Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[thaumaturgy]

In all of your charming blather you have now twice avoided the only question I am actually interested in hearing your response to: Why is that.

Wow, did I use words that were too big for you? I think I answered this question quite clearly and explicitly in the last post.

My suggestion: read for content, take a few philosophy classes, pay attention.

Wow.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In all of your charming blather

I think I see the problem here! You have difficulty reading what I wrote. My apologies. Shall I simplify the concepts a bit?

Shall I be like you and speak only in "generalities"? Is it when 'content' shows up that it becomes "blather"?

I'll try to note that, but because I have an education which includes not only physical science, but some philosophy and a little bit of legal topics it will be hard for me to bring it down to that level. But I can try.

Let me know!

(Oh and please feel free to re-read the bit where I explicitly answered your questions about how I assess the justice of laws, and feel free to ask me about any big words I used. I'll be happy to go into more detail about them!)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You can tell just how deeply misanthropic libertarianism is at its very core just by looking at the way libertarians talk about other people: the mob, looters and moochers, parasites, tyrants in the making...

In a way, it seems to me that libertarians are stuck in teenager-mode, specifically the "unacknowledged genius"-phase. The "common people" ought to lie prostrate at the feet of the supposed "movers and makers", being glad of every crumb or juicy bone that falls from their masters' table.

It's dysfunctional not only with regards to ecological concerns, but only spells disaster on a socio-cultural level. It basically claims that the wealthy have no obligation whatsoever to help maintain a functional society, and ought to be free to abuse their power whichever way they like.

 

[acropolis]

In all of your charming blather you have now twice avoided the only question I am actually interested in hearing your response to: Why is that.

Generally the point of the left is to preserve human life and reduce suffering.

 

[lordbt]

Oh, my bad, I thought we were discussing laws. I didn't realize you don't actually care about law but want a philosophy discussion.

Well, if that's the case, I'm more a Utilitarian, ergo maximizing the benefit for the largest number. I'm a hedonist in the strict sense that I, like all other human animals, wish to maximize pain and minimize pleasure, but in my "hedonistic calculus" (a term you are no doubt familiar with from your philosophy classes) actually contains a term related to social stability and society.

Since I am a social animal, those rules which help stabilize society and maximize the benefits for the greatest number and minimize the pain for the greatest number benefit me and thereby increase my "pleasure" and decrease my "pain".

Unlike you I cannot live on my own in a survivalist wonderland of pure individual rights. That's why I like society (and I don't call them "the mob") and I value the structure it brings.

I give up some of my liberties so that others can have more.

Most people understand this point sometime after about 2nd grade. But of course there are those who never seem to learn.

So now you have both my legal and my philosophical stances outlined rather roughly.

If you like we can limit the conversation to one or the other. But, I must warn you, that if you wish to complain that "the State" can not do thus or so, I will have to assume that you wish to limit the discussion to the Legal.

You mean this? You call this an answer? A law is sound in your mind that maximizes the benefit for the greatest number? And the rights and lives of the rest? What happens to them? Not only does that explain your contempt and disregard for the Constitution, it exposes a serious moral flaw in your reasoning, if I may call it that. No wonder you were so offended at the word mob, you rely upon them to be fill the moral void in your position. That explains the difficulty in discussing things with you. I work from a fixed set of principles, and you have none at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You mean this? You call this an answer? A law is sound in your mind that maximizes the benefit for the greatest number? And the rights and lives of the rest? What happens to them? Not only does that explain your contempt and disregard for the Constitution, it exposes a serious moral flaw in your reasoning, if I may call it that. No wonder you were so offended at the word mob, you rely upon them to be fill the moral void in your position. That explains the difficulty in discussing things with you. I work from a fixed set of principles, and you have none at all.

First, in so far as thaumaturgy is articulating a utilitarian ethic, that is a fixed set of principles - utilitarian principles. While you may not like those principles, you cannot say that thaumaturgy has 'none at all.' That is not a valid objection to utilitarianism. Second, I find it interesting how you seemingly resist having your principles brought beneath a critical lens. At many points throughout this thread people have criticised the principles you have used to judge us. At no point have you responded to those criticisms directly, except by repetition. I wonder why that is?

 

[eclipsenow]

Lordbt,

A few points you seem to be missing:

1. There are about a thousand points on the dial between 'Communist' and yourself. (free market anarchist with no social justice or welfare). The way you resort to either bookend of a vast scale misrepresents almost everyone contributing to this conversation. You should stop it now.

2. BECAUSE of State intervention Australia has a health system that delivers longer lifespans at half the cost than America's 'privatised' health care.
nothing new under the sun...: Healthcare and the market

3. As Thaumaturgy keeps pointing out, being part of a society involves 'costs' to your hypothetical freedom. Gaining the 'rights' guaranteed to you under the law means you have to live under the REST of the law, the WHOLE social contract. There's some give and take involved. You don't get to say it's all about you; you have to pay your taxes and use the infrastructure the community collectively decides to build, and if you can't stand it, leave. Just pack up and go.

