Socratic method for figuring out the logical fallacies of government.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

[FirstAscent]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

[NghtRppr]

Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

taxation
Noun: A compulsory contribution to state revenue.

robbery
Noun: A compulsory contribution to a robber's revenue.

[Hawker]

So you object to taxes to pay for roads.  That's fine.  Its very good to be clear what kind of society you want.

[memvola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

I don't think they are logical fallacies.

Deontological ethics works for the State, you just need to have more complex imperatives. They would sound comical in such a debate, and it's better to evade questions than to sound comical. As you see from people's comments, "bad tie" guy turned out to be the one who looks comical and it's enough for the masses.

[GideonGono]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

[GideonGono]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

So therefore tax is another name for robbery then.

Suppose some foreign power were ton invade and conquer whatever country you are in and involutarily confiscate part of your earnings. Would that be "tax" or robbery?

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

So therefore tax is another name for robbery then.

Suppose some foreign power were ton invade and conquer whatever country you are in and involutarily confiscate part of your earnings. Would that be "tax" or robbery?

If they are the government and acting within the, its tax.  Robbery is when someone illegally takes your stuff.

[FirstAscent]

Actually, the government does not take stuff from people involuntarily. At least as far as I can tell - there probably are a few very small situations when it does.

The government only takes money from individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to pay the tax. Examples:

- You only pay income tax when you have voluntarily decided that you want income above a certain threshold. I will admit that social security is an example of one of those things that you must pay regardless of how much you earn, but interestingly enough, it will actually pay you more than you pay in, if you don't voluntarily decide to earn more than a certain amount.

- Sales tax: if you voluntarily choose to consume excessively and have voluntarily chosen to live in state which charges sales tax, then you have voluntarily agreed to pay the sales tax. There are states which charge no sales tax.

- Property tax: you have voluntarily agreed to this by deciding to enter into an agreement where you purchase property. You can rent.

- Gasoline tax: if you're buying gas, then you're almost certainly driving a car, and that absolutely means you're using roads. Ride a bicycle or take a bus, and not only do you get free use of the roads, but you don't have to pay taxes to do so. Furthermore, no government has ever attempted to levy a sales tax on someone who chooses to buy a secondhand bike.

- Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

[Anonymous]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

Your argument falls apart when you state that there is a difference between an individual making a decision and a collective making one, for a collective cannot make a decision. A collective is not an organism nor a single mind; it can only consist of the decisions of individuals. Only an individual can feel and desire hence a 100% unilateral decision cannot be made voluntarily, unless the whims of one genuinely become whims of all. To suggest this as being the case would in fact be the advocation of slavery.

[Anonymous]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all of your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom. You merely have the illusion of choice from a poor selection of purportedly sovereign nations. If you try to start one that meets your desires, you will only be conquered by the oligopoly.  

If we want choice in our government or the lack-of-therof, we have to destroy the rigid cartel of central banks and any monopolies on protection which includes nuclear-and-arms treaties and coercive monetary systems.

[Hawker]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom.

So you believe that freedom is impossible unless you are totally isolated?  That seems a little extreme.

[Anonymous]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom.

So you believe that freedom is impossible unless you are totally isolated?  That seems a little extreme.

Government =/= Trade/Order/Civilization

See my edits in the post above for more detail.

However, true self-ownership cannot be achieved today without isolation. Indeed that is true.

[Hawker]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

[FredericBastiat]

Are we going to play a numbers game again? As if more people do it, the better it becomes.

Let's see here.

Individual theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a single individual. This is extra legal theft.

Gang theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a group of individuals. This is also extra legal theft.

State theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a bloc of voters supported by a legislative body and executive enforcement. This is not extra legal theft, as it is sanctioned by a majority or by the ruling class.

What's the distinction? Not much, except the numbers and some words on a piece of parchement that indicates your intentions.

I guess next time I want to steal from somebody all I have to do is write my "manifesto of plunder" on a piece of paper, serve it to my victim and I'm good to go. Yeahhh... that ought to make it so much better. Of course, it would probably sound that much more convincing if I have my neighbors to back me up, a few guns, and the title of politician.

