Monday, November 15, 2010

Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them -- Before He Never Said It

When Sarah Palin wrote last year that ObamaCare would lead to "death panels," the Usual Suspects howled, along with Paul Krugman. The LA Times declared it the "biggest lie of 2009" and the New York Times also weighed in with a solemn declaration that there would be no such thing as a "death panel."

Fast forward to Krugman's November 14 appearance on ABC's "This Week" in which he not only claimed that the budget would need to get under control via controlling healthcare costs, but he specifically used the term "death panels" as a cost-controlling device. In his own words:
"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."
So, after having made fun of Palin, calling her a liar and worse, Krugman himself endorses such a thing. Obviously, he realized he was in hot water for his Freudian slip, so he quickly posted something on his NYT blog to minimize the damage.

He writes:
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that

(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax

And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.
So, the "death panels" really are not "death panels" even though Krugman calls them as such. Let's be realistic, folks. Paul Krugman really does believe that we need government-created "death panels," which will operate in the name of "lower costs." He actually believes they will help, even if he won't openly admit it -- except when he admits it.

168 comments:

bravo said...

I love how the justification of nationalized healthcare was that insurance companies and private medical providers deny people coverage because they cant pay. Yet when they enact the legislation to give everyone coverage, suddenly expenditures become an issue and we have to start looking at what we will and wont pay for. Jackasses. Everyone of them.

Lord Keynes said...

Krugman and other progressives should not support Obamacare at all. They ought to argue for single payer medicine.

And as for the death panels: horrible.

Just as horrible as the vile private sector death panels called HMO and private insurance bureaucrats who decide who gets coverage and who doesn't, and who gets actual insurance payments and who doesn't.

The private sector already has death panels and rationing by ability to pay.

Abolish it like very other civilized nation and have a well funded public/single payer system like France, free or virtually free at the point of delivery, with private insurance essentially for the rich or those who really want it.

Anonymous said...

Krugman makes a sarcastic joke. STOP THE PRESSES

Bala said...

LK,

And how does the "single-payer" pay for all that? With more robbed money, I presume?

Lord Keynes said...

And how does the "single-payer" pay for all that? With more robbed money, I presume?

The majority of people do not regard progressive taxes as theft.

As I said before, rule utilitarianism already shows the the minority who do have a debased sense of morality.

They think absolute property rights come before human life.

Whatever coercion they suffer in paying progressive taxes for public goods (which they themselves use) is justified by saving of human lives.

So as said before:

And in fact probably the most moral choice a libertarian can make is to leave anyway:

(1) Taxation is coercive and immoral;
(2) Public goods (roads, bridges, highways, public libraries etc) are immoral as they are built with stolen money taken by coercion.
(3) Any use of public goods is immoral use of stolen property
(4) A moral libertarian would not use stolen property
(5) The only moral course of action for a morally consistent libertarian is to leave a country with coercive taxes and public goods that are stolen property.

So really the fact that libertarians freely choose to continue living in such a society just proves they are moral hypocrites and immoral users of public goods created by theft.

Though I really don't care at all if you stay, you might at least have the courage to live up to your moral ideas and leave, by going and living somewhere else.

bravo said...

No, its just free. He said so. Doctors go to 8 years of med school to be our slaves. Isnt that how its supposed to work?

Lord Keynes said...

No, its just free

Wrong: free or virtually free at the point of delivery AND paid for by progressive taxes.

bravo said...

Yes its immoral to use a service you were not given a choice in paying for. How convenient.

Bala said...

LK,

"As I said before, rule utilitarianism already shows the the minority who do have a debased sense of morality."

As I have said before, you are the depraved parasite with the morality of a thug and a robber.

"They think absolute property rights come before human life."

No you moron!! They think that absolute property rights are synonymous with the preservation and enhancement of human life.

"Whatever coercion they suffer in paying progressive taxes for public goods (which they themselves use) is justified by saving of human lives."

As I have said, there is no way you can justify this. Economic ignoramus that you are, you think just repeating your garbage ad nauseum makes you correct.

Lord Keynes said...

As I have said before, you are the depraved parasite with the morality of a thug and a robber.

LOL!
Keep them insults coming, it shows your complete intellectual bankruptcy.

Bravo:

Yes its immoral to use a service you were not given a choice in paying for.

You are given a choice: it's called voting. The majority doesn't share your morally depraved libertarian view, and they want progressive taxes, basic welfare and public goods like roads, bridges etc.

As long as these public policies can be justified by rule utilitarianism, they are moral.

Just as rule utilitarianism should also tell you the moral thing to do, if your wife/child/brother/complete stranger is about to walk in front of a speeding car, and there is no time to yell a warning. Do you:

(1) Use coercion to stop them from being killed or injured by grabbing them, or

(2) Do nothing because coercion is always wrong.

If you do what any normal, moral human being does, you do (1).

If you choose (2), you are revealed as an utterly immoral idiot.

Bala said...

LK,

"Keep them insults coming, it shows your complete intellectual bankruptcy."

Those are not insults but a rational assessment based on your position that robbing Peter is fine as long as Paul benefits. It is also an assessment based on your depraved idea that absolute property rights and preservation and enhancement of human life are incompatible. It is a rational assessment based on the point that you think life-boat situations determine the moral soundness of a course of action.

You moron, you have discredited yourself completely and you have the temerity to claim that I am intellectually bankrupt. You have no clue to what economics is and claim that your economic chronicling is legitimate economics.

What a freaking retard!!

Bala said...

LK,

"If you choose (2), you are revealed as an utterly immoral idiot."

Your attempt to take the moral high ground is especially hilarious. Go way bandit! Go away!

Bob Roddis said...

For all of his relentless and silly braying, LK does not understand the Austrian concept of economic calculation. His obliviousness on this concept is at the core of everything he says. No one who understands it would advocate the Soviet style anti-market solutions that he proposes.

Andy Duncan explains the attraction of socialism and its cruel variants:

Fortunately, I managed to cure myself from this orcish horror, mainly due to the fact, of course, that socialism [of which Keynesian is simply an offshoot] is utter self-serving elite-generated nonsense and the most evil destructive bone-headed religion that mankind has ever invented. Amongst many other disastrous human-hating onslaughts it has engaged in, in its bid to keep people stupid, sick, and poor — and thus easier to rule over and exploit as tax cattle — socialism has slaughtered tens of millions of people, particularly in the twentieth century, which must truly be its envious bloody golden age.

Anonymous said...

This should be in every single campaign commercial for 2012. The public needs to know who exactly are the liars here.

Richard said...

LK,

Britons are leaving in record numbers to pay for health care rather than stand in line and wait for the 'free' care that could very well kill them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567584/Record-numbers-go-abroad-for-health.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567585/Fears-and-frustrations-driving-patients-abroad.html

Taxation means putting people first. Right.

Donald Douglas said...

Linked: 'Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them'.

Count to 10 said...

The real solution would be to have the programs pay out a given amount of money upon the patient being diagnosed with a given condition. Then the patient figures out what to do with that money, and the cost controls come in with how much money is assigned to what condition.

iawai said...

LK,

1) As related to the original point of this blog post, a "single payer" system is easily seen to be faulty if you really care about reducing costs to those in need, about remunerating the efforts of service providers, about making sure that the most effective treatments are available, or about developing new treatments for currently incurable diseases.

The profit and loss mechanism in a free market is what solves these problems, whereby consumers will reward those providers who better meet their needs, and by allowing those providers who don't meet the consumers' needs to fail. It's the only feedback mechanism that rewards those who efficiently use resources to satisfy consumers.

A single payer system must, by definition, provide those services that the board of directors find appealing, and if this is paid for by "moral progressive taxation" it will be the only option, regardless of actual cost. It locks in the entrenched services at the cost of denying further advancement, because of regulator capture. If a single payer system were established in the 19th century we would still be forced to use leeching and be limited to treatments that focused on balancing your humors. Those service providers who dared think that antibiotics could be used to fight infections would have immeasurable hurdles to clear before they would be allowed to sell their services for any price. They would have to fight the leech farmers to get clearance to compete against them. They would have to find people willing to ignore the "single payer's" mandate that what they provide is the best, safest, and cheapest means to cure their ailments to experiment with these new and unapproved methods.

iawai said...

2) The next point I wish to school you on is the continuation from the last thread about saving a person from being hit by a bus. The correct formulation of the Libertarian ethic is that you may not use an UNJUSTIFIED initiation of force. So what is justifiable, and who does the justifying?

The general rule is that force is justified to prevent an imminent harm, to yourself or others. This is a well founded rule, and it has been repeatedly adopted by unorganized societies and both common and statutory law makers in the form of the right to self defense, and the affirmative defense of attempting rescue.

More importantly, WHO should be doing the justification for the initiation of force? Is it the actor seeking to use force, the person who force is being applied to, or someone else entirely?

Well, the short answer is that the justification for force must be accepted by EVERYONE with an interest in the situation. A single actor cannot justify himself the use of force, or else every use of force would be moral, or allowed. It is closer to the point that the person upon whom the force is applied must find it justified - thereby giving ex ante or ex post CONSENT, and making the forceful action into a non-aggressive, and thus non-prohibited behavior.

But even then, there cannot be certainty that there actually was consent - If I am lost in the desert and happen upon a seller of bottled water, he may seek to reach an agreement as to what I can pay for a bottle or he may pull a gun and tell me that he will shoot me if I don't surrender all my possessions and in exchange he will give me a plain white robe and a bottle of water. I may go along with his demands, and I may get something in return that works to save my life - so did I truly consent?

The answer is that a justification for any action can only be measured by all interested parties, by seeking to rescind a deal made unconscionably, by seeking restitution for the person they feel that is wronged, by seeking to reapply the ethic as exhibited by the aggressor upon himself, by boycotting the aggressor upon condition that he right the wrong he created, or simply by giving charity to the wronged party to help him reclaim his market position.

So, you may retort, doesn't this excuse the existence of government as arbiter of what is justified and enforcer of it's opinions? Absolutely not. For each actor seeking to impose justice must themselves be open to the judgment of observers - each action taken by any party may or may not be a use of force on others, and this may or may not be justified. But as was shown above, the person taking the action cannot himself be the judge of his actions as they affect others. The only way to discover what is force or not, and what is justified or not, is through external, competing arbiters, each trying to satisfy the notions of justice without adding more injustice to the system.

Anonymous said...