4. The world's best scientists know we are approaching peak oil and global warming. As we're speaking tribally here, they are our 'Shamans', 'Soothsayers', or 'Wise-men'. Except it is the best of modern science, and it tells us we have to stop burning as much carbon. Then the politicians have to figure out a way to facilitate that.

5. The government DOES have the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY to ration your oil and take it from you and give it to the most essential sectors in society. It really does. As Thaumaturgy demonstrated, it's about maintaining the common good. It's common sense even. If you had any wisdom, you'd not just approve, but be begging for them to begin the process now because the risks of inaction are so much greater!!!

6. So if you want your Rights guaranteed in any way, shape, or form; you'll do what we as a SOCIETY decide to do and pay your carbon tax or trade for oil in a Depletion Protocol or pay for a massive fast-rail upgrade or learn to cycle and trolley-bus everywhere. And you'll do it *gladly*. Because it will mean that somehow, against the odds, society survived peak oil and global warming. That we started early enough to beat the odds, and still have a government that endured the Greater Depression and the oil skirmishes that broke out and the paranoia and accusations and right-wing reactions against perceived 'conspiracy theories'. It will mean we're still here.

7. So stop whining "Me me me!" all the time. That's not an argument. It doesn't do Libertarian's any favours.

8. The United Nations charter for Human Rights says a *basic* level of economic liberty is an important right.

9. Re: Calling me a communist. You were discussing ME and MY views and then represented my views as pure Communism. Now you want us to believe you then drifted into the abstract, and were not discussing me at all. Whatever; I'm not buying it. You can apologise for calling me a communist or you can apologise for your extremely poor writing that looks like you were calling me a communist

"There is economic liberty, which you seem to be talking about, and political liberty that I am talking about. You use the two interchangeably when you should not. Anyway, at some point, oil will become too expensive for most private use. That is going to happen whether we do things my way or do things your way. Your way requires an extensive state apparatus and the loss of liberty and assumes that the state run solution will be smooth functioning and "fair"--which would be a first for government intervention. The choice is always the same: We must have state run health care or people will die in the streets; we must have state run retirement planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run economic planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run environmental planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run gasoline rationing or people will die in the streets. The truth is, the only places I see people dieing in the streets is in those places where the state runs everything."
http://www.christianforums.com/t7596884-45/#post58842191


Everyone, I'm done debating Lordbt.
He's now refusing to answer any questions directly. One minute he's angry with Thaumaturgy because Thaum's 'too legalistic', and Lordbt wants to discuss morals, but the next minute he's pooh-poohing the United Nations Charter for Human Rights because it doesn't 'govern' America. So the morals of that idealistic document don't move him either. He just ducks and weaves and changes tack all the time. I wonder what he actually believes in, other than just stating 'me me me' all the time.

Basically, I'm tired of this discussion being all about Lordbt's 'rights'. Anyone bored yet?

Here's some other questions for you all:
1. What Exxon (and friends) funded Denialist adds have you seen?
2. What top 5 Denialist myths get your blood boiling the most?
3. If you ran America, what would you do?
4. Given you don't run America, what do you think will happen?
5. What about China and India and others?
6. How do you think peak oil will pan out with global warming?


I'll be back in 4 days to read what transpires.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You mean this? You call this an answer? A law is sound in your mind that maximizes the benefit for the greatest number?

Well, yes, I do call it an answer. It is based on the work of John Stuart Mill and is at the very least a reasonably well established ethic.

You asked me how I judge a law "just" or "unjust" I run the "calculus" based on this.

Why is this difficult to understand?

And the rights and lives of the rest?

This question makes no sense assuming you have read what I have written. It is maximization of the "good" for greatest number. I am not a follower of Leibnitz' concept that "This is the Best of All Possible Worlds" since I do not feel that there is some outside arbiter who has in any way "balanced" the scales. I do however feel that we as a society can only assymptotically approach "perfection".

So laws are enacted, usually incrementally and through numerous generations. There are good laws and bad laws, with that I will not disagree. But once passed by fiat of our duly elected officials I am of the opinion that if I personally do not agree with the law I give my fellow members of, what do you call them..."the mob"?....the benefit of the doubt that it was the collective will.

Now I am not naive and realize that in the fullness of time unjust laws or laws that simply non-applicable will be weeded out. I can and do express my displeasure with a given law I find unjust in an effort to register my displeasure.

I know I'm getting into "details" here and that is anathema to you, but in California we just passed "Prop H8" err....I mean Prop 8. In which a set of rights were systematically denied a group of people based on the way they were born. I sincerely find this law "repellent". I feel that it has maximized the "pleasure" of a group of people whose petulance and strict religious fantasy should not be given into. As such I will continue to oppose it and work to, through legal channels, see that Prop H8 is overturned.

Why? Because since gay marriage is not forced on any religious person it does not in any way "increase their pain", but rather does increase the pain of many gay people. Maximizing the good would be assume that if it does not cause the religious people actual pain and will bring happiness to gay people then it is just to make gay marriage legal.

