tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post3535796427248760389..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them -- Before He Never Said ItWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50922576172157285162010-11-18T18:31:22.961-05:002010-11-18T18:31:22.961-05:00That is one way to look at it, Lord Keynes, but I&...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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.JB Hickocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84111197523180442642010-11-18T17:23:25.683-05:002010-11-18T17:23:25.683-05:00If there is a water monopolist in some remote area...<i>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. </i><br /><br />In other words, the water monopolist is grossly immoral, and the villagers are justified in using force to take water to save their lives.<br /><br />Unlike you, I do not believe any bodily harm should come to water monopolist.<br /><br />All the villagers are justified in doing is restraining him if he tries to stop them from taking what they need to live.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37609715649847515502010-11-18T11:59:13.815-05:002010-11-18T11:59:13.815-05:00I want to reiterate that my above reply regarding ...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. <br /><br />The scenario assumes a lot, including, but not limited to:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.JB Hickocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-46347124898335486362010-11-18T09:29:49.464-05:002010-11-18T09:29:49.464-05:00Someone please correct me if I am wrong in what I&...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. <br /><br />Utilitarianism seeks to find out what is useful, what works in actual practice within the framework of reality - correct? <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 Hickocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-34284077104290999612010-11-18T06:30:33.041-05:002010-11-18T06:30:33.041-05:00"And, contary to your statement above, the du..."And, contary to your statement above, the duty to protect and provide for your children is a perfect duty. "<br /><br />No, it is not.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?"<br /><br />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...<br />So better shut up since posting only makes you look more stupid and ignorant.Petarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-51257215653953081422010-11-18T03:39:19.603-05:002010-11-18T03:39:19.603-05:00@LK, bandit extraordinaire: Heh. Right. Because no...@LK, bandit extraordinaire: Heh. Right. Because no poll has ever been wrong when predicting political opinions. <br /><br />http://www.bogosity.tv/watch.php?id=v15836386ZYfpPMcW<br /><br />You should watch the rest of it, too. It's a pretty good series, but this episode is particularly relevant to your interests.<br /><br />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'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33736903512644969092010-11-18T01:33:04.324-05:002010-11-18T01:33:04.324-05:00And you are yet to explain how correlation implies...<i>And you are yet to explain how correlation implies causation</i><br /><br />A bizarre change of subject.<br />That was explained ages ago: Evidence of <i>correlation</i> does not prove causation. <br />Rather, inductive arguments for causation require additional empirical evidence of causal mechanisms.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9430037471990709282010-11-18T01:11:10.217-05:002010-11-18T01:11:10.217-05:00I have also shown that you are nothing more than e...<i>I have also shown that you are nothing more than etc etc</i><br /><br />And remember that your arguments are, once again, in tatters - enjoy your loss!!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47881910308017427372010-11-18T00:27:14.242-05:002010-11-18T00:27:14.242-05:00the US majority does not support single-payer, so ...<i>the US majority does not support single-payer, so stop claiming otherwise.</i><br /><br />Laughably wrong:<br /><br />http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html<br /><br />Perhaps you should move?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18196629717196726492010-11-18T00:19:27.507-05:002010-11-18T00:19:27.507-05:00So now we proven that:
(1) in your libertarian pa...So now we proven that:<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(2) There is no reason why parents should not abandon their children if they want to and both agree.<br /><br />(3) But you resort to a utilitarian argument to defend your own hypothetical conduct, completely contradicting yourself, and<br /><br />(4) You imply that morality is subjective, despite your statement that you subscribe to objectivism.<br /><br />Your whole position is incoherent or refuted - or just grossly immoral.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35267208606678722962010-11-18T00:18:18.391-05:002010-11-18T00:18:18.391-05:00lord keynes,
my analysis based on reading your ty...lord keynes,<br /><br />my analysis based on reading your tyrannical comments is that you were most definitely a Stasi in a past life. <br />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.lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-32092471159008152852010-11-17T23:35:47.289-05:002010-11-17T23:35:47.289-05:00Hey bandit,
Your argument for taxation is still i...Hey bandit,<br /><br />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.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45724706835176031192010-11-17T20:23:14.711-05:002010-11-17T20:23:14.711-05:00You forget that Objectivists reject Kantian ethics...<i>You forget that Objectivists reject Kantian ethics completely. We reject the very notion of duty as an anti-concept.</i><br /><br />And by saying this:<br /><br /><i>Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the parents themselves.</i><br /><br />You have just said that morality is SUBJECTIVE.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47019451070412149542010-11-17T20:21:32.438-05:002010-11-17T20:21:32.438-05:00Hey bandit,
Correction:
"As things stands n...Hey bandit,<br /><br />Correction:<br /><br />"As things stands now, taxation is an act of robbery, however "noble" the use you put the tax money to"Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33426378308954594482010-11-17T20:21:07.807-05:002010-11-17T20:21:07.807-05:00Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the par...<i>Immoral or not is not for me to decide but the parents themselves.</i><br /><br />This requires that morality is subjective, fool.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24526462067974754152010-11-17T20:19:40.332-05:002010-11-17T20:19:40.332-05:00Hey bandit,
You are yet to address the point that...Hey bandit,<br /><br />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.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-14792813579136076532010-11-17T20:04:35.881-05:002010-11-17T20:04:35.881-05:00Hey bandit,
"Furthermore, Kantian ethics cle...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"Furthermore, Kantian ethics clearly leads to a justification for progressive taxes you idiot:"<br /><br />You forget that Objectivists reject Kantian ethics completely. We reject the very notion of duty as an anti-concept.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6719722866268302322010-11-17T19:58:21.760-05:002010-11-17T19:58:21.760-05:00But I don't even know why I am expalining this...<i>But I don't even know why I am expalining this to a person who obviously hasn't read Kant's moral philosophy..</i><br /><br />Actually it's you who are exposed as ignorant of Kant's ethics.<br />The kind of libertarian nonsense you write above CANNOT be defended through Kant's ethical system. Moral duties for Kant come in four types:<br /><br />(1) Perfect duties to oneself<br />(2) Imperfect duties to oneself<br />(3) Perfect duties to others<br />(4) Imperfect duties to others<br /><br />Since Kant believed that perfect duties are more important than imperfect ones, when conflicts arise between the two, prefect duties take precedence.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And, contary to your statement above, the <i>duty to protect and provide for your children</i> is a perfect duty. <br /><br />Since a perfect duty is one people are <i>obliged</i> to fulfill, parents cannot just freely consent to abandon their children or not care for them.<br /><br />Furthermore, Kantian ethics clearly leads to a justification for progressive taxes you idiot:<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=pX4OOpYk6B0C&pg=PA203&dq=kant+children+%22perfect+duty%22&hl=en&ei=AHbkTOrCHozKcfL1rOUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kant%20children%20%22perfect%20duty%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">Paul Guyer, Kant, p. 203</a>.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-60602523662264976352010-11-17T19:57:54.991-05:002010-11-17T19:57:54.991-05:00Hey bandit,
"A moral being is (1) a being ca...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"And you still avoid the question:"<br /><br />False. I answered it.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"To be clear: in your view, it is not immoral for parents to abandon their children in the woods, if both parents consent????"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"The moral collapse of your arguments is now complete!"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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??"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />What a freaking nincompoop!Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74078668969770541802010-11-17T19:27:42.529-05:002010-11-17T19:27:42.529-05:00What does this garbled rubbish mean:
This, sadly ...What does this garbled rubbish mean:<br /><br /><i>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 ...</i><br /><br />You are now saying that the parents CANNOT freely consent to dissovle their contract and abondon the child in the woods??<br /><br />Yes or no??Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-80762740927204607882010-11-17T19:20:57.806-05:002010-11-17T19:20:57.806-05:00"So there is NO contract (tacit or otherwise)..."So there is NO contract (tacit or otherwise) between the parents and the fetus or young infant?? Is that right?<br /><br />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??<br /><br />You believe the child has no right to life at all??"<br /><br />There is no such contract indeed.<br /> <br />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<br />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)<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.Petarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-55849547820940952632010-11-17T19:18:01.724-05:002010-11-17T19:18:01.724-05:00Statement 1 (Petar):
Obligation to care for one&#...Statement 1 (Petar):<br /><br /><i>Obligation to care for one's child essentially stems from obligation to bear the consequences of one's choices.</i><br /><br />Statement 2 (bala):<br /><br /><i>"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??"<br /><br />Yes they can. </i><br /><br />Which one is it you libertarian idiots??<br /><br />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??Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18015036258055265452010-11-17T19:09:25.566-05:002010-11-17T19:09:25.566-05:00Yes they can. You can't a sh1t about it. You c...<i>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.</i><br /><br />To be clear: in your view, it is not immoral for parents to abandon their children in the woods, if both parents consent????<br /><br />The moral collapse of your arguments is now complete!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47117342666368680472010-11-17T19:05:39.029-05:002010-11-17T19:05:39.029-05:00What is the meaning of being a "moral being&q...<i>What is the meaning of being a "moral being"? </i><br /><br />A self-evidence meaning, idiot:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And you still avoid the question:<br />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 Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74712513421655972882010-11-17T19:04:05.937-05:002010-11-17T19:04:05.937-05:00Hey bandit,
"You effectively concede you are...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"You effectively concede you are reduced to utilitarianism. You've lost - again."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />That was the point of my first post on this thread, incidentally.Balanoreply@blogger.com