[Anonymous]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

Central banks are not institutions of the people and free trade. They enslave nations and people with massive debts of tyrannical backing. They are only supported by the military forces of the strongest nations. Their money is forced upon the people because no other value will be accepted as tax. Again, they are not free institutions.

Nuclear weapons are merely protection against force. Allow any entity to possess them and only peace can be encouraged. The alternative is only mutually-assured destruction; suicide. Unremorsefully I see nukes as a great innovation of peace that has only been abused by the states and put in the hands of a select few. The remainders are only left with the choice to submit or perish.

People as a whole do not form governments. A group of people form a monopoly on force to meet their desires and force them upon whoever remains. However, that's another discussion for another thread. Maybe not.

[Hawker]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

Central banks are not institutions of the people and free trade. They enslave nations and people with massive debts of tyrannical backing. They are only supported by the military forces of the strongest nations. Their money is forced upon the people because no other value will be accepted as tax. Again, they are not free institutions.

Nuclear weapons are merely protection against force. Allow any entity to possess them and only peace can be encouraged. The alternative is only mutually-assured destruction; suicide. Unremorsefully I see nukes as a great innovation of peace that has only been abused by the states and put in the hands of a select few. The remainders are only left with the choice to submit or perish.

People as a whole do not form governments. A group of people form a monopoly on force to meet their desires and force them upon whoever remains. However, that's another discussion for another thread. Maybe not.

I'll skip your idea that suicide bombers should be allowed access to nukes.  You haven't thought it through.

People as a whole DO form governments.  There has never been a tribe without a chief.  Its in our nature and you'd have to use force to stop it.  You may disagree with the particular government you live under but you have to accept that wherever you go, there will be a government of some kind. 

[FirstAscent]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

Your argument falls apart when you state that there is a difference between an individual making a decision and a collective making one, for a collective cannot make a decision. A collective is not an organism nor a single mind; it can only consist of the decisions of individuals. Only an individual can feel and desire hence a 100% unilateral decision cannot be made voluntarily, unless the whims of one genuinely become whims of all. To suggest this as being the case would in fact be the advocation of slavery.

Then your demands on what entails freedom and liberty dictate that you must not interact with any other human beings. A street intersection where two people meets requires one to yield or wait. A transaction inevitably requires concessions to be made on the price by one party or another. You can argue that you decided to yield, or decided to lower the price you would ordinarily would accept for a service, but you must admit, you probably didn't want to.

Everybody can't have their way, all the time. Consider the private courts that bitcoin2cash is so fond of. When one party sues another, clearly that is coercion. Bottom line: coercion manifests itself everywhere in various shapes and forms, when you have more than one individual.

[FirstAscent]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all of your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom. You merely have the illusion of choice from a poor selection of purportedly sovereign nations. If you try to start one that meets your desires, you will only be conquered by the oligopoly.  

As I said in my prior post, if you want to associate with other human beings, but without government, you are only under the illusion that you are in situations where you are not coerced or forced to make concessions. Society, groups, people, entities, with or without government will always require compromise and concessions (coercion, if you will) to function.

[FredericBastiat]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

They aren't free market institutions if they carry the mark of "legal tender" currency. I'm not opposed to anybody producing currencies based on whatever they want (i.e. hard money such as gold and silver, or paper money like fiat currencies we have today). Good money will almost always drive out bad money. The problem is when you use the force of law to prop up one over the other. It distorts the ability of the free market to respond in a timely and efficient way.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

I wouldn't encourage anybody to use weapons of any kind unless it was in the process of self defense. It would seem obvious to me that if you were going to use a nuclear weapon you'd better be careful of the fallout as that collateral damage you would have to pay for should innocents get hurt. Reciprocity comes to mind.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Of course they form governments. An individual can join a society, a collective if you will, to protect themselves from the seedier more dangerous individuals they might encounter. The only distinction one has to make here is that the joining and leaving of this "institution" should be unconstrained and of a contractual nature. Admittedly, there is the issue of the free rider problem, but I've heard of some interesting work-arounds for that.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

The positions I've read, thus far, aren't contradictory, just different from what you believe. At the most, they may be incomplete descriptions/solutions, but who has the time to give a multi-page dissertation every time you claim a contradiction occurs?