Is this clear enough for you? Or is it too detailed?

What happens to them? Not only does that explain your contempt and disregard for the Constitution

That's interesting because John Stuart Mill actually wrote quite a bit about the concepts expressed in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

In addition I have so far been the only one of the two of us on here to even reference specific parts of the U.S. Constitution in support of my arguments!

I find it ironic that you would accuse me of "disregard" for the Constitution.

, it exposes a serious moral flaw in your reasoning, if I may call it that.

Really? "Moral flaw"? Now I will gladly entertain that you "disagree" with Utilitarianism, but I am quite doubtful you have the background to decree it a "flaw", let alone a "moral flaw".

Certainly not by merit of your ex cathedra statement to that effect.

So far you seem to be the one talking in simple aphorisms and rhetoric with little detail, so maybe someday you'll get around to discussing just anything here in detail.

Look back over my posts. So far I'm the only one to discuss specific laws and even specific portions of the Constitution as well as specific schools of philosophical thought with any amount of detail.

 

[lordbt]

Well, yes, I do call it an answer. It is based on the work of John Stuart Mill and is at the very least a reasonably well established ethic.

You asked me how I judge a law "just" or "unjust" I run the "calculus" based on this.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Its not, and I appreciate your answer here. When you make a calculus based upon what is good for the greatest number, you are not basing your decisions on any moral law, but the will of the majority. The questions that go unanswered are should this will be tempered, by what standard, and who decides? For me, the will of the majority may prevail, but to be just, that will should not violate the rights of those who find themselves in the minority.

Rights, if you want to believe in and defend that sort of thing, belong to the individual. They do not belong to the state, nor the public, society or the mob. When you say you have a right to something, you are laying a claim to a particular course of action that others, no matter their numerical superiority or political standing may rightly violate.

So you cannot say in one breath that you value human liberty and individual rights and in the next claim that the state may violate those rights to pursue some greater good. Well, you can say it, but not without one statement contradicting the other.

This question makes no sense assuming you have read what I have written. It is maximization of the "good" for greatest number. I am not a follower of Leibnitz' concept that "This is the Best of All Possible Worlds" since I do not feel that there is some outside arbiter who has in any way "balanced" the scales. I do however feel that we as a society can only assymptotically approach "perfection".

So laws are enacted, usually incrementally and through numerous generations. There are good laws and bad laws, with that I will not disagree. But once passed by fiat of our duly elected officials I am of the opinion that if I personally do not agree with the law I give my fellow members of, what do you call them..."the mob"?....the benefit of the doubt that it was the collective will.

Why is the 'collective will' a thing of intrinsic virtue whose decisions merit such a pass? I place no value on the collective will. It is more moved by passion than reason and as such may be right as often as it is wrong. You might as well just flip a coin and live with the consequences.

Now I am not naive and realize that in the fullness of time unjust laws or laws that simply non-applicable will be weeded out. I can and do express my displeasure with a given law I find unjust in an effort to register my displeasure.

We have different standards of what type of law is just and what type is not. Since I view the proper role of the state as a protector of individual rights, a law that initiates force and violates those rights is unjust.

I know I'm getting into "details" here and that is anathema to you, but in California we just passed "Prop H8" err....I mean Prop 8. In which a set of rights were systematically denied a group of people based on the way they were born. I sincerely find this law "repellent". I feel that it has maximized the "pleasure" of a group of people whose petulance and strict religious fantasy should not be given into. As such I will continue to oppose it and work to, through legal channels, see that Prop H8 is overturned.

Why? Because since gay marriage is not forced on any religious person it does not in any way "increase their pain", but rather does increase the pain of many gay people. Maximizing the good would be assume that if it does not cause the religious people actual pain and will bring happiness to gay people then it is just to make gay marriage legal.

Is this clear enough for you? Or is it too detailed?

It is plenty clear and plenty detailed. It just seems to be an unnecessarily round about way of reaching a decision. All you really have to do is be a defender of individual rights and individual liberty and opposition to legal discrimination by the state against anyone comes automatically.

That's interesting because John Stuart Mill actually wrote quite a bit about the concepts expressed in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

In addition I have so far been the only one of the two of us on here to even reference specific parts of the U.S. Constitution in support of my arguments!

I find it ironic that you would accuse me of "disregard" for the Constitution.

I accuse you of disregarding the Constitution because the Constitution has one main purpose--to carve into law the legal limits of government power. The Constitution does not tell you what you as an individual can or cannot do, it spells out what the state can do. A power not specifically enumerated is left to the people or the states. Modern use of the 'commerce clause' or the 'general welfare clause' are blank checks on government power. If the state has a virtually unlimited ability to regulate commerce, what cant it do? Could it not simply nationalize all industry? If it can ban incandescent light bulbs, what cant it ban? If it can ban me from engaging in a legal activity--smoking--on my own property, what cant it ban? If it can regulate my energy usage, what part of my life cant it regulate?

