian government, which he hasn't done.
BretCahill
The unstated assumption of conservative libertarianism
is that all men become angels in libertopia, because all it
takes is one bad guy who wants to be a statist and libertaria
becomes impossible.
Libertopists immediately suggest that libertopia can
coexist with a few bad guys, but that fails as well.
The whole thing boils down to who makes a decision on
who the bad guy is.
The bad guy?
Who's to decide who's to decide who's to decide . . .
Carl Alexander Miller <ca...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu> in
Message-id: <3494E5B6...@NOSPAMacpub.duke.edu> writes:
<BretCahill wrote:
<> [Carl Alexander Miller wrote:]
<> <> > Eh, no. One bad guy statist cannot impose anything on anyone if a
> strong
<> <> > libertarian government exists to protect individual rights.
<> A "strong libertarian government" . . .
<> What is the adjective or adverb "strong" modifying?
<> Government or libertarian?
<"Strong" modifies "government." Strong, i.e., having enough resources to
<protect the rights of its citizens.
As in high taxes?
<Libertarians do not advocate a weak
<government.
Any libertarians agree with this?
<> What I would like to know is how would you distinguish
<> between the bad guy statists and the strong libertarian
<> government (whatever that is).
<It isn't hard. The statists put the state before the people. The
<libertarians do not.
It what way would the libertarian government be strong?
In stopping bad guys?
All it would take is one bad guy masquerading as one
of the people in order to overthrow the libertarian
government. He need merely say, "I'm a nice person
who should be put before the state."
The question is, who's going to decide?
The strong libertarian government? Who in the strong
libertarian government?
I still have no way to distinguish between the bad guy statist
and the strong libertarian government.
<> <> > As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
<> <> > conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature,
<> Anti-human?
<Whoa! In the last message Cahill informed us that Libertarians viewed all
<men as angels. Now he springs back full force: libertarians are
<anti-human.
Conservative libertopianism is chock full of internal
contradictions.
<Maybe we can settle these oscillations with a relevant quote:
<Thomas Sowell: "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of
<civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too
<late."
I fail to see how this is relevant, unless Sowell is implying
it is possible to civilize people into being angels.
<This contrasts with the 'malevolent universe' view (supported by, I
<believe, many liberals) that everyone has at birth a noble and altruistic
<spirit, and it is society that corrupts them.
Sowell believes society is being corrupted by children?
Perhaps they vitiate each other?
Actually Sowell is making a demagogic appeal to the white
majority that often fears young blacks in the streets.
Sowell is getting paid by white businessmen to distract the
white wage slave majority from the economy.
I do not care about the shill's skin color. I only care about
where the shill get's his money.
Indeed, Sowell should be acclaimed by liberals as more
proof that anyone of any race can be successful anything --
even a successful demagogue.
Most shills are white.
<> > which
<> <> > is one reason why they support a system whereby one man can't live
<> The emphasis, the primary goal is keeping people from
<> living?
<> Why am I not surprised?
<A keen bit of grammatical chicanery:
<cut off the quote in mid-sentence.
<But I doubt anyone was fooled.
It is useful to point out the differences in our basic
beliefs:
Mine is best expressed by Justice Brandeis:
"Those who won our independence believed that the
final end of the state was to make men free to develop
their faculties . . ."
Your primary (only?) goal is to keep people from living
at the expense of others.
There's not necessarily a conflict here, but the difference
in emphasis should be clear.
<> <> >at
> the
<> <> > expense of another--because inevitably if one can, one will.
Which would be far worse than another Holocaust!
<> This is certainly true for the unelective landlord style
<> governments conservative libertarians support.
<> The landlord is living on property originally acquired
<> by force at the expense of others.
<Obviously every piece of property was, at one time, taken by force and at
<the expense of the former owners. This hardly distinguishes the
libertarian system.
<> Visit the real libertarians:
<> http://www.progress.org/dfc/
<Is "real libertarians" a compliment or a pejorative?