"As I have said before, you are the depraved parasite with the morality of a thug and a robber"
So far Bala I have seen you insult LK time and time again, and it does not make you more believable.

Bala said...

"So far Bala I have seen you insult LK time and time again, and it does not make you more believable."

Anyone who claims that initiating force and coercing people to part with their property at gun point is acceptable means of dealing with people does have the morality of the thug and the robber. This is not insulting but an identification of a trait based on the person's own expressed opinions. In this case, LK comes across, quite openly, in favour of legalised robbery of Peter to pay Paul. So LK does indeed have the morality of a thug and a robber. There is no "opinion" in this. Or do you dispute the point that those who find coercion and the initiation of force a regular and legitimate means of dealing with people have the morality of a thug and a robber?

Do you dispute the point that LK insists on putting out nonsensical arguments refusing all the while to deal with the Misesian economic calculation argument that renders all his pipe dreams about tax-based government "managing" the economy into an unsustainable economic system?

Do you dispute the point that correlation does not imply or prove causation? That happens to be another issue that LK is consistently evading by repeating the same meaningless drivel over and over again.

Do you dispute the point that he is an economic historian who is hell bent upon wasting the time and space of those seriously interested in economics by incessantly spilling his meaningless drivel on sites like this?

All I say to LK is "Go away, big bandit. Go away!".

LK is a troll. I don't believe there is anything wrong in treating a troll in certain ways.

Lord Keynes said...

Britons are leaving in record numbers to pay for health care rather than stand in line and wait for the 'free' care that could very well kill them

Except that the “record numbers” is totally garbage. The number of people going overseas is just
0.53% of the 13 million people treated in Britain’s public hospitals. It’s not even 1%.

And (2) you totally ignore that it appears these are largely rich people who are ALREADY paying for private health care in the UK.
So much for your rubbish.
And (3) a vast number of other public systems in countries like Finland, Norway, Holland, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Israel etc all delivery better outcomes than the system and are cheaper than the US system.

Lord Keynes said...

Iawai,

You say:

a "single payer" system is easily seen to be faulty if you really care about reducing costs to those in need

False. National or public systems are CHEAPER than the US system in terms of health spending as % of GDP.

It locks in the entrenched services at the cost of denying further advancement, because of regulator capture.

This is total nonsense. Are you aware that a vast amount of new drugs and medical advances are made by public funding and in the public sector?

If a single payer system were established in the 19th century we would still be forced to use leeching and be limited to treatments that focused on balancing your humors.

And the private sector would have done EXACTLY the same thing? Really, this is pathetic.
Also, you badly mangle history: the theory of humours was already largely discredited by the 18th century, and leeching too was declining.

the correct formulation of the Libertarian ethic is that you may not use an UNJUSTIFIED initiation of force. So what is justifiable, and who does the justifying?

Congratulations. You are at least capable defending your libertarian ideas in a way better than the rubbish penned by Bala.

Well, the short answer is that the justification for force must be accepted by EVERYONE with an interest in the situation. A single actor cannot justify himself the use of force, or else every use of force would be moral, or allowed. It is closer to the point that the person upon whom the force is applied must find it justified - thereby giving ex ante or ex post CONSENT, and making the forceful action into a non-aggressive, and thus non-prohibited behavior.

Your argument totally breaks down in the case of self defence, and, say, infants are involved. E.g., you cannot obtain ex ante or ex post consent from someone who means you harm, and an infant can never give consent as it cannot talk.
And there is no reason why people who use their property in a way that threatens the lives of other people will necessarily give their consent.

Richard said...

LK,

People are leaving Britain in greater and greater (record?) numbers to get better healthcare in places like India - a much poorer country thousands of miles away - and to you its no big deal because it is only a small portion of the 'rich' who are doing it. Like all those people sweating it out in the NHS for months waiting for care are staying because they want to. The NHS can't even keep their hospitals clean, for crying out loud.

I hope the NHS takes this trend more seriously than you do - for the sake of their patients (not they have a choice about being a patient of the NHS).

Bala said...

Hey thug,

If you care so much for the healthcare of others, why don't YOU pay for it rather than force unwilling people to do so? If the majority is truly willing, let the majority pay voluntarily into the hands of th government they trust so much. Why coerce the minority who are... er...ummmm.... a minority in any case?

Bala said...

Richard,

The talk in India is about transforming it into a destination for medical tourism.

Bala said...

Hey thug,

Do you realise that under a libertarian ethic, you would be free to donate as much as you want to those you wish to help. You will also be free to organise charities that will gather money from other like-minded people. Such charities may pay for the healthcare of the sick who are unable to pay for their own treatment. In fact, you are free to all this even now. Why do you then want to force the unwilling to pay?

Lord Keynes said...

People are leaving Britain in greater and greater (record?) numbers to get better healthcare in places like India - a much poorer country thousands of miles away - and to you its no big deal because it is only a small portion of the 'rich' who are doing it.

The number is not "great": it is 0.53% of the 13 million people treated in Britain’s public hospitals.

Much the same thing happens amongst Americans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/opinion/10milstein.html?_r=4

But mainly because of rising U.S. health care costs mostly in the private sector:

In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care; this number is anticipated to increase to six million by 2010. Concurrently, inbound medical tourism and medical tourism across state lines continue to present opportunities for specialty hubs offering treatments unavailable elsewhere in the world or in a community setting.

http://www.deloitte.com/us/2008medicaltourism/

And what about the 1 million Californians (half of them citizens) going to Mexico to get medical treatment:

"Driven by rising health care costs at home, nearly 1 million Californians cross the border each year to seek medical care in Mexico, according a new paper by UCLA researchers and colleagues published today in the journal Medical Care... of these, 488,000 were Mexican immigrants .... Cost and lack of insurance were primary reasons both Mexican and non-Mexican U.S. residents sought health services across the border."

http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=4


The NHS can't even keep their hospitals clean, for crying out loud.

That is pure rubbish. If you are talking about the problem of drug-resistent bacteria (super bugs), that has been caused by overuse of antibiotics in both private and public medicine.
Superbugs are a serious problem in private hospitals as well.

Lord Keynes said...

If you care so much for the healthcare of others, why don't YOU pay for it rather than force unwilling people to do so? If the majority is truly willing, let the majority pay voluntarily into the hands of th government they trust so much.

I and the majority already do, idiot.

As for the minority, progressive taxes are morally justified through rule utilitarianism.

There is no reason why a minority of people with a debased sense of morality should not pay their share.

If they think it is morally unacceptable to pay any tax, then if they are not complete moral hypocrites, their best moral choice is to leave their country.

Lord Keynes said...

You will also be free to organise charities that will gather money from other like-minded people. Such charities may pay for the healthcare of the sick who are unable to pay for their own treatment

There is absolutely no guarantee
that such charities would be able to provide care for all those in need, or even a significant number of them.

Richard said...

LK,

I don't defend the U.S. Healthcare system at all. It is overburdened by excessive and stupid government regulations. Up to 50-60% of the healthcare in the U.S. is provided by the government. It is hardly 'private' or 'free market' - not by a long shot.

But of course it's the fact that it is not completely regulated by the government that is the problem, right?


"Almost all of those who had received treatment abroad said they would do the same again, with patients pointing out that some hospitals in India had screening policies for the superbug MRSA that have yet to be introduced in this country."

Nope - not the NHS's fault UK hospitals are not screening for superbugs. It's the fault of anti-biotics.

Lord Keynes said...

I don't defend the U.S. Healthcare system at all. It is overburdened by excessive and stupid government regulations. Up to 50-60%... etc

You totally miss the point.
A lot of these people going overseas in the UK or the US ALREADY have private insurance and just prefer cheaper treatment overseas. That's why it called medical tourism.

with patients pointing out that some hospitals in India had screening policies for the superbug MRSA that have yet to be introduced in this country.

Why do you ignore the yet to be introduced in this country?

Screening policies for the superbug MRSA have been introduced in the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-10856827

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7173772.stm

Again so much for your nonsense.

Richard said...

LK,

Nope, I think you miss the point. You can't separate 'private' from 'public'. Government regulation increases the cost of private care. And, given the fact that governments support so much of medical care 'freely' it drives up all costs - including for private care. (The same problem exists in single-payer systems to a greater degree).

Glad to see the NHS is screening for bugs now. I ignored 'has yet to be introduced in this country' because it had 'yet to be introduced' - while in India it had, and that was one reason why Britons were going there. You initially blamed the spread of super-bugs on antibiotics, not on a lack of screening, yet Indian hospitals were screening for the problem and preventing it before the NHS got around to it. Wonder why Indian hospitals were doing that - maybe to attract customers unhappy with their 'free' medical care and maybe make a profit by doing so? Wonder how long the NHS would have taken to get around to it if Britons weren't leaving for India to avoid the problem.

Nothing like a little competition, is there? (No - competition? That's nonsense).

Lord Keynes said...

You can't separate 'private' for 'public'. Government regulation increases the cost of private care.

Wrong.
Public systems are cheaper, because there is no additional layer of HMO/private insurance bureaucrats deciding who is given coverage and whose treatment is paid for.

You initially blamed the spread of super-bugs on antibiotics etc

No, I didn't. Try reading what I said:

If you are talking about the problem of drug-resistent bacteria (super bugs), that has been CAUSED by overuse of antibiotics in both private and public medicine.

See here:

Whenever bacteria encounter an antibiotic (such as methicillin) some of the bacteria may be able to survive it. The surviving, methicillin-resistant bacteria can then multiply, potentially producing bacteria with even better resistance.
The chances of resistant bacteria developing have been increased by:

* failure to finish full courses of antibiotics, allowing bacteria with some resistance to survive and multiply
* overuse of antibiotics, meaning that bacteria encounter and survive a wide range of antibiotics


http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/090305mrsa.html

The overuse of antibiotics in creating super-bugs is a fact.

Screening PREVENTS further infection, something different from the cause of these drug-resistant strains.

Get your facts right.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"As for the minority, progressive taxes are morally justified through rule utilitarianism"

How? Please explain how rule utilitarianism gives a "moral" justification for progressive taxes. I have already explained why it cannot. It would be enlightening to see your explanation.

While you are doing that, please also explain what morality is and how rule utilitarianism can ever be the right way to judge the moral soundness of a course of action.

Bala said...

You bandit,

"I and the majority already do, idiot."