I dont consider myself a ward of the state or some serf that kneels before the whims of some despot who claims to be acting in the interest of the common good. Liberty is the greater good. Freedom is the ultimate ends for which humans must strive. Those laws that move toward those ends I support, those who move away, I reject.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Rights, if you want to believe in and defend that sort of thing, belong to the individual. They do not belong to the state, nor the public, society or the mob. When you say you have a right to something, you are laying a claim to a particular course of action that others, no matter their numerical superiority or political standing may rightly violate.

So you cannot say in one breath that you value human liberty and individual rights and in the next claim that the state may violate those rights to pursue some greater good. Well, you can say it, but not without one statement contradicting the other.

You are applying here a different conception of what rights are and how they are instantiated. What you refuse to engage with is any critique of that conception of rights.

Why is the 'collective will' a thing of intrinsic virtue whose decisions merit such a pass? I place no value on the collective will. It is more moved by passion than reason and as such may be right as often as it is wrong. You might as well just flip a coin and live with the consequences.

The individual will is not moved by passion? Why was Hume wrong?

I accuse you of disregarding the Constitution because the Constitution has one main purpose--to carve into law the legal limits of government power. The Constitution does not tell you what you as an individual can or cannot do, it spells out what the state can do. A power not specifically enumerated is left to the people or the states. Modern use of the 'commerce clause' or the 'general welfare clause' are blank checks on government power. If the state has a virtually unlimited ability to regulate commerce, what cant it do? Could it not simply nationalize all industry? If it can ban incandescent light bulbs, what cant it ban? If it can ban me from engaging in a legal activity--smoking--on my own property, what cant it ban? If it can regulate my energy usage, what part of my life cant it regulate?

And the Constitution is (quite deliberately) a malleable thing. The legal limits of government power can change. The founding fathers could not have foreseen weapons of mass destruction, mega-corporations, and incipient climate change. As a result, none of these things had any bearing on their thought when they wrote the Constitution. But they were wise enough to recognise the limits of their own understanding. That is why appealing to the authors of the Constitution does not make for a good argument.

I dont consider myself a ward of the state or some serf that kneels before the whims of some despot who claims to be acting in the interest of the common good. Liberty is the greater good. Freedom is the ultimate ends for which humans must strive. Those laws that move toward those ends I support, those who move away, I reject.

Neither do we consider ourselves serfs or wards of the state. But that does not mean that we must accept your idealisation of liberty as a consequence.

lordbt has been taking shots at thaumaturgy's moral philosophy, but he has refused to even look at any criticisms of his own ideal of liberty and its implications. I do not consent to having my love of freedom judged by a flawed ideal of liberty. I suggest that anyone who responds to lordbt makes that clear to him from the outset. We need not accept his standards and we certainly need not approve to being judged by them. We are, I believe, justified in rejecting them.

But lordbt will not discuss this. He holds the ideal over our heads, but does not permit anyone to gently tap the idol to ascertain whether it is hollow or not.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Its not,

Oh, so the guy who has yet to mention a specific section of any law sits in judgement of someone else's rationale for judging a law just or not!

Brilliant!

Can I ask...have you ever taken a philosophy class?

and I appreciate your answer here. When you make a calculus based upon what is good for the greatest number, you are not basing your decisions on any moral law

Are you aware of the Categorical Imperative of Kant? "Act such that the maxims of your action should be universal law"?

I don't think you have a clear idea of what you actually "want" from me in this. You asked how I judged a law just or not. I answered. You didn't understand or didn't like the answer so now you have introduced a nebulous term of "moral law". I'm sorry but that doesn't necessarily compute.

I have a friend who is a philosophy prof who debates me and considers my non-religious morality to fall outside of morality per se. I have read others who feel that morality need not be anchored in some religious basis. So "morality" is far too nebulous a term for this discussion.

My "Morality" is pretty well summed up by the Categorical Imperative coupled with an appreciation that social animals will act to maximize the stability of the social group as they gain a survival advantage from that.

It's pretty easy to put together what I will do in just about any given situation based solely on these two points. Ergo if you do even a modest bit of thinking you'll realize I've outlined in the past few posts a relatively complete "ethics" for you. You may not like it, but it is founded in philosophical thought that you would have run across in just about any intro philosophy class or a bit of reading.

, but the will of the majority.

And that's bad why? Is "Democracy" unjust in your esteem? You have already decreed your fellow citizens "the mob" and apparently consider their interests either neutral or antithetical to your own "personal property interests". So I can see if you don't like democracy in general as well.

The questions that go unanswered are should this will be tempered, by what standard, and who decides?

So I see since I answered your first question (and you keep telling me it isn't an answer) now you have to alter the question to be "who" decides.

OK: in a representational democracy such as we have in the United States the electorate generally has a say in legislation. Either indirectly through the free election of representatives or in ballot initiatives directly. Further more the laws' "justness" or accordance with the previously set rules are tested by our "Judiciary", a co-equal branch of the government.