Real libertarians do not treat stolen property, like land
like other property, like that made from labor.
<The DFC site says
<that land property and natural resources should have a different status
<than personal property, but they do not say what this different status is.
<Also, they do not explain at what point on the transition from bare
<materials (which are taken from natural resources) personal property loses
<this different status.
When labor is applied. It's not real complicated.
<Thus it is difficult to judge whether the DFC are
<indeed "real libertarians."
<> <Of course, most libertarians have nothing against institutional
> structure,
<> <as long as it is voluntary.
<> Which brings us right back to the original problem of the
<> one bad guy statist who doesn't volunteer to support the
<> "strong libertarian government."
<... right back to where Cahill explains how one bad guy statist can
<overthrow a libertarian government, which he hasn't done.
By having his rights superior to the libertarian government.
I still cannot distinguish between a strong libertarian
government and any other despotic government
except maybe it wouldn't have elections.
And I fail to see who would make the decision as to
who the bad guys were.
Bret Cahill
Carl Alexander Miller
To summarize the last few posts: I asked Cahill how one statist can
overthrow the libertarian government.
>All it would take is one bad guy masquerading as one
>of the people in order to overthrow the libertarian
>government. He need merely say, "I'm a nice person
>who should be put before the state."
Perhaps you could fill in the part in between when (A) the statist
says this, and (B) the government is overthrown. In other words,
"explain how one statist can overthrow the libertarian government."
>By having his rights superior to the libertarian government.
Explain how he does this, i.e.... should I say it again?
>The whole thing boils down to who makes a decision on
>who the bad guy is.
>The question is, who's going to decide?
>
>The strong libertarian government? Who in the strong
>libertarian government?
A judicial system much like the one we have today. Notice that the U.S.
has not yet been overthrown by a single statist.
><Libertarians do not advocate a weak
><government.
>
>Any libertarians agree with this?
I might as well ask "any libertarians disagree?" Of course, probably
neither question will get a response, so we'll have to plunge ahead with
appeals to reason. Libertarians believe that the function of the
government is to protect individual rights. It goes without saying the
libertarians believe the government should have the strength to be
effective in this role.
><> <> > As for men vs. angels, it is my impression that libertarians (like
><> <> > conservatives) tend to have a less-than-cheery view of human nature,
>
><> Anti-human?
>
><Whoa! In the last message Cahill informed us that Libertarians viewed all
><men as angels. Now he springs back full force: libertarians are
><anti-human.
>
>Conservative libertopianism is chock full of internal
>contradictions.
The strategy here seems to be: assert that two contradictory ideas are
part of libertarian philosophy, and when one is challenged, switch to the
other. This completely evades the need to defend either original
assertion.
A fine strategy, of course, except that it can be used to establish
contradictions in any system.
><Maybe we can settle these oscillations with a relevant quote:
>
><Thomas Sowell: "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of
><civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too
><late."
>
>I fail to see how this is relevant, unless Sowell is implying
>it is possible to civilize people into being angels.
Um, no, he's not. The fact that this quote does not fit your
preconceptions about conservatism/libertarianism is exactly what makes it
relevant.
><This contrasts with the 'malevolent universe' view (supported by, I
><believe, many liberals) that everyone has at birth a noble and altruistic
><spirit, and it is society that corrupts them.
>
>Sowell believes society is being corrupted by children?
Sowell believes that society will be corrupted if its children are not
civilized.
><> Visit the real libertarians:
>
><> http://www.progress.org/dfc/
>
><Is "real libertarians" a compliment or a pejorative?
>
>Real libertarians do not treat stolen property, like land
>like other property, like that made from labor.
All property was, at some point, stolen. This includes property to which
labor has been applied. I assume one can't steal a hunk of gold, make it
into jewelery, and then claim ownership to it.
We still have no answer to what the "different status" of land property
is. As far as these economic policies have been explained, they
could mean anything from laissez-faire capitalism to quasi-socialism.