Oh!! So you pay voluntarily, do you? Quite interesting. Could you now say what justifies your forcing me or anyone else who does not wish to pay?

Lord Keynes said...

could you now say what justifies your forcing me or anyone else who does not wish to pay?

The same rule utilitarianism that justifies use of coercion in other ways necessary to save human life.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Wrong.
Public systems are cheaper, because there is no additional layer of HMO/private insurance bureaucrats deciding who is given coverage and whose treatment is paid for."

Here's the rejoinder. Read this.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Bala said...

LK,

"The same rule utilitarianism that justifies use of coercion in other ways necessary to save human life."

Not good enough. Explain in detail please. And then there is the general question of how rule utilitarianism is at all a proper basis for evaluating the moral soundness of a course of action.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"The same rule utilitarianism that justifies use of coercion in other ways necessary to save human life."

There is a world of difference between coercing a human being to save HIS life and coercing a human being to save ANOTHER human being's life. In the latter, the sufferer and the beneficiary are different. This very point makes any comparison and evaluation impossible.

Lord Keynes said...

There is a world of difference between coercing a human being to save HIS life and coercing a human being to save ANOTHER human being's life

Absolutely false - I cant believe how feeble and stupid your arguments are.

If you saw your child in the process of being beaten to death by a older teenager, would you

(1) Use coercion to stop the violent human being and save ANOTHER human being's life, or

(2) Do nothing because no human being can ever be coerced to save ANOTHER human being's life, as it is impossible to "make any comparison and evaluation".

Please do tell me you would choose (2), and prove that you are a contemptible and morally debased person.

If (1) is your choice, then your statement above is exposed as complete and utter rubbish.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Absolutely false - I cant believe how feeble and stupid your arguments are."

That's because you haven't even understood them. Look how moronic your understanding is.

When I say "initiation of force is wrong", the older teenager who has "initiated force" against my child is already guilty of initiating force. When I use force to defend my child, the nature of the force is retaliatory. In any case and especially because the force was initiated not against me but against my child, I would still be required to establish (ex post if and when the matter comes up in a court of law) that my action was indeed retaliatory, i.e., in defence against an initiator of force. The facts of the case, i.e., who initiated force first and the appropriateness of my retaliatory force will be the main criterion for passing judgement. If in defending my child, I kill the older teenager, I would need to demonstrate that even that was justified, failing which I will have to be convicted for involuntary manslaughter not amounting to murder.

In contrast, let is take the case by which you are justifying the initiation of force against me to coerce me to pay for someone else's healthcare. When I refuse to pay, I have not initiated force. When you use force against me to coerce me to pay, you are guilty of initiating force against me. That puts you in the position of the older teenager who was beating up my child. Like in the earlier case, I would be perfectly justified in beating you up.

This is the world of difference that you are (in true moron-style) refusing to understand.

In any case, you are yet to present the explanation of how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Just adding. In a libertarian system, I am quite confident that judges evaluating my action of using force to defend my child was indeed retaliatory, all the more so because as a father, the child's safety and well-being is my responsibility. Even if it had been someone else's child, I am quite sure of the verdict in a libertarian system.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Pardon my grammatical errors.

" am quite confident that judges evaluating my action of using force to defend my child would indeed find the force retaliatory"

Lord Keynes said...

When I say "initiation of force is wrong", the older teenager who has "initiated force" against my child is already guilty of initiating force etc etc

So now you suddenly change your argument to "initiation of force is wrong"????

Your statement:

There is a world of difference between coercing a human being to save HIS life and coercing a human being to save ANOTHER human being's life. In the latter, the sufferer and the beneficiary are different. This very point makes any comparison and evaluation impossible

You say nothing about this new "initiation of force is wrong" argument here or in your earlier comments, and you have clearly exposed your original statement above as rubbish.

In contrast, let is take the case by which you are justifying the initiation of force against me to coerce me to pay for someone else's healthcare. When I refuse to pay, I have not initiated force. When you use force against me to coerce me to pay, you are guilty of initiating force against me.

The initiation of force involved is perfectly justified, just as it would in these example that totally destroys you:

(1) If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, you believe that the dying people may not under any circumstances use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive?

If yes, you have demonstrated the absolute moral bankruptcy of your principle. You're saying property "rights" are more important than the preservation of human life.

If no, then it is obvious that rule utilitarianism allows the
use of reasonable force to take some amount of property, if people's lives are at stake.

Keep saying that property is more important than human life - your morally debased libertarian ethics is displayed clearly for all to see.

Bala said...

You bandit,

"You're saying property "rights" are more important than the preservation of human life."

And I say that you are presenting a false dichotomy between absolute property rights and the preservation of human life.

"Keep saying that property is more important than human life - your morally debased libertarian ethics is displayed clearly for all to see."

What is clearer is your bandit ethics. Let readers be the judge of which is depraved - the ethics of private property or the ethics of the bandit.

"If no, then it is obvious that rule utilitarianism allows the
use of reasonable force to take some amount of property, if people's lives are at stake."

Please explain how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action. I am losing count of the number of times I have asked this question. You seem intent only on avoiding this answer.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

How about addressing this new "initiation of force" argument instead of pretending to show how confused I am?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Don't tell me you didn't realise that the "non-initiation of force" or the "non-aggression" principle is at the root of the libertarian ethical system!!!

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, you believe that the dying people may not under any circumstances use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive?"

Practically speaking, they may. But then they will remain liable to be treated as robbers, judged as such in a court of law and handed a just and suitable punishment as per the libertarian legal framework.

That you robbed someone to save your life does not make you any less of a robber. Go away, shameless bandit, go away!

Lord Keynes said...

Another point:

And for any libertarian who is Jewish/Christian, you might note that even in Hebrew/Christian ethics, human life takes precedence over property rights:

C. W. Christian, Covenant and Commandment: A Study of the Ten Commandments p. 155-6

Just because the 8th commandment says you can’t steal, that does not mean that absolute property rights are more important than human life.

But of course such arguments from the Bible are utterly irrelevant, if you believe that religion is false.

Bala said...

Hey Bandit,

"But of course such arguments from the Bible are utterly irrelevant, if you believe that religion is false."

And I do, atheist that I am. In any case, it was a most moronic and irrelevant point in this discussion.

That your purpose is "saving a life" does not justify robbing someone else to do so. You may get the 'prize" for saving the life but you also get the punishment for engaging in robbery.

Lord Keynes said...

Please explain how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action. I am losing count of the number of times I have asked this question. You seem intent only on avoiding this answer.

Because natural rights/natural law is utterly untenable.

Consult Mises on ethics, idiot:

There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at (Mises, L. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. p. 716).

Lord Keynes said...

In any case, it was a most moronic and irrelevant point in this discussion.

Hardly, a good many US libertarians are sincere Christians - even fundamentalist Christians.

That point was for them.

Lord Keynes said...

Practically speaking, they may. But then they will remain liable to be treated as robbers, judged as such in a court of law and handed a just and suitable punishment as per the libertarian legal framework.

So you say their action in immoral?
That absolutist property rights take precedence over human life? Is this correct?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

This is why I, Objectivist that I am, love Mises. See how well the very segment you have identified taken with one more important point Mises made completely demolishes your argument.

"There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at"

And all ends are the ends of the acting individuals, you moron. This automatically eliminates all possibilities of rule utilitarianism gaining any credence. It is the utility to the individual that is relevant for ethics, not any larger (fictitious) notion like social utility.

Bala said...

Hey Bandit,

"That absolutist property rights take precedence over human life? Is this correct?"

No you moron. Even if it is to preserve human life, initiating force against an individual who has not initiated force is always a crime. It is the NIF principle that forms the basis of the concept "absolute property rights". Now let me see you explain why the NIF principle is stupid.

Lord Keynes said...

And all ends are the ends of the acting individuals, you moron. This automatically eliminates all possibilities of rule utilitarianism gaining any credence.

You are aware that Mises WAS a rule utilitarian in his ethics??

So you REJECT Mises's ethics?

Is that right?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"You are aware that Mises WAS a rule utilitarian in his ethics??

So you REJECT Mises's ethics?"

I said I am an Objectivist. Failed to read (as usual)?

How does it matter what Mises was if the very point that all ends are the ends of individuals and that that in itself makes rule utilitarianism inoperable?

Why do I have to agree with Mises on everything? In the same breath, why should I agree with anyone at all on everything?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Grammatical goof-ups again...

"How does it matter what Mises was if the very point that all ends are the ends of individuals in itself makes rule utilitarianism inoperable?"

Lord Keynes said...

I said I am an Objectivist.

To be clear:

You follow Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics?

Anonymous said...

Hey bandit,

"You follow Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics?"

I do. However, that's largely irrelevant to this discussion. The key issue is how rule utilitarianism can be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action. In the process, you could also explain why the NIF principle is stupid.

Bala

Lord Keynes said...

"You follow Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics?"

I do.


Excellent, excellent!
Then you are exposed as dependent on natural rights theory, just like her.

For a good starting place on why natural righst are a fiction, see:

Lord Keynes said...

Correction:

You follow Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics?"

I do.


Excellent, excellent!
Then you are exposed as dependent on natural rights theory, just like her.

For a good starting place on why natural rights are a fiction, see:

L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights (Loompanics Unlimited, 1983).

http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/10/24/la-rollins-case-against-natural-rights/

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Excellent, excellent! Then you are exposed as dependent on natural rights theory, just like her. For a good starting place on why natural righst are a fiction, see...."

Do you read? Looks like you don't because right after the sentence you cited, I mentioned this as well

"However, that's largely irrelevant to this discussion."

So why are you trying to rake it up? I can only infer that it is solely to avoid answering the next 2 sentences which were

"The key issue is how rule utilitarianism can be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action. In the process, you could also explain why the NIF principle is stupid."

Lord Keynes said...

/i>

Rubbish.
It is extremely relevant.
You have totally failed to offer ANY convincing moral argument for absolute private property - until you do none of your arguments above will work.
Randian objectivism wont save you

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"It is extremely relevant."

I don't see how. The issue is just this - how can rule utilitarianism can be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action? A supplementary question is this - Why does the NIF principle not make sense?

Right now, the onus is on YOU to explain these two things. Failing that, this discussion cannot proceed any further.

As I have told you before, a moral argument for private property was never relevant to my economic argument which was based on the impossibility of a sustainable economy in the absence of recognition of "property rights". I even gave you a link to Mises' note "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth".