[FirstAscent]

People as a whole do not form governments.

Are you sure about this?

[Hawker]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

[FredericBastiat]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

Nope. I never included anywhere in my response that suicide bombers should have nuclear bombs. If they are suicide bombers, then they should be in prison, no? If they're in prison, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have any kind of weapon. Duh!

EDIT: I forgot. The same goes for food preparers who have injured a customer due to food poisoning. You either sue or imprison the proprietor depending on the evidence produced. Wait for it...wait for it... Duh!

[Anonymous]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

[Hawker]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

You are already paying taxes so stop kidding yourself about being a chief.  You are a free man in a free country so feel free to try to convince people that they shouldn't have a government.  But be aware that to actually stop them, you will need to resort to force.

Its funny how many libertarian ideas come down to who has the biggest gun.

[FirstAscent]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

In spirit I'm sure. But in reality, I'm guessing you pay taxes, use roads, fire and police services, and benefit in many other ways.

[Hawker]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

Nope. I never included anywhere in my response that suicide bombers should have nuclear bombs. If they are suicide bombers, then they should be in prison, no? If they're in prison, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have any kind of weapon. Duh!

EDIT: I forgot. The same goes for food preparers who have injured a customer due to food poisoning. You either sue or imprison the proprietor depending on the evidence produced. Wait for it...wait for it... Duh!

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

[FredericBastiat]

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

I would greatly appreciate it, that if "we" meaning "you" are done with the food safety issue, to please refrain from misquoting or misrepresenting me. I never implied that just "anybody" has the freedom to sell tainted food (at least not without proper disclosure). It is nearly impossible to prevent everybody from accidentally or intentionally selling tainted food. You'll have to give up on that possibility. I don't like your world and I don't feel very welcomed, hence my argument for suggesting it change, preferably for the better.

I think it's very difficult for anybody to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, so I'm not worried about it too much. However, considering the type of weapon and the edge case you're implying, I would like to think that measuring the potential threat to life would be an interesting topic, and the first place to start forming a theory. The theory is one of imminent threat -an interesting concept in and of itself.

[Hawker]

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

I would greatly appreciate it, that if "we" meaning "you" are done with the food safety issue, to please refrain from misquoting or misrepresenting me. I never implied that just "anybody" has the freedom to sell tainted food (at least not without proper disclosure). It is nearly impossible to prevent everybody from accidentally or intentionally selling tainted food. You'll have to give up on that possibility. I don't like your world and I don't feel very welcomed, hence my argument for suggesting it change, preferably for the better.

I think it's very difficult for anybody to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, so I'm not worried about it too much. However, considering the type of weapon and the edge case you're implying, I would like to think that measuring the potential threat to life would be an interesting topic, and the first place to start forming a theory. The theory is one of imminent threat -an interesting concept in and of itself.

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system that allows food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other review agencies.

None of us have been against the regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

[FredericBastiat]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

[Hawker]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

[Hawker]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

[Anonymous]

In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

[Anonymous]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

[Hawker]

In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

So eventually al Qaida would run out of volunteers to take nuclear weapon on "martyrdom operations" sooner or later.  At the moment the seem to be able to organise at least 1 a week.  So in 1 year, with 52 nukes, that would be 52 American cities levelled.

Isn't freedom wonderful for the former inhabitants of those metropolises?

BTW, I grew up in Ireland when people bombed shops and pubs for fun and for tit-for-tat.  I think you woefully underestimate the cruelty that fanatics will inflict on helpless victims.

[Hawker]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes.  Lets not talk about it any more.  You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.

[Anonymous]

In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

So eventually al Qaida would run out of volunteers to take nuclear weapon on "martyrdom operations" sooner or later.  At the moment the seem to be able to organise at least 1 a week.  So in 1 year, with 52 nukes, that would be 52 American cities levelled.

Isn't freedom wonderful for the former inhabitants of those metropolises?