Is this stuff really all new to you?

For me, the will of the majority may prevail, but to be just, that will should not violate the rights of those who find themselves in the minority.

And we are in agreement on this in principle. I do not wish to see the minority's rights violated, but by the same token within any given society there will always be those who wish to not be held to a certain law.

I have already given numerous examples.

Rights, if you want to believe in and defend that sort of thing, belong to the individual. They do not belong to the state, nor the public, society or the mob.

That's an arbitrary claim with no basis in fact. Of course the state has "rights", it has the right to act within the constraints of the Constitution, and has, available, SPECIFIC POWERS provided by that document.

A "corporation" (shudder) has "rights" as well.

Rights can be differentiated between group and individual rights. Unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise that the word "rights" cannot be applied to groups.

When you say you have a right to something, you are laying a claim to a particular course of action that others, no matter their numerical superiority or political standing may rightly violate.

Correct. And guess what? Even that right is limited in our free society. You do NOT have the right to libel another individual. You do NOT have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire.

So you cannot say in one breath that you value human liberty and individual rights and in the next claim that the state may violate those rights to pursue some greater good.

I think I've explained this enough to you. The fact that you cannot seem to understand the simple concept of "society" speaks more loudly than any other "rhetoric" you have so far espoused.

I think it quite understandable that so far you have expressed no real detailed knowledge of any specific law nor have you chosen to discuss any specific law or specific part of the Constitution but rather stick with rhetoric and broad statements.

Your ideals are fine, but unless you can show how they fit in a real world setting they are little more than meaningless phrases.

Why is the 'collective will' a thing of intrinsic virtue whose decisions merit such a pass?

"collective will" is kind of what society is all about. Apparently you do not live in a society. So I'm uncertain if I can explain to you how this concept works. Sorry. It's pretty complicated.

Do you live in a tarpaper shack up in the mountains? How do you get on the internet?

I place no value on the collective will.

That's a rather extreme position. "No value"? OK, I can understand that. You have clearly stated a very plain anti-social stance.

That's fine. It is your "personal right". It's just alarmingly anti-social.

Again, since you apparently neither live among other humans nor understand the concept of "society" I suppose it is your way.

It is more moved by passion than reason and as such may be right as often as it is wrong.

Unlike the individual, correct? Did you really think through that point?

We have different standards of what type of law is just and what type is not.

Well, in that I have provided background information that anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with philosophy of the past 300 years and a high school level reading skill, I will gladly grant that I have provided a standard of what laws are just and which are not.

You however seem to value only ONE metric of "justice" and that is "The Law According to lordbt". You put no value in the collective will, you consider society "the mob", you seem to have no actual detailed knowledge of any laws sufficient to even discuss them in any real detail, so I'm going to assume that your metric is "sui generis" and meets whatever needs you have at whatever moment.

Since I view the proper role of the state as a protector of individual rights, a law that initiates force and violates those rights is unjust.

Interesting. So again you don't much like the U.S. Constitution do you?

Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Where do you see "individual rights" in there? Is it hidden in the words "common defence"? Or perhaps "general welfare"?


What part of the Constitution do you like?

I accuse you of disregarding the Constitution because the Constitution has one main purpose--to carve into law the legal limits of government power.

Oh, so you only have interest in Article I section 9, LImits on Congress, that sort of thing? The "enumerated powers" part of the Constitution doesn't count in your eyes?

That's good to know. Again, it's helpful to know which parts of the U.S. Constitution are "optional" for a good libertarian!

If it can ban incandescent light bulbs, what cant it ban?

Were you this bent when they banned leaded gasoline? Were you this bent when they banned asbestos?

You seem awfully irritated about incandescent light bulbs. You must have spent the last 40 or so years in a tizzy!

If it can ban me from engaging in a legal activity--smoking--on my own property

Can they do that? I don't think so.

If it can regulate my energy usage, what part of my life cant it regulate?

Ummm, water usage? Oh yeah, they already do that. Usage of nuclear materials? Oh yeah, they already do that. Ownership of automatic weapons? Oh yeah, they already do that. Regulating what you can drive on the roads? Oh yeah they already do that.

Again, you must live in abject horror at all these "limitations"!

Liberty is the greater good.

OK, tell me how your "liberty" works out when we are in a Resource war with, oh, Canada over water. How about when agricultural areas of the U.S collapse due to global warming and Canadians become a much more robust ag producer than we are and we end up importing food to keep ourselves alive. Please, do tell me how "free" you'll be when you are kneeling at the feet of a foreign government for basic materials to survive.

Want the right to burn as much gasoline as you can today? Goody for you! Wait until the CHinese start grabbing oil stocks from the Middle East, paying more than we are willing to and leaving us begging for oil. Will you feel "Free" then? Oh no, you'll be like the rest of us, with a gas ration card.

You think these things are hypothetical? Guess again. Resource wars are a fact of life for much of the world. We have had a great deal of "freedom" to be as wasteful as we want.