You are the one insisting that you have a moral case against my position. So, I asked and am still asking you to explain your moral case based on rule utilitarianism. Please do so ASAP so that this discussion could move ahead.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Randian objectivism wont save you"

Hold on!! I never made any argument based on Randian Objectivism. At least, not yet. Warming up before a discussion, are you?

ROFLMFAO

Mike Cheel said...

I just want to point out that the problem is not affordable health insurance. The problem is that health insurance is not treated like most insurance (i.e. measures risk) and the problem is that health care itself is far too expensive.

Anonymous said...

@the bandit: LK, you may want to avoid trying to lock someone down with a label. (Youre an Austrian, do you must agree with mises. You're an objectivist? Then that means you believe...) Anyone who's taken a logic course or has a modicum of debating experience can see what you're doing; attempting to set up a straw-man and ad-hominem fallacy. It's understandable, of course. Alot of people will resort to this method when they're losing, and you doubtlessly have invested a great deal into your cult. However, that doesn't make it any less wrong. It actually just makes you look rather desperate and silly.

Petar said...

What is truly desperate is the pathetic attempt of Lord Keynes to argue against absolute property rights while simultaneously trying to enforce absolute right to life and also to EVERYTHING that is necessary to sustain it.
Which is idiotic because both positions are essentially based on the same premises, just that one makes a lot more sense than the other (and, of course, the more sensible position is not the one Lord Keynes is advocating).

Given the fact that LK continues with the sheer idiocy that is advocating this position on this blog, I can again state the obvious:
"Lord Keynes, I have a suggestion for you - get a life. It is obvious that outside of the virtual world, you have none."

Lord Keynes said...

"It is extremely relevant."

I don't see how.


LOL! Here are the principles of your natural rights based approach to ethics:

(1) Right to life (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life).

(2) Right to liberty (the right to be free from involuntary coercion).

(3) Right to not have property rights (when property is acquired legitimately) violated.

Presumably, principle (2) would include your idea that “initiating force against an individual who has not initiated force is always a crime.”

You could then deduce further inferences from (1) to (3), like (4) “stealing property is immoral.”

Like many libertarians you are living in a fantasy world by thinking these principles cannot conflict. By holding MORE than one moral principle, ALL moral theories can suffer instances where principles conflict, and the only resolution to this conflict is that one principle must be given priority over another.

E.g.,

(1)< Your wife/child/relative/complete stranger is having a heart attack or medical emergency that threatens their life. You have no phone or person to help call a medic. You have the opportunity of stealing a car to save that person's life by driving them to doctor quickly to get medical help. Principle (3) above must yield to principle (1) to save life.

Thus your natural rights ethics that holds that (3) can never, ever be violated is shown for the rubbish it is.

Meanwhile, rule utilitarianism could start from similar principles, and provides the justification for a particular set of property rights in so far as the right to legitimately acquired property does not conflict with other moral principles:

(1) Human life should be preserved (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life).

(2) Right to liberty (free from involuntary coercion, in so far as it does not conflict with other principles).

(3) Property right (when acquired legitimately) should be respected.

And furthermore:

(4) Stealing property should be avoided

(5) Lying should be avoided

Rule utilitarianism is not subject to the flawed inability to resolve moral conflicts that destroys your position.

For example. there are instances where telling the truth can have very harmful effects that violate the principle that human life should be preserved:

(1) If a medical patient has a very weak heart and the shock of hearing some information (her spouse/child/cat has died) would very probably kill her, a doctor who tells this information in the knowledge that she will die is immoral. Principle (5) above must yield to principle (1) until she is well

(2) A Mafia hit-man directly asks you the location of his intended victim. Telling the truth will lead to murder. Telling a lie will save the person's life. Principle (5) above must yield to principle (1).

Property rights (3) can also come into conflict with principle (1):

(1) If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, the dying people may use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive.

Property rights (3) must yield to principle (1).

Your claims above that (3) can never be violated show you as morally debased.

Lord Keynes said...

And if these are your natural rights principles:

(1) Right to life (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life).

(2) Right to liberty (the right to be free from involuntary coercion).

(3) Right to not have property rights (when property is acquired legitimately) violated.

How do you justify them?
Through some natural law fable?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

This is the most garbled nonsense I have ever seen. You seem to be focusing on attacking the concept of natural rights rather than explaining how rule utilitarianism can be used evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action. You have also not addressed the question of why the NIF principle is stupid.

In particular, your example

"Your wife/child/relative/complete stranger is having a heart attack or medical emergency that threatens their life. You have no phone or person to help call a medic. You have the opportunity of stealing a car to save that person's life by driving them to doctor quickly to get medical help. Principle (3) above must yield to principle (1) to save life."

is as hare-brained as hare-brained could be.

You moron!!! I CAN steal the car and save my wife's/child's life. That does not mean that the owner of the car cannot or should not prosecute me for stealing the car. In case I return the car to the owner after the attempt to save my wife/child, it is entirely up to the owner of the car whether or not to prosecute me for theft or trespass. Natural rights principles say nothing about whether the car can be stolen or not.

That apart, you seem very keen on diverting the discussion to the inherent stupidity of the concept "natural rights". I have no intention of falling for those cheap diversionary tactics. Try that with some fool who operates at your intellectual level, not with me. I am not going to take anything other than the answers to the questions I have posed.

What a freaking retard!

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Just adding to my answer to your idiotic situation, I will explain my reasons and position to the owner of the car. In case he decides to prosecute me, I would accept as just punishment for my crime of theft.

Lord Keynes said...

You have also not addressed the question of why the NIF principle is stupid

Because (if you read what I just said, idiot), it is NOT stupid, it is acceptable, in so far as it does NOT CONFLICT with other principles.

Rule utilitarianism can also defend non-initiation of force, if that force used is UNJUSTIFIED.

Your straw man argument is laughable.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Your straw man argument is laughable."

I never presented an argument, you moron. Neither did you. You are yet to explain how utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action.

"Because (if you read what I just said, idiot), it is NOT stupid, it is acceptable, in so far as it does NOT CONFLICT with other principles."

Oh!! So the NIF principle is not stupid, is it? That's interesting. But you are yet to show that it could conflict with other "principles".

Hey retard!! How about giving some genuine arguments.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

I meant

"You are yet to explain how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action."

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

You call this

"Human life should be preserved (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life)"

a "principle"???? ROFLMFAO. Boy! Are you priceless!! And morality is a random grab bag of notions arbitrarily plucked out of thin air, isn't it? Go drown, you retard!

Lord Keynes said...

I CAN steal the car and save my wife's/child's life. That does not mean that the owner of the car cannot or should not prosecute me for stealing the car.

We are talking about ethics, not about laws, you idiot.

Since law is a human construct, people can be prosecuted unjustly for doing *MORAL* things.

The fact that you *might* be prosecuted for stealing the car does not change the fact your action at the time was MORAL and JUST.

Your response completely collapses.

The action of stealing a car at the time remains just and moral, and private property rights do not come before human life.

You say:

I will explain my reasons and position to the owner of the car. In case he decides to prosecute me, I would accept as just punishment for my crime of theft.

So you WOULD in fact steal the car to save life? It is the moral thing to do for you?

If you *really* beloved that stealing the car in such circumstances was immoral, you won't do it, idiot!!

You have totally destroyed yourself again.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"We are talking about ethics, not about laws, you idiot."

Before we talk of ethics, we talk of reality, you retard. The reality is that "I can". Ethics comes next - Should I or shouldn't I?

"Since law is a human construct, people can be prosecuted unjustly for doing *MORAL* things."

You dolt! In this one statement, you have shown that you understand neither morality now law. I would have done a moral thing (saving the life of a loved one) and an immoral thing (stealing a car) simultaneously. I get the happiness for acting morally and the punishment for acting immorally as well.

And you positively reek of positive law!!

"The action of stealing a car at the time remains just and moral, and private property rights do not come before human life."

No you nincompoop!! The action of stealing the car is immoral, but I still do it because I am prepared to face the punishment for this immoral act rather than the punishment for failing to do the morally sound thing - saving the life of a dear one. If the owner of the car is kind and merciful good for me. Otherwise, the punishment is fine with me.

"So you WOULD in fact steal the car to save life? It is the moral thing to do for you?"

No, you ignoramus. I would tell him "I did a wrong thing by stealing you car. However, this is why I did it. Prosecute me if you wish. I shall not hold it against you for doing so."

This does, not by any stretch of imagination, imply that I consider the action moral.

"If you *really* beloved that stealing the car in such circumstances was immoral, you won't do it, idiot!!"

Life is about choices, you freaking fool! I choose a higher value over a lower value.

Thanks for continuing to make a royal jackass of yourself.

Bala said...

You bandit,

You are still not addressing the key question of how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral soundness of a course of action.

Lord Keynes said...

I would have done a moral thing (saving the life of a loved one) and an immoral thing (stealing a car) simultaneously

This the best statement you have ever made!!
You have violated the basic laws of logic!!

You assert both that:

(1) Stealing the car in the situation described above is moral.

as true AND false.

You cannot assert something as true and false at the same time.

Idiot!
Either it is true or false.
Morality is not subjective, it is objective.

Lord Keynes said...

I choose a higher value over a lower value.

Oh my god!
You have just conceded my argument that human life comes before property rights when human life is at stake.

You lose - completely.

Better luck next time.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"You assert both that stealing the car in the situation described above is moral as true AND false."

You moron! I did not. I said the act of stealing the car is immoral and punishable while the act of saving the life of a dear one is moral. It is indeed hilarious to see you conflating the two into "stealing the car in the situation".

So, you idiot, it is NOT true and false at the same time. You don't even know what you are talking of.

"Oh my god! You have just conceded my argument that human life comes before property rights when human life is at stake."

You nincompoop! I did not say that. Look how idiotic you are when you see an action aimed at saving a particular human life and draw a generalisation to any human life. You think I would steal a car to save your life? You bet I wouldn't.

Everyone loses to you in your fantasies. Not in the real world.

You are yet to present how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral worth of a course of action. You are also yet to present how the NIF principle can ever conflict with other principles.

What a freaking retard!!

Lord Keynes said...

I said the act of stealing the car is immoral and punishable while the act of saving the life of a dear one is moral,

Wrong - you CANT separate the two in this situation.