BTW, I grew up in Ireland when people bombed shops and pubs for fun and for tit-for-tat.  I think you woefully underestimate the cruelty that fanatics will inflict on helpless victims.

Al Qaida only exists in the first place because other forces aggress against and restrict their culture's affairs. Maybe if America and other European nations weren't so violent you wouldn't be having your fellow civilians bombed.

In conclusion, Al Qaidia isn't irrationally suicidal. They have desires that are not being met.

[Anonymous]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes.  Lets not talk about it any more.  You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.

In my ideal world, the amount of victims and potential victims would be much lower by the fact that their suicidal cause wouldn't have much merit, considering their would be little meddling in their affairs in the first place.

If your goal is just to challenge my integrity, I find your debate etiquette highly lacking.

[Hawker]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

[Hawker]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes.  Lets not talk about it any more.  You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.

In my ideal world, the amount of victims and potential victims would be much lower by the fact that their suicidal cause wouldn't have much merit, considering their would be little meddling in their affairs in the first place.

You really have no idea what bad people are like.  In a way, I envy you.

[NghtRppr]

You only pay income tax when you have voluntarily decided that you want income above a certain threshold.

[FredericBastiat]

BTW, I grew up in Ireland when people bombed shops and pubs for fun and for tit-for-tat.  I think you woefully underestimate the cruelty that fanatics will inflict on helpless victims.

Using your logic, we as nations of the world should vote that all suicide bombers and the irish should be exterminated because they're cruel fanatics. I only need a majority of votes...

I love playing numbers games.

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

[Hawker]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices.  The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life.  I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't.  No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place. 

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices.  The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life.  I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't.  No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place. 

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

[Hawker]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices.  The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life.  I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't.  No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place. 

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

But you allow the poisoning to take place first.  Agreed?

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine.  You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection.  The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice.  I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices.  The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life.  I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't.  No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place. 

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

But you allow the poisoning to take place first.  Agreed?

Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do.  And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

[Anonymous]

...snip...
Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do.  And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

I would; however, so far food regulation has yet to reach a satisfactory result in light of several outbreaks in the past decade or so. Severe fallibility has only been shown thus far.

I believe a gradual reduction of the FDA monopoly in favor of competing agencies (at the least on a state-level) would be worth a try.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do.  And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

I would; however, so far food regulation has yet to reach a satisfactory result in light of several outbreaks in the past decade or so. Severe fallibility has only been shown thus far.

I believe a gradual reduction of the FDA monopoly in favor of competing agencies (at the least on a state-level) would be worth a try.

Wow!

You are the only libertarian here who would accept that.  Everyone else I've asked has said that if forced to choose, they will choose freedom to sell bad food over saving the lives of consumers.

Neither of us can really prove our case without a rather dull statistical debate and even then we might not agree.  But its interesting that at a high level, you do accept that society has a right to intervene to save lives if there is no better alternative.

[Anonymous]

I'm a stoic and utilitarian at heart. I just want people to be happy.

[Hawker]

I'm a stoic and utilitarian at heart. I just want people to be happy.

Me too   Always liked Bentham's sense of realism.

[GideonGono]

You only pay income tax when you have voluntarily decided that you want income above a certain threshold.

+1

You took the words right outta my mouth 

[blacbe]

The FDA is a non elected council and they are not accountable to voters because they are appointed not elected. It's appeal to belief that the FDA would keep people safer simply because they are appointed to do so rather than business which is directly accountable to the consumer. Why should a governmental body or a business be trusted if there is no process that exists to hold either accountable? There are two reasonable alternatives to this and both are fine; a democratically elected FDA of some form or a free market accountable to consumers. The current food regulation system is not democratic and many of the FDA's practices are questionable enough to garner criticism most of which has not been addressed. The best system is a system which maximizes accountability and the method for that can be argued.

Also why can't a libertarian society form a people's collective, market collective and have the state serve as a treasurer of the collective? As long as people are not deprived of their property by force then it is perfectly fine. A libertarian society can have communism, socialism, and capitalism simultaneously because people, in a free society, can live their life as they choose and that is the single most important thing.