Someday that "freedom" will come at a cost.

Freedom is the ultimate ends for which humans must strive. Those laws that move toward those ends I support, those who move away, I reject.

Again, empty rhetoric with absolutely no discussion of real world impacts.

I don't expect anything more from you. Empty rhetoric. Big "ideals" but no grounding in reality.

I will judge all laws by how warm and fuzzy they make me feel! Free puppies for all is the ultimate good! Yayz "goodness" and "liberty"! LIberty is good because its free and should remain free to everyone! Free freedom! Liberty freedom personal rights!

 

[thaumaturgy]

The individual will is not moved by passion? Why was Hume wrong?

Well, Hume, insofar as he is never mentioned by name on AM talk radio programs is "wrong" because he's one of them 18th century philosophy guys. I bet he didn't love Freedom and Liberty half as much as lordbt! I bet no one in history has!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

For me, the will of the majority may prevail, but to be just, that will should not violate the rights of those who find themselves in the minority.

Rights, if you want to believe in and defend that sort of thing, belong to the individual. They do not belong to the state, nor the public, society or the mob. When you say you have a right to something, you are laying a claim to a particular course of action that others, no matter their numerical superiority or political standing may rightly violate.

Up to this point, I agree completely. A genuine democracy founded upon inalienable human rights must protect the interests of all of its citizens, not just a majority who may then freely discriminate against a minority. Otherwise, it would be possible to justify the dispossession and displacement of indigenous populations, apartheid laws, discrimination against specific religions or laws based on random religious taboos held by the majority.

So you cannot say in one breath that you value human liberty and individual rights and in the next claim that the state may violate those rights to pursue some greater good. Well, you can say it, but not without one statement contradicting the other.

Ah, but there's a slight disconnect here: protecting the populace (i.e., all citizens) from harm IS a top priority, right? So if what you consider your "right" endangers the welfare of all citizens (and ultimately, this includes yourself), then it's the explicit job of the state to intervene. We cannot stand idly by and watch as the powerful squander scarce resources frivolously, not once we become aware of the consequences this entails for all of us. To ignore it would be just as unethical as witnessing a robbery and just walking away.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In short, pollution and wastefulness are NOT inalienable rights, but infringements that carry disastrous consequences for all, the perpetrator included.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I was wondering if Lordbt could give his opinion on how in his ideal world the problem of CFC and the Ozone layer would have been addressed? I cant really see a freemarket mechanism behind moving away from them and like with AGW being able to place individual blame for any damage done to persons/property would be problematic.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In short, pollution and wastefulness are NOT inalienable rights, but infringements that carry disastrous consequences for all, the perpetrator included.

This is the core of our fundamental debate with lordbt as I see it. He seems to believe that it should be his right to do whatever he wants within the bounds of his "personal property rights", but one of the reasons that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution is used to legislate against environmental pollution is precisely because it is actions within one place that can affect another.

I note that lordbt will not discuss any specific environmental regulation in detail, so that's turned out to be a blind alley so we are left debating with him about the concept of "wasting limited resources".

His ideas appear to be that since it is currently his "freedom and right" to purchase gasoline with no limitation (except for his own bank account) makes that gasoline his personal property and therefore his ability to act with it as he wishes is, ipso facto, unbridled by any regulation.

Hypothetically he could buy 10,000 pounds of coal and set fire to it as he wishes in giant conflagration on his property. But let's take this example. It would cause a huge black plume of noxious smoke and ash to fly into the sky above his house and spread across the neighborhood.

Even lordbt would agree that the ash falling on his neighbors home would be an intrusion on their property and he would probably say that it is not within his right to rain toxic metal laden ash on his neighbors property.

But indeed that is precisely what happens when one burns coal anywhere. And why is coal burned? To supply energy for large groups of people. IF the larger group wastes energy and requires more coal be burned it means more toxic metal-laden ash is distributed across the cities and private properties around the powerplant.

My other example that I like to use with people like lordbt is what if he were stuck on a desert island with 10 other people. They have a limited supply of food and water. He values "individual" liberties and has explicitly stated:

I place no value on the collective will.

This means that in this setting he would clearly value his own personal survival supreme to anyone else.

This makes him a danger to the larger group since he obviously cannot be trusted to agree that rationing the food (putting limits on private property) is a good idea.

Now what if the only way for the group of 11 to make it off the island and back to safety was if there are sufficient of them to tend the watches for ships and alert fires, etc? Well, since the "collective" is anathema to his thinking he is obviously more focused on the short term "personal pleasure" of his "liberties" than in the survival of the group and thereby his own survival.

Again, this is his right to be as anti-social and even sociopathic as he desires. But this is nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of real-world consequences.

 

[lordbt]

Oh, so the guy who has yet to mention a specific section of any law sits in judgement of someone else's rationale for judging a law just or not!

Brilliant!

Can I ask...have you ever taken a philosophy class?