The "act of stealing a car" without justification as an abstract idea is immoral, but in this instance in the actual act when you do it in this situation it is NOT immoral to do so to SAVE human life.

If you believe that the act of stealing a car is ALWAYS wrong then you would not do it here in this situation.

You fail again.

Lord Keynes said...

Your statement:

Life is about choices ... I choose a higher value over a lower value.

You have chosen to save life over the absolute right of property.

Why????

Because the end (saving a life) is valued as higher than the absolute right of property.

This is utilitarianism, you complete fool!

You have conceded my point.

Lord Keynes said...

You are yet to present how rule utilitarianism can at all be used to evaluate the moral worth of a course of action

That was explained to you ages ago. In fact, it was explained in the quote of Mises:

The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at (Mises, L. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. p. 716).

Principles (1) to (3) above are the means to attain the end of allowing human society to function in the best way with social cooperation.

Anonymous said...

Hey bandit,

"You have chosen to save life over the absolute right of property. Why????"

Once again, I have not chosen to save iife but "a particular life". Further, I have not negated the absolute nature of property rights but merely violated a person's absolute right to his property. In doing so, I acknowledge that I am in the wrong and am prepared for the penalties that such an act entails. I know that I have been a thief and do not expect protection against the punishment. My act of stealing the car is still, in my own eyes, immoral.

In contrast, here you are claiming that your initiation of force against me is not robbery.

"Because the end (saving a life) is valued as higher than the absolute right of property"

Once again, it is "a particular life". Further, that I stole to save a life does not make me any less of a thief. So, the moral evaluation of the act of stealing the car has no connection with the moral worth of saving a human life. To repeat what I said, I wouldn't move a muscle, leave alone steal a car, to save you. Thus, rule utilitarianism has played no role in this process of moral evaluation.

And finally, your precious principle 1 is not even a principle, you prize moron. A principle, to be a principle, should be amenable to be acted upon. What you have said is principle 1, therefore, is just muddled nonsense coming from a jelly-brain.

Bala

Lord Keynes said...

Once again, I have not chosen to save iife but "a particular life". Further, I have not negated the absolute nature of property rights but merely violated a person's absolute right to his property .... My act of stealing the car is still, in my own eyes, immoral.

If it was immoral, then you should not have done it.

The only justification you have your action is utilitarian.

Lord Keynes said...

Your statement:

Life is about choices ... I choose a higher value over a lower value.

The reference to "value" is, anyway, dishonest.
You are talking about moral principles here.

You have chosen a higher moral principle (preserving life) over a lower principle (private property rights).

Thus your claim above that moral
principles never conflict is now exposed as rubbish too.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

You are truly as stupid as stupid gets.

"If it was immoral, then you should not have done it."

I do it though I know that it is immoral. That is precisely why I do not claim immunity under the guise of "saving a life". I leave that option to the owner of the car. If he looks upon my intentions with kindness, I should consider myself lucky.

"The only justification you have your action is utilitarian."

Even if it were, that still leaves you, the person who is ready to initiate force against me to extract tax from me, in the moral position of the bandit. That you stole to save a life does not make you any less of a thief or your act of stealing any less immoral.

In any case, I have raised a fresh objection to your position. It is that your principle 1 is total balderdash. I said it is not a principle. So, while you may make claims that my position is utilitarian, your utilitarian argument is right now looking like unadulterated cr@p. To claim that preservation of human life should the first principle of a moral framework reflects an extremely high level of stupidity. You are revealing yourself as a collectivist pig who does not mind slaughtering others if it satisfies his positions on morality.

p.s. The issue under discussion is YOUR position, not mine.

Lord Keynes said...

I do it though I know that it is immoral.

Wrong.
The only moral justification you have for such an action is that it is the RIGHT thing to do under the circumstances, idiot.
And you already conceded that you "choose a higher value over a lower value."
Principles have come into conflict and you choose to preserve life.

In any case, I have raised a fresh objection to your position. It is that your principle 1 is total balderdash.

Rubbish.
My principle:

(1) Right to life (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life).

This means that people should be free from threats to their life and presupposes that the preservation of human life is a fundamental means to the higher end of allowing human society to function in the best way possible with social cooperation.

To claim that preservation of human life should the first principle of a moral framework reflects an extremely high level of stupidity.

This is even better than your earlier statement!!!!

If you don't believe "preservation of human life should the first principle of a moral framework" then it is you who are now exposed as a complete moral fraud.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"The reference to "value" is, anyway, dishonest."

Only to jelly brains like you. No action is possible without a concept of "value". This is true of actions based on moral choices as well.

"You are talking about moral principles here."

And moral principles are just a grab bag of notions arbitrarily plucked out of thin air, aren't they?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"If you don't believe "preservation of human life should the first principle of a moral framework" then it is you who are now exposed as a complete moral fraud."

Here it comes... Which human life?

Define "right to life".

Moron!!

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"This means that people should be free from threats to their life and presupposes that the preservation of human life is a fundamental means to the higher end of allowing human society to function in the best way possible with social cooperation."

Once again, preservation of which human life? This is where your principle ceases to be a principle. Unless you make it clear as to which human life is to be preserved, action is impossible, you moron.

Lord Keynes said...

And moral principles are just a grab bag of notions arbitrarily plucked out of thin air, aren't they?

Excellent!! You destroying yourself with each new comment.

Do you assent to these ideas or not???:

(1) Right to life (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life) = people should be free from threats to their life and presupposes that the preservation of human life is a fundamental means to the higher end of allowing human society

(2) Right to liberty (the right to be free from involuntary coercion).

(3) Right to not have property rights (when property is acquired legitimately) violated.

If not, say so.
If you do, then admit it.
If you want to reformulate them into a from you accept do so.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Right to life (unless a person of sound mind voluntarily chooses to end their life) = people should be free from threats to their life and presupposes that the preservation of human life is a fundamental means to the higher end of allowing human society"

I don't because this is a flawed interpretation of the Right to Life. It is an interpretation not amenable to human action.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

I mean "I don't agree/assent...."

In any case, the phrase "preservation of human life" has no place in a definition of Right to Life because it is extremely ambiguous and inoperable.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"people should be free from threats to their life"

This is illegitimate as well.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

In short, your entire concept of rights is absolutely laughable.

Lord Keynes said...

I don't because this is a flawed interpretation of the Right to Life. It is an interpretation not amenable to human action.

Then explain YOUR version of this moral principle.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"the higher end of allowing human society"

Illegitimate as well. Allowing human society is not a legitimate "higher end". No end is "higher" to me than my life and my happiness. I am a selfish pig, you see.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Then explain YOUR version of this moral principle."

I am still not falling for your cheap tricks. The onus is still on YOU. You explain why your version is legitimate and operable. Let us understand all the implications of your version first before we look at mine (that's not a guarantee that we will).

Lord Keynes said...

I am still not falling for your cheap tricks. The onus is still on YOU.

Rubbish.
You continuously shift your views and statements in a dishonest and slippy way. Your statements are shown to wrong time and again.

Your statement:

To claim that preservation of human life should the first principle of a moral framework reflects an extremely high level of stupidity.

If you now refuse to state what the principles of your moral framework are, you are confirming that you have totally lost the argument, just as your statement above confirm.

And you still don't answer the question: do you accept these or not???:

(2) Right to liberty (the right to be free from involuntary coercion).

(3) Right to not have property rights (when property is acquired legitimately) violated.

bravo said...

Too long. Did not read.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Your statements are shown to wrong time and again."

In your dreams?

Lord Keynes said...

Too long. Did not read

Excellent.
You've lost - yet again.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

It is impossible to even define Right to Liberty and Right to Property without a proper definition of the Right to Life. Given that your definition is as stupid as it is, I cannot assent to these while discussing with you.

So, first explain why your principle 1 is legitimate.

In any case, if your principle 1 is out of the window, you have no logic by which principle 3 can be violated. Bringing principle 2 to negate principle 3 means that principle 3 is always invalid. That means a self-contradictory system.

Lord Keynes said...

It is impossible to even define Right to Liberty and Right to Property without a proper definition of the Right to Life.

Then give one, idiot.

E.g., do children under the authority of their parents have a "right to life"??

If I am a parent and refuse to give my child food (even though I have food), have I violated that child's right to life in your view??

The right to life does not just involve freedom from killing.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Then give one, idiot."

That, my dear moron, was to say why I cannot agree with your "principles". The onus is still on you to explain how, given that your principle 1 is firmly in the trash can, rule utilitarianism can help evaluate the moral soundness of an action and how it justifies your position that taxation is not robbery.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"do children under the authority of their parents have a "right to life"??"

More fundamental is the question "Does a child have rights?" and consequently "What are a child's rights?". It does not flow from your arbitrarily chosen principles.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"The right to life does not just involve freedom from killing."

So what DOES it involve? What is a "right" in the first place?

Lord Keynes said...

More fundamental is the question "Does a child have rights?" etc.

This is getting better and better: you are now just reduced to moronic evasions.

I'll make it specific for you:

A child still under the legal protection of its parents and that can talk.

Does that child in your libertarian ethics have any right to life and the parent a moral duty to feed that child to keep it alive??

Yes or no??

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Does that child in your libertarian ethics have any right to life and the parent a moral duty to feed that child to keep it alive??"

In my framework, the child's only "right" is the "right to protection from harm". "Rights" are applicable only to rational animals with a volitional consciousness. A child, lacking a fully developed rational faculty, cannot really be said to have a "right to life". However, being a human child, one does concede a "right to protection from harm".

A parent refusing to feed a child would be deemed to have harmed the child. However, this would be applicable ONLY to children.

Now, could I have your definition of "rights" please?

Lord Keynes said...

"Rights" are applicable only to rational animals with a volitional consciousness

Laughably wrong, you idiot.
"Rights" are applicable ONLY to moral agents, conscious, volitional beings capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and capable of understanding their moral rights and obligations.

Only human beings have rights. Animals do not. We, however, can be said to have duties to animals, if we want to be moral beings, in so far as animals are within our power (e.g., not being cruel to them, minimizing their suffering if we use them as food animals).

In my framework, the child's only "right" is the "right to protection from harm"

Then you have already conceded that in this case:

(1) If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, the dying people may use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive.

The people have the "right to protection from harm". You have lost again.

However, this would be applicable ONLY to children.

Complete **^$^* rubbish and you should know it, idiot.

It would also apply to

(1) adult hospital patients unable to feed themselves
(2) disabled adult people who cannot move under the care of other people, or
(3) elderly adult people no longer able to look after themselves under the care of their children or others.

The full extent of your moral bankruptcy is becoming clearer minute by minute.

Bala said...

(contd.)

Hey bandit,

The problem with your entire conception seems to be that you see "rights" as entitlements. I disagree. I see "rights" as moral concepts defining man's freedom of action in a social context. They are a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man, i.e., as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. I consider any additions to this illegitimate.

No one is entitled to anything, not even their life. Even the "Right to Life" means that you are free to act to sustain your life as directed by your rational mind. It does not mean that others have a moral obligation to provide for your life. Freedom to act requires the absence of initiation of force. Hence, the NIF principle. Action to survive essentially requires the acquisition of materials required for survival qua man. Hence the "right to property". This does not mean that others are obligated to provide a man with property. It only means that other may not initiate force against him to deprive him of his property.

These rights originate from no other source other than from man's nature as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. I challenge you to provide any other source of rights. I am sure it would be "society", collectivist that you are. You have already mentioned "social cooperation" as a higher end. So I wouldn't be surprised either.

Collectivist pig.

You are a moron incapable of understanding something as simple as this.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Only human beings have rights. Animals do not."

Agreed.

"We, however, can be said to have duties to animals,"

We do not.

"Then you have already conceded that in this case:"

I have conceded nothing. Your warped notion of rights that makes you see rights as an entitlement is at the root of all your insane ramblings. The other villagers are free to act to sustain their lives. If they violate the property rights of the well-owner, they deserve to be treated as criminals. The well owner is causing them no harm because he is not withdrawing water that he has an obligation to provide the others. So, even the "right to protection from harm" clause does not protect the criminal trespassers.

"Complete **^$^* rubbish and you should know it, idiot."

Complete cr@p and you just can't know it, you moron. You are too stupid for that.

"It would also apply to ..."

None of the 3 categories has anything other than a right to life. That means that they are free to act to sustain their life as per the directions of their rational mind. If they can't they need to seek charity. Their condition places no obligations on anyone else. You need to explain why anyone else at all has an obligation to them.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

People have no obligation other than to respect the rights of others. However, even that is not an obligation to others but a recognition of the fundamental fact that nature abhors contradictions. You cannot legitimately claim protection under a principle if you do not recognise it yourself. So, when you violate someone else's rights, you have no grounds to protest retaliatory action. That obligation too, therefore, is to oneself.

The root of your bandit morality is your view that rights are entitlements.

Mike Cheel said...

@Bala I think this article summarizes your point:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm

Lord Keynes said...

The well owner is causing them no harm because he is not withdrawing water that he has an obligation to provide the others.

Making the necessary changes:

The parent is causing the child no harm because he is not withdrawing food that he has an obligation to provide the child.

Is that what you believe??
And if you don't, then why do parents have an obligation to children to preserve their life??

They do so because of the principle of right to life.

A threat to the right to life includes deliberate deprivation of what keeps you alive.

People have no obligation other than to respect the rights of others.

And depriving someone of food/water DOES violate their right to life.

As for the idiotic article:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm

He says:

Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts

Then why the *!¶* would he feel obligated to feed her and raise her, unless the failure to do this violates her right to life?

No one owes me moral conduct

Since moral conduct presupposes respecting a person's rights, he completely contradicts himself.

Thanks for the article - a perfect example of libertarian rubbish.

Lord Keynes said...

Priceless:

No one is entitled to anything, not even their life .... It does not mean that others have a moral obligation to provide for your life. ....This does not mean that others are obligated to provide a man with property.

So now you are saying parents do NOT even have any obligation to look after children??
In your libertarian paradise, parents who allow their children to die or who abandon their children in the woods to fend for themselves do nothing immoral???

If so, you have done a great service: you have shown the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of your libertarianism.

No one who is moral need to listen to anything you say.

Petar said...

"If so, you have done a great service: you have shown the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of your libertarianism.

No one who is moral need to listen to anything you say."

Defined,of course, by your arbitrary common-sense (but totally logically inconsistent) moral standart.

To claim that you have a consistent moral doctrine that relies primarily on common-sense arguments is truly pathetic.
And so are you.

Just to clarify, parents have an imperfect duty to provide for their children because their rationally and deliberately brought them into the world knowing what they were doing. Just as they would have a duty to honour the contract they voluntarily make.

Nobody has any sort of obligation to provide anything to anyone whose being-in-the-world is not a direct consequence of their actions.

Of course, you couldn't adress the above argument - because your whole theory is utterly unsound, pathetic and embedded in violence.

I again urge you: Get a life.

Lord Keynes said...

Defined, of course, by your arbitrary common-sense (but totally logically inconsistent) moral standard etc.

Utterly wrong.
What is used above is a logically consistent, objective moral theory called rule utilitarianism, a theory that even Mises held.

Just to clarify, parents have an imperfect duty to provide for their children because their rationally and deliberately brought them into the world knowing what they were doing.

What the ^$%$& is an "imperfect" duty?

And if you now say that parents have an obligation to support their children because of the consequences of their actions (bringing them into the world), you are now just resorting to a utilitarian argument, you complete idiot.

Just as they would have a duty to honour the contract they voluntarily make.

The comparison is complete and utter rubbish.
There is no "contract" between parents and the foetus/young child, and no space for any such analogy.

A contract requires at a minimum 2 voluntary, consenting parties. A foetus or young child is not even a talking human being let alone one that can consent to a contract.

So instead you have to rely on utilitarian arguments to justify the moral obligation that parents have to children, as you have unwittingly done above in a way that totally destroys your argument and that leaves you looking like a fool.

Nobody has any sort of obligation to provide anything to anyone whose being-in-the-world is not a direct consequence of their actions.

Rubbish. Deliberately depriving people of the means that they need to survive, when those means are available in sufficient quantities, as in the case of the water example above, violates their right to life.

But for those with a morally based ethics, such immorality is just fine.

Petar said...

Lord Keynes,
You are truly and desperately pathetic.

"What is used above is a logically consistent, objective moral theory called rule utilitarianism, a theory that even Mises held."

And I am certainly not von Mises - neither do I support a significant part of his arguments. This part of your comment is totally irrelevant.

"What the ^$%$& is an "imperfect" duty?"

Somebody hasn't read Kant obviously. Doesn't surprise me - your ignorance has already been startling and is getting just more obvious.

"And if you now say that parents have an obligation to support their children because of the consequences of their actions (bringing them into the world), you are now just resorting to a utilitarian argument, you complete idiot."

No, I am not. I know it's hard for a fool like you to understand it, but this is pure contract theory based not on consequences but on voluntary choices.

"There is no "contract" between parents and the foetus/young child, and no space for any such analogy.

A contract requires at a minimum 2 voluntary, consenting parties. A foetus or young child is not even a talking human being let alone one that can consent to a contract."

The contract is between the parents and it is tacit. The analogy is completely correct.

"So instead you have to rely on utilitarian arguments to justify the moral obligation that parents have to children, as you have unwittingly done above in a way that totally destroys your argument and that leaves you looking like a fool."

Another straw man. I have never ever (in this argument and in any other argument I have made - ever) used utilitarian or consequentialist arguments.

"Rubbish. Deliberately depriving people of the means that they need to survive, when those means are available in sufficient quantities, as in the case of the water example above, violates their right to life."

What the fuck does "sufficient" mean? Haven't you at least learnt that all economic resources are scarce (and thus not sufficient) and the fact that that somebody is deprived of certain resource means that this recourse is an economic (and not an abundant) one because, in the other case, he would have enough of it readily available?

Congratulations, you have certainly showed that you lack an understanding of basic economics as well. Good job!

Again, I urge you : get a life.

And do not bother to respond me if you would set another straw man or define your argument on logically inconsistent premises.

Lord Keynes said...

this is pure contract theory based not on consequences but on voluntary choices.

There is no contract between parents and foetuses or young children.

And you are now reduced to this nonsense:

The contract is between the parents and it is tacit.

Wrong.
A tacit contract is one in which consent is given by non-verbal agreement (without spoken or written consent).
A foetus or young infant CANNOT even make choices, let alone give nonverbal consent.
This is the most stupid statement yet.

Lord Keynes said...

"Only human beings have rights. Animals do not."

Agreed.


Well done! You now admit your statement above was false.

"We, however, can be said to have duties to animals,"

We do not.


As usual, read what was said, idiot:

We, however, can be said to have duties to animals, if we want to be moral beings, in so far as animals are within our power (e.g., not being cruel to them, minimizing their suffering if we use them as food animals).

If you want to be a moral being, you would not inflict unjustified pain on another entity that can feel pain. Therefore no human being who regards himself as a moral being would inflict unjustified pain on animals. If you want to be a moral being, you would have obligations not to do so.

So another horror of your libertarian paradise is exposed: humans who do not care for morals would be free to torture animals and presumably you would believe that no one has any moral justification for intervening to STOP this torture, because no one can be subject to coercion without consent.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

That you are an ar$ehole who believes that rights are an entitlement has been confirmed completely by your most recent posts. That in turn exposes you as a collectivist pig trying, quite deliberately, to use the very philosophical basis of Liberty to kill Liberty and all that goes with it. You, therefore, have exposed yourself to the charge of being sub-human, i.e., a savage in human form. Anyway, here are some answers.

"Is that what you believe?? And if you don't, then why do parents have an obligation to children to preserve their life??"

Frankly, parents do not have an obligation to the children. Parents have an obligation to themselves. In one sense, children are the consequences of the choices of the parents themselves. The fact of reality is that the are dependent till a certain stage. But then the parents knew that before they acted. Since the fundamental law of human action in reality is that you are free to make your choices but not free to escape the consequences of your choices, even before having a child, a parent makes the choice of taking care of it. So, the obligation is not to the child but to the parent's own choices in the past. The parent decided to have a temporarily dependent child for certain reasons. Taking care of the child is just being faithful to those reasons. It is an obligation not to the child but to the parent himself/herself.

Frankly, there is an entirely different take I have on this issue. Simply put, to a parent, his child is the best and safest route to immortality - the state of living on and on. Man knows that he is mortal but he also knows that there are 2 aspects of living - the physical and the spiritual. I can die but I can live on in my daughter if I manage to pass my spirit on to her. By spirit, I mean the ideas that drive me and make me what I am. A child is the one person who is most likely to absorb her values and principles from the parents. That is what makes the child the ideal candidate.