Are there two different people who post under your screen name? It is difficult to imagine that the same person who wrote post #491 wrote #494. Whoever it was that wrote post #491 was able to do so without the arrogance, without the condescension, without the boasting of phony academic credentials. It was actually an interesting post and a pleasure to read and respond to. This one, not so much.

Are you aware of the Categorical Imperative of Kant? "Act such that the maxims of your action should be universal law"?

I don't think you have a clear idea of what you actually "want" from me in this. You asked how I judged a law just or not. I answered. You didn't understand or didn't like the answer so now you have introduced a nebulous term of "moral law". I'm sorry but that doesn't necessarily compute.

I have a friend who is a philosophy prof who debates me and considers my non-religious morality to fall outside of morality per se. I have read others who feel that morality need not be anchored in some religious basis. So "morality" is far too nebulous a term for this discussion.

Morality is too nebulous a term for the discussion of rights?? Rights are a moral concept, so I am not sure how you would discuss them outside of the context of morality.

My "Morality" is pretty well summed up by the Categorical Imperative coupled with an appreciation that social animals will act to maximize the stability of the social group as they gain a survival advantage from that.

It's pretty easy to put together what I will do in just about any given situation based solely on these two points. Ergo if you do even a modest bit of thinking you'll realize I've outlined in the past few posts a relatively complete "ethics" for you. You may not like it, but it is founded in philosophical thought that you would have run across in just about any intro philosophy class or a bit of reading.

So your moral code is based upon what one might come across during an introductory discussion of philosophy? Impressive.

And that's bad why? Is "Democracy" unjust in your esteem?

It can be, but anyone who bothered to pay attention during an introduction to politics class would not even ask such a question. (See, I can be pompous too) Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. So democracy is great if you are one of the wolves. It doesnt turn out so well for you if you happen to be the sheep. Unless, of course, you have a Constitution that limits the power of the majority to impose its will upon you and violate your rights.

So I see since I answered your first question (and you keep telling me it isn't an answer) now you have to alter the question to be "who" decides.

OK: in a representational democracy such as we have in the United States the electorate generally has a say in legislation. Either indirectly through the free election of representatives or in ballot initiatives directly. Further more the laws' "justness" or accordance with the previously set rules are tested by our "Judiciary", a co-equal branch of the government.

Is this stuff really all new to you?

Yes, this is all so fascinating and new I need time to absorb it all. These arbiters of justice you refer to as the Judiciary, their qualifications are what, exactly? They must surely be sages whose wisdom is beyond reproach not simple political appointees.

And we are in agreement on this in principle. I do not wish to see the minority's rights violated, but by the same token within any given society there will always be those who wish to not be held to a certain law.

Why not? I thought you were for whatever resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You cant possibly achieve that without violating the rights of the others who happen to make up the minority. Go back to the example of the two wolves and the sheep. Can it not be argued by the majority that the greater good of the majority is served by eating the sheep?

That's an arbitrary claim with no basis in fact. Of course the state has "rights", it has the right to act within the constraints of the Constitution, and has, available, SPECIFIC POWERS provided by that document.

There is a difference between powers granted to the state and rights which belong only to individuals.

Rights can be differentiated between group and individual rights. Unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise that the word "rights" cannot be applied to groups.

It is not up to me to "prove otherwise." If you believe that groups have rights it is up to you to prove it. What rights do groups possess that individuals do not and how do you arrive at this determination?

I think I've explained this enough to you. The fact that you cannot seem to understand the simple concept of "society" speaks more loudly than any other "rhetoric" you have so far espoused.

I understand the concept of society. I just dont bestow it with any magical omniscience or phony rights as you do.

I think it quite understandable that so far you have expressed no real detailed knowledge of any specific law nor have you chosen to discuss any specific law or specific part of the Constitution but rather stick with rhetoric and broad statements.

That is because I am discussing principles; specifically, what principles should just law be based upon.

"collective will" is kind of what society is all about. Apparently you do not live in a society. So I'm uncertain if I can explain to you how this concept works. Sorry. It's pretty complicated.

With all of your supposed academic accomplishments, explaining the concept of 'collective will' cant be too great a challenge, can it?

That's a rather extreme position. "No value"? OK, I can understand that. You have clearly stated a very plain anti-social stance.

That's fine. It is your "personal right". It's just alarmingly anti-social.

How is the collective will determined? By poll? The difference between you and me is that I put greater faith in my own ability to reach a proper conclusion than I do the unknowable "collective will" of the "mob."

Again, since you apparently neither live among other humans nor understand the concept of "society" I suppose it is your way.

I live among plenty of humans. I deal with them as equals. I respect their rights. Do you do things differently?

Unlike the individual, correct? Did you really think through that point?

I have thought through my point more than you have. Of course the individual can be moved by passion over reason, and I suspect you believe that can be a bad thing. But generally, if an individual behaves irrationally, it is he that suffers the consequences. When a mob is moved by passion over reason, it is the rational who suffer.

Interesting. So again you don't much like the U.S. Constitution do you?

Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Where do you see "individual rights" in there? Is it hidden in the words "common defence"? Or perhaps "general welfare"?


What part of the Constitution do you like?

I accuse of disregarding the Constitution and embracing only two key phrases "general welfare" and the 'Commerce clause." Then you go and pull out one of them. Good to see we finally agree on something. Let me ask you again, what is the purpose of the Constitution? Let me narrow that question down for you a bit. Is it there to limit what the federal government can do or limit what the people can do?

Oh, so you only have interest in Article I section 9, LImits on Congress, that sort of thing? The "enumerated powers" part of the Constitution doesn't count in your eyes?

That's good to know. Again, it's helpful to know which parts of the U.S. Constitution are "optional" for a good libertarian!

I accept the whole thing, you accept two phrases and throw the rest out.

Ummm, water usage? Oh yeah, they already do that. Usage of nuclear materials? Oh yeah, they already do that. Ownership of automatic weapons? Oh yeah, they already do that. Regulating what you can drive on the roads? Oh yeah they already do that.

And the authority to do this comes from where? Oh, thats right, the 'commerce clause.' But as usual, you missed the point. Let me repeat it for you. If you believe in a virtually limitless ability of the state to regulate commerce, what aspect of your life can they not stick their fingers into? Did none of your supposed academic training even touch upon the concept of human freedom? Can you possibly be so naive as to believe in a benevolent despotism?

OK, tell me how your "liberty" works out when we are in a Resource war with, oh, Canada over water. How about when agricultural areas of the U.S collapse due to global warming and Canadians become a much more robust ag producer than we are and we end up importing food to keep ourselves alive. Please, do tell me how "free" you'll be when you are kneeling at the feet of a foreign government for basic materials to survive.

Liberty is not having all of your needs met and being free from the confines of reality. It refers to political freedom; being free from physical force. But then again that is something anyone with a second grade understanding of liberty would know. (oops, there I go being 'charming' must be contagious)

Again, empty rhetoric with absolutely no discussion of real world impacts.

I don't expect anything more from you. Empty rhetoric. Big "ideals" but no grounding in reality.

I will judge all laws by how warm and fuzzy they make me feel! Free puppies for all is the ultimate good! Yayz "goodness" and "liberty"! LIberty is good because its free and should remain free to everyone! Free freedom! Liberty freedom personal rights!

If the US could be said to have been founded upon a single word, that word would be liberty. Funny how someone with such an impressive education would not know this. Might just be that people on the internet can claim to be anyone or anything. Or have any level of education. No one is obligated to believe it, though.

 

[lordbt]

This means that in this setting he would clearly value his own personal survival supreme to anyone else.

And if you said you would do otherwise, you would be lying.

Now what if the only way for the group of 11 to make it off the island and back to safety was if there are sufficient of them to tend the watches for ships and alert fires, etc? Well, since the "collective" is anathema to his thinking he is obviously more focused on the short term "personal pleasure" of his "liberties" than in the survival of the group and thereby his own survival.

Again, this is his right to be as anti-social and even sociopathic as he desires. But this is nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of real-world consequences.

What is the collective will of 11 people on the island, and how is it determined? By a 6-5 vote? 7-4? And how often do you confuse majority with morality?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have thought through my point more than you have. Of course the individual can be moved by passion over reason, and I suspect you believe that can be a bad thing. But generally, if an individual behaves irrationally, it is he that suffers the consequences. When a mob is moved by passion over reason, it is the rational who suffer.

In an ideal world, that would obtain perfectly. But in the real world, it does not. A few pages back we provided some examples of exactly the kinds of situations that demonstrate why that ideal does not obtain in the real world.

And the authority to do this comes from where? Oh, thats right, the 'commerce clause.' But as usual, you missed the point. Let me repeat it for you. If you believe in a virtually limitless ability of the state to regulate commerce, what aspect of your life can they not stick their fingers into? Did none of your supposed academic training even touch upon the concept of human freedom? Can you possibly be so naive as to believe in a benevolent despotism?

How do you get from regulation of roads and water usage to benevolent despotism? You have a stunning penchant for ignoring what is actually said about regulations and leaping to 'You want to regulate everything... You want benevolent despotism! Etc.'

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

And if you said you would do otherwise, you would be lying.

"Scratch an altruist, and watch a hypocrite bleed"?

One of the things that bothers me most about right-libertarians is their inability to see the rest of the world as anything other than a collective of Hobbesian sociopaths. Maybe it's just a case of projection, as many people who hold such views betray considerable deficiencies in the empathy department, but it still strikes me as unsettling.

Humans are a social species. Not selflessly eusocial like ants or bees, but social nonetheless.

In a starvation economy, things admittedly tend to get ugly - especially in societies that didn't put too much emphasis on solidarity and mutual support to begin with - but those are extreme situations that few of us have ever encountered. And even then, some of us would rather go on minimum rations of water and food rather than letting our neighbours starve while we hoard more than we need. It's the same impulse that makes us not want to shove a knife into their backs, or push them in front of a passing truck.