I'll just refer you to a scene in the movie "The Lion King". Somewhere in the 2nd half of that movie, Rafiki the baboon locates Simba and is trying to get him to return to the Pride Lands. To rekindle the spirit of his father, he tells Simba "Your father is not dead. He lives in you" pointing to Simba's own reflection in the water. The point there was not the genetic "50% is your father" but the spirit of your father.

So, when we say that a parent has an obligation to take care of his child, the obligation is not to the child but to himself. My daughter is precious to me because she is my best shot at immortality.

Petar said...

"There is no contract between parents and foetuses or young children."
But there is contract theory between parents of fetuses.

"A tacit contract is one in which consent is given by non-verbal agreement (without spoken or written consent).
A foetus or young infant CANNOT even make choices, let alone give nonverbal consent."

Seriously, you are either the most stupid person in the world or you are deliberately pushing straw man arguments all over the place.

The non-verbal agreement I was referring you to was the one between the two consenting adults and not the one between the fetus and the parents.

Seriously, you are an accomplished sophist.

Petar said...

"Since the fundamental law of human action in reality is that you are free to make your choices but not free to escape the consequences of your choices, even before having a child, a parent makes the choice of taking care of it. So, the obligation is not to the child but to the parent's own choices in the past. The parent decided to have a temporarily dependent child for certain reasons. Taking care of the child is just being faithful to those reasons. It is an obligation not to the child but to the parent himself/herself."

Very good point. Obligation to care for one's child essentially stems from obligation to bear the consequences of one's choices.

Lord Keynes said...

Man knows that he is mortal but he also knows that there are 2 aspects of living - the physical and the spiritual etc etc

Spirits, the Loin king and Rafiki the baboon???

My daughter is precious to me because she is my best shot at immortality.

You realise this is a utilitarian argument???

(1) A act (looking after your daughter) is moral because
(2) the end you want ("she is my best shot at immortality") is judged to be better than other outcomes (having no "shot at immortality").

Your argument collapses into utilitarianism/consequentialism.

You should be congratulated.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"And depriving someone of food/water DOES violate their right to life."

Nonsense that can be thrown at you ONLY by a collectivist pig who believes that rights are an entitlement. No, you moron. The deprived person's right is not being violated because he is not "entitled" to get food or water. His right is intact because he is still free to act to seek the food or water.

What a freaking retard!!

And @Petar - Thanks. Feels nice to be appreciated. :)

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Your argument collapses into utilitarianism/consequentialism."

Label it what you want for all I care. The primary point I am making is that you are talking cr@p. Your entire argument is a truckload of sh1t. One man's rights place no obligations on another man.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"We, however, can be said to have duties to animals, if we want to be moral beings"

Read my arguments to know why this is cr@p as well. What is the meaning of being a "moral being"?

Lord Keynes said...

The non-verbal agreement I was referring you to was the one between the two consenting adults and not the one between the fetus and the parents.

So there is NO contract (tacit or otherwise) between the parents and the fetus or young infant?? Is that right?

If, then, the parents both freely decide to end their "tacit" contract (a contract could be dissolved if both parties consent), they can just dump the child in the woods??

You believe the child has no right to life at all??

Lord Keynes said...

Label it what you want for all I care etc etc.

You effectively concede you are reduced to utilitarianism.

You've lost - again.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"If, then, the parents both freely decide to end their "tacit" contract (a contract could be dissolved if both parties consent), they can just dump the child in the woods??"

Yes they can. You can't a sh1t about it. You can't prosecute them. If you care so much for the child, bring it up yourself. Set up a charity that would take care of abandoned children. Collect money from people like you who believe that such a charity is a worthy cause. Why!! I would surely donate to such a charity if it is well run (selfish pig though I am).

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"You effectively concede you are reduced to utilitarianism. You've lost - again."

Not if you realise that your argument for taxation is in shreds; that you have no moral basis to support a single-payer system with money coercively extracted from unwilling people.

That was the point of my first post on this thread, incidentally.

Lord Keynes said...

What is the meaning of being a "moral being"?

A self-evidence meaning, idiot:

A moral being is (1) a being capable of understanding the difference between right and worng, and (2) who ACTS in a way that avoids immoral acts.

And you still avoid the question:
in your libertarian paradise there is no reason why human sadists cannot spend their time tortuing animals, as no one has ANY moral justification for intervening to STOP this torture, because no human can be subject to coercion without consent.

Lord Keynes said...

Yes they can. You can't a sh1t about it. You can't prosecute them. If you care so much for the child, bring it up yourself.

To be clear: in your view, it is not immoral for parents to abandon their children in the woods, if both parents consent????

The moral collapse of your arguments is now complete!

Lord Keynes said...

Statement 1 (Petar):

Obligation to care for one's child essentially stems from obligation to bear the consequences of one's choices.

Statement 2 (bala):

"If, then, the parents both freely decide to end their "tacit" contract (a contract could be dissolved if both parties consent), they can just dump the child in the woods??"

Yes they can.


Which one is it you libertarian idiots??

If both parents *consent* to abaondon the child, then how do they NOT violate the obligations they had to bear the consequences of their choice in having the child??

Petar said...

"So there is NO contract (tacit or otherwise) between the parents and the fetus or young infant?? Is that right?

If, then, the parents both freely decide to end their "tacit" contract (a contract could be dissolved if both parties consent), they can just dump the child in the woods??

You believe the child has no right to life at all??"

There is no such contract indeed.

This, sadly (for your foolish theory), does not mean that the parents can simply dissolve the contract as it already involves necessary changes in the fundamental structure of reality that exceed the scope of the contract in the manner that they are simultaneously
a) structured such as that the termination of the tacit contract amount to direct AGRESSION against a human being (here, obviously, I am refering to the point in time in which fetuses "become" recognised as rational human beings - which is to be determined by neurobiological research alone)

b) involving direct consequences of a voluntary agreement that cannot be dissolved and that (although certainly not deliberate per se) are to be adressed by the consenting individuals themselves (just as, for example, an oil spill after a drill on private property should be adressed by the initiator of the drill if this spill pollutes private property of other individuals).

But I don't even know why I am expalining this to a person who obviously hasn't read Kant's moral philosophy and has no (or at least had no till couple of hours ago) understanding of the concepts of perfect and imperfect duty. The fact that you fit both descriptions means that in matters of moral philosophy, you are 100% incompetent and irrelevant.

Petar said...

"Which one is it you libertarian idiots??"

Aha, another straw man to compare claims made by different persons in different parts of an argument.

Pathetic...

Lord Keynes said...

What does this garbled rubbish mean:

This, sadly (for your foolish theory), does not mean that the parents can simply dissolve the contract as it already involves necessary changes in the fundamental structure of reality that exceed the scope of the contract in the manner that they are simultaneously ...

You are now saying that the parents CANNOT freely consent to dissovle their contract and abondon the child in the woods??

Yes or no??

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"A moral being is (1) a being capable of understanding the difference between right and worng, and (2) who ACTS in a way that avoids immoral acts."

This statement has no meaning until one defines "right' and "wrong" and how they are to be determined. Failing that, it is a circular definition.

"And you still avoid the question:"

False. I answered it.

"in your libertarian paradise there is no reason why human sadists cannot spend their time tortuing animals, as no one has ANY moral justification for intervening to STOP this torture, because no human can be subject to coercion without consent."

Any animal a owns is his property to do with as he deems fit. If you are extremely concerned about the treatment the owner is giving his property (the animal), buy it and give it the treatment YOU think it deserves. Donate to charities that pay to rescue such ill-treated animals.

"To be clear: in your view, it is not immoral for parents to abandon their children in the woods, if both parents consent????"

Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the parents themselves. It all depends on their ends and I have no clue what those are.

"The moral collapse of your arguments is now complete!"

This does not become true just because you state it a million times. In fact, it is the collectivist nature of your moral framework that I have managed to completely unmask. You now stand exposed as a collectivist, totalitarian scum who sees rights and entitlements and therefore has no qualms initiating force against peaceful human beings to expropriate their property and thus violate their legitimate rights to life, liberty and property. You, therefore are one of the most despicable beings in human form.

"If both parents *consent* to abaondon the child, then how do they NOT violate the obligations they had to bear the consequences of their choice in having the child??"

They are not bearing the consequences of their past choices. But then, the obligation of doing so was to themselves and not to the child. So, what is your crib, you retarded moron?

What a freaking nincompoop!

Lord Keynes said...

But I don't even know why I am expalining this to a person who obviously hasn't read Kant's moral philosophy..

Actually it's you who are exposed as ignorant of Kant's ethics.
The kind of libertarian nonsense you write above CANNOT be defended through Kant's ethical system. Moral duties for Kant come in four types:

(1) Perfect duties to oneself
(2) Imperfect duties to oneself
(3) Perfect duties to others
(4) Imperfect duties to others

Since Kant believed that perfect duties are more important than imperfect ones, when conflicts arise between the two, prefect duties take precedence.

So in Kant system if you saw a drowning child you would be morally bound to rescue that child, if there was no or little risk to your own life.

And, contary to your statement above, the duty to protect and provide for your children is a perfect duty.

Since a perfect duty is one people are obliged to fulfill, parents cannot just freely consent to abandon their children or not care for them.

Furthermore, Kantian ethics clearly leads to a justification for progressive taxes you idiot:

Paul Guyer, Kant, p. 203.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"Furthermore, Kantian ethics clearly leads to a justification for progressive taxes you idiot:"

You forget that Objectivists reject Kantian ethics completely. We reject the very notion of duty as an anti-concept.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

You are yet to address the point that I have torn to shreds, your argument for taxation. As things stands now, taxation is an act of robbery and no particular use of taxed money, however "noble" the use you put it to.

Lord Keynes said...

Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the parents themselves.

This requires that morality is subjective, fool.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Correction:

"As things stands now, taxation is an act of robbery, however "noble" the use you put the tax money to"

Lord Keynes said...

You forget that Objectivists reject Kantian ethics completely. We reject the very notion of duty as an anti-concept.

And by saying this:

Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the parents themselves.

You have just said that morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"This requires that morality is subjective, fool."

You moron. Do you even realise what morality is in the first place beyond saying it is about right and wrong? These are some basic questions without answering which it is downright stupid to talk of morality.

1. What is morality?
2. Why does man need morality?
3. Why should a man at all consider morality in evaluating the choices of action available to him? In other words, why should a man at all be worried about "right" and "wrong"?
4. What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
4. How does man know "right" from "wrong"?
5. What is the standard based on which a man may decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Once you address these questions, I will show you how evil your duty-based ethics is.

What a freaking retard!

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

Your argument for taxation is still in tatters. Your moral framework is in shambles because I have thrown out the very basis of it - your interpretation of the right to life. Try sorting all this out before you spout more "wisdom" that makes it clear that you are just a freaking gasbag f@rting your stinky stuff all over the place.

len said...

lord keynes,

my analysis based on reading your tyrannical comments is that you were most definitely a Stasi in a past life.
why don't you move to one of the socialist countries you mentioned? the US majority does not support single-payer, so stop claiming otherwise.

Lord Keynes said...

So now we proven that:

(1) in your libertarian paradise there is no reason why human sadists cannot spend their time tortuing animals, as no one has ANY moral justification for intervening to STOP this torture, because no human can be subject to coercion without consent.

(2) There is no reason why parents should not abandon their children if they want to and both agree.

(3) But you resort to a utilitarian argument to defend your own hypothetical conduct, completely contradicting yourself, and

(4) You imply that morality is subjective, despite your statement that you subscribe to objectivism.

Your whole position is incoherent or refuted - or just grossly immoral.

Lord Keynes said...

the US majority does not support single-payer, so stop claiming otherwise.

Laughably wrong:

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

Perhaps you should move?

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"You imply that morality is subjective, despite your statement that you subscribe to objectivism."

When you make a statement like this, the full range of your stupidity is most visible for all to see as you reveal complete ignorance about all that you speak of, whether morality or Objectivism.

That said, let me repeat what I said earlier. Your argument for taxation is still in tatters. Your moral framework is in shambles because I have thrown out the very basis of it - your interpretation of the right to life. Try sorting all this out before you spout more "wisdom" that makes it clear that you are just a freaking gasbag f@rting your stinky stuff all over the place.

What a freaking retard!

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

And to add to all that I said, I have also shown that you are nothing more than an economic historian who knows nothing of economics either but, in his own inimitable style, keeps f@rting off about economics at every opportunity thus making himself a nuisance to all people serious about improving their understanding of economics.

Once again, what a freaking retard!!

Lord Keynes said...

I have also shown that you are nothing more than etc etc

And remember that your arguments are, once again, in tatters - enjoy your loss!!

Bala said...

Hey moronic bandit,

"And remember that your arguments are, once again, in tatters - enjoy your loss!!"

Fool yourself for as long as you wish to for no one else is getting fooled. And you are yet to explain how correlation implies causation.

What a freaking retard!!

Lord Keynes said...

And you are yet to explain how correlation implies causation

A bizarre change of subject.
That was explained ages ago: Evidence of correlation does not prove causation.
Rather, inductive arguments for causation require additional empirical evidence of causal mechanisms.

Bala said...

Hey bandit,

"A bizarre change of subject."

Nothing bizarre and not even a change of subject if you realise that that was what made it obvious that you are an economic historian.

What a freaking retard!!

Bala said...

Hey moronic bandit,

"Rather, inductive arguments for causation require additional empirical evidence of causal mechanisms."

Physics envy cropping up once again. You forget that the subject of study in economics is "acting man", not a lump of rock that has no mind of its own.

So, your explanation is, as usual, cr@p.

Anonymous said...

@LK, bandit extraordinaire: Heh. Right. Because no poll has ever been wrong when predicting political opinions.

http://www.bogosity.tv/watch.php?id=v15836386ZYfpPMcW

You should watch the rest of it, too. It's a pretty good series, but this episode is particularly relevant to your interests.

And, once again, you've resorted to the 'love it or leave it' argument. Is there anything about you that doesn't provoke an urge to vomit in decent people? Survey says 'no'.

Petar said...

"And, contary to your statement above, the duty to protect and provide for your children is a perfect duty. "

No, it is not.

And, of course, you totally disregard the point made by various scholars that the only moral system compatible both with Kantian ethics and human rationality (which is the basis of Kant's moral philosophy when one clears the contradictions Kant himself makes in it) is the libertarian one.

Furthermore, do not claim to have knowledge on Kantian ethics based on shallow reading of Wikipedia after making this ridiculous comment: "What the ^$%$& is an "imperfect" duty?"

It is obvious that prior to this argument you had absolutely no knowledge on Kantian moral philosophy. But of course you claim to have one...
So better shut up since posting only makes you look more stupid and ignorant.

JB Hickock said...

Someone please correct me if I am wrong in what I'm about to suggest. I went to a government public school, you see, and so can't be sure of much of anything. Moreover, please forgive my sarcasm, if that's indeed what it is.

Utilitarianism seeks to find out what is useful, what works in actual practice within the framework of reality - correct?

Somebody please explain to me how it is even remotely useful, hence utilitarian, to prop up the most improbably fantastic hypothetical scenarios in order to justify "rule utilitarianism". Why pluck the most extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air in order to justify utilitarianism? Is the reality of society dominated by extremes, therefore justifying such an approach to utilitarianism? Or are the soi-disant "utilitarians" that resort to such arguments actually closeted extremists who are merely projecting? Or is the truth somewhere in between?

That was mainly directed at the chap who has taken upon himself the name of an infamous pederast that loved to go to Tunis because “bed and boy were also not expensive" there, and whose economic theories constitute an endless scourge upon most of mankind. So much for the moral high ground of Baron Keynes’ rule utilitarianism.

If there is a water monopolist in some remote area of the world, it's my opinion that he has tacitly initiated economic warfare on his neighbors, thus justifying them hunting him down and exterminating him. Such a hypothetical monopolist has effectively committed assisted suicide in my view and is guilty of violating the non-aggression principle. I hate monopolists. He would have effectively declared himself Water Governor, or Hydro-Czar of the area. That's just my opinion as an anarchist. Objectivists will probably differ. But I must also hasten to add that I don't care too much for endless hypotheticals based on improbable extremes.

JB Hickock said...

I want to reiterate that my above reply regarding the hypothetical water monopolist only applied to the land that exists inside my noble Lord Keynes' head.

The scenario assumes a lot, including, but not limited to:

The water monopolist lives in a vacuum - no external importers to meet demand; i.e., nothing resembling a free market, and in fact, no real market forces at all. Obviously the 100 villagers can't escape. They are trapped inside Lord Keynes' warped mind. Surely that is a fate far worse than dying of mere thirst! Let's call this unique land of my right noble Lord Keynes "Vacutopia" in honor of it only existing inside his own head.

Not only is Vacutopia imprisoned in the vacuum between Lord Keynes' ears, but it has only ONE water source and ONE guy has total control over it. Somehow this guy never sleeps so he can constantly guard his well from the 100 villagers. He effectively does so through some unknown force, call it Keynesium 29. 1 guy against 100 villagers trapped in Vacutopia, where it never rains and there's only one water source, one game in town, and one town for that matter. And what's his motive? Pure unbridled villainy, what else? He doesn't mind that perpetual solitude will pervade his every moment after he snuffs the village. Presumably he won't even mind the stench of rotting corpses. Now we're analyzing a rejected episode of the Twilight Zone and not proper philosophy, logic, morality, ethics, or economic theory. Let's keep that in mind while discussing my right noble Lord Keynes' Vacutopia.

Now, let's say the 100 villagers versus the sleepless water overlord armed with Keynesium 29have tried everything. They've begged, pleaded, offered bribes, first born, the most attractive women, and even formed a collective and laid all that they own - the entire village - at the head water honcho's feet, all to no avail. Let's say they even tried to build water stills and to slant drill their own water wells into the sole source of water in Vacutopia. They have failed at every turn and are going to die of dehydration if this situation keeps up much longer.

Clearly all that's left for them is to gang up on the water boss and take him down hard. Hopefully the 100 angry and determined villagers of Vacutopia can prevail against the mysterious force of Keynesium 29. Alas, we'll probably never know the outcome of this drama, as Vacutopia only exists on the back lot of Lord Keynes' febrile mind.

Lord Keynes said...

If there is a water monopolist in some remote area of the world, it's my opinion that he has tacitly initiated economic warfare on his neighbors, thus justifying them hunting him down and exterminating him.

In other words, the water monopolist is grossly immoral, and the villagers are justified in using force to take water to save their lives.

Unlike you, I do not believe any bodily harm should come to water monopolist.

All the villagers are justified in doing is restraining him if he tries to stop them from taking what they need to live.

JB Hickock said...

That is one way to look at it, Lord Keynes, but I'm surprised at you for taking such an extraordinarily unconventional view. Why would an eminently moral person like you wish to preserve the life of such an obvious useless parasite as the hypothetical water baron, who is bent on nothing but senseless and wanton mass murder via an economic warfare policy of deliberate dehydration?

To further reiterate my view of such a hypothetical situation, the villagers would be acting purely in self defense to rip such a blighter limb from rotten limb. You can call that force. I'd call it counter-force since the water baron started the row to begin with by initiating the economic warfare, and thus would have nobody to blame but himself for his just and meet demise.

What would you do with such a useless slug as your hypothetical water baron bent on needless and torturous mass murder? Put him in jail for life, where he would be housed, clothed, fed, watered, and generally cared for at tax-payers' (i.e., the victimized villagers) expense for the rest of his natural life? Or just let him get drubbed a little by the dehydrated villagers so he could live to devise some new villainous scheme by way of revenge?

This is all hypothetical, naturally. Yet I think that, hypothetically speaking, an argument could be made that a proper corollary of the Non-Aggression Principle is something one might call "The Orkin Man principle". Under The Orkin Man principle it may well be a theoretically morally justified thing to exterminate society's cockroaches, i.e., those that initiate force. That would be just a hypothetical way of reformulating revolutionary principles, such as those of the so-called “founding fathers“ of the American Revolution.

In any case, it would be no good in my view to say in defense of the water baron that he merely used a form of economic warfare and never laid a hand on anyone. All forms of warfare are more or less deadly. All forms of warfare have casualties. I thus see economic warfare and martial warfare as equivalents. The civilized rules that come bundled with proper just war theory lead me to view our dearly departed hypothetical water baron as nothing but a casualty on a battlefield of his own making.