Gary Fisher

I'm still waiting for Comrade Obama to make us communist like Limbaugh said he would do if he got re-elected. I swear, every time I hear that man's name, I can't help but chuckle.

I apologize.

I thought he ment "looters" in the Randian sense.

You would murder people whose politics you don't agree with. And for what? In the name of freedom? And I'm the evil fascist? Jesus fucking Christ dude...

I couldn't agree more. Historically, private property and powerful, centralized nation-states grew up together. In order to wage war effectively, larger and larger armies and navies had to be fielded, and this required more and more extraction of resources and money from the civil society. However, since states were very weak and small at the beginning of the feudal era, this could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the landed nobility. The nobles gave the emerging nation-state its permanent taxation and standing armies and other general powers needed to effectively coordinate a nation for war, and, in turn, the state gave them exclusive control over land and capital by using its new toys to suppress the peasants and the clergy (also the lesser nobility, the merchants, burghers, and wealthy peasants were eventually brought into the fold as well). With this in mind, it isn't difficult to see that if the state were too weak, in the present day, property relations would probably go back to something like the way they were in Medieval times, where property was shared to some extent by the whole community. While this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in and of itself, it would dramatically decrease the level of innovation and re-investment of profit, first of all, and it would also compromise the security of the country completely, leaving it open to foreign conquest. So I don't support a strong state like the one we have today because I'm a freedom-hating statist. I do so because it really is the only way to preserve freedom under present-day circumstances.

Unless you're gonna train and do steroids like a bodybuilder, you shoud never eat like a bodybuilder.

This kind of political permissiveness is yet another weakness of the pure laissez-faire system. It would inevitably result in a political collapse once people figure out that they can have their own little fiefdom with a bit of money and a few guns.

Actually, you're the one misrepresenting my argument right now. It's perfectly clear from the context of the debate that I was referring to government interventions in the market, and I didn't say anything about charity.

Well since my opponent has grown tired of the debate, I guess I'll have to deliver the closing remarks. His position is based on a moralistic fallacy. The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy. Whereas the naturalistic fallacy says, "this is how things are, therefore that's how they should be", the moralistic fallacy says, "this is how things should be, therefore that's how they are." In the specific case of Mr. Ferrer's belief, his argument is that, "people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference should result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants, therefore people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference does result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants." Furthermore, people's interests and wants are defined in such a way (namely, through the subjective theory of value) that this claim can never be disproven by any evidence. So if we were to point out, say, a few people who are starving as a result of laissez-faire policies, the laissez-faire proponent would always claim, "it's ok, because the market ensures the most efficient allocation of resources by default, and therefore any attempt to 'correct' it can only make things worse." This type of conclusion naturally leads to the strange (in my opinion) belief that any government action (outside of a very specific and limited domain) is necessarily bad. The reason I find it so strange is that nothing else in reality has this bizarre property of near-absolute incompetence. It reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean character. Although the character tries to perform very basic and innocent everyday tasks, it inevitably ends in disaster for him and laughter for the audience. The fact that this kind of phenomenon can only be found at the center of a comedic performance says something about the credibility of the Mr. Bean theory of the state.

@whyNOT Now that they have a ceasefire, hopefully Hamas and the PA will be able to go through with the unity government agreement they made back in June. What it means is that Hamas will effectively denounce the use of violence, and the PA will become the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. This will allow Natanyahu to come to the negotiating table, and really this is the best chance that anybody may ever get for peace.

@Francisco Ferrer I think you're kind of missing the point. If the individual is the highest authority on his own best interest, as you've claimed before, and if there are some individuals who would prefer not to have a free market, then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your argument. What it essentially boils down to is that you're just saying that the free market is in the best interests of those for whom the free market is in their best interests. I don't think that's a particularly compelling point.

@Francisco Ferrer Although you're being consistent within your ethics in that you recognize that your ethics can't actually tell people that mass murder is not in their best interest, I think you are still kind of biting the bullet. A while ago you said (and this is what started this whole aside): Now, you've admitted that you cannot tell mass murderers what is in their own best interest. But here's the catch. How can you then say that socialism is not in anyone's best interest? What if a bunch of people decide that living in a socialist society and forcing the rest of the world to be socialist as well is in their best interest? Can you tell them that it is not in their best interest to do this?

The bolded seems to contradict: It seems to me that an ethical theory which cannot tell mass murderers not to mass murder is no ethical theory at all.

I understand the concerns of Glenn's detractors, even if they may not be perfectly applicable in this case. If government interference justifies further governmet interference, where does it end?

You can do whatever you want with your property so long as you're not breaking the law.

What does it matter? At the end of the day you're either paying a fine or going to prison.

I know. I got that much. That's why I'm asking you. If libertarianism is "only" an ethical theory, then you are merely saying that free markets should maximize consumer satisfaction. But, this whole time you were arguing that free markets do in fact maximize consumer satisfaction. Now, in this case, if "should" implies "is", then your whole argument collapses in on itself. That there are objective ethical standards, such as the principle of non-initiation of force, implies that there are things all people will find objectively valuable.

I don't see the point, really. But to play along, I could just order you to take down whatever you're building, and if you refuse, summon you to court.

So if an individual decides that going on a murderous killing spree is in his best interest, we can't tell him otherwise because he is the highest authority on what is in his best interest?

The recent outbreak of lawlessness in Ferguson got me thinking about appropriate punishments for crimes. I remember a case about three Muslim girls in England who beat up another girl (not a muslim) after getting drunk, and the judge either suspended their sentences or gave them lighter sentences (I forget exactly which) on the basis that, since they are muslim, they couldn't have understood the consequences of drinking alcohol. There are similar cases all across America as well, and many people have argued that minorities and the very poor should be given lighter sentences in order to counteract the "discrimination" they face in the legal system. So here's my proposal. In order to counter this miscarriage of justice, and since we will likely never be able to convince the leftists in this country that all people should be treated equally before the law, we should make it so that, when minorities and the poor are found to be actually guilty, then they should face harsher sentences in order to prevent them from piggy-backing off of actual victims of discrimination.

Any Palestinian in Gaza could be recruited by Hamas tomorrow. I don't get it. Do people who are against Israel's actions in Palestinian territories seriously believe that terrorists are not a threat that Israel should destroy?

So, in your view, there is no possible situation where some country could be faced with doing unsavory things on the one hand and facing annihilaiton on the other?

Fair enough. I own a home in Fisherville. I begin to add a stable on my property, you as the head of the city planning commission and building department send me a letter which lists the legal limits: What are they Commissioner? 1____________________________ 2____________________________ 3____________________________ A... 1. This is a residential zone and you can't build a stable on your property.

@Francisco Ferrer It's hard to respond to you because you chop up a post into pieces and then respond to each piece in turn. I understand the need to refute every single claim your opponent makes, but the end result is a debate that lacks any central focus. I'm sure we could go on and on about each subject in turn, but in the interest of keeping things on track, I will only address the thing I think is the core of our disagreement. It's those "few" cases that worry me. The only reason that there are only a few countries that we have to worry about today is because we've already "solved" just about all of our "problems" during the previous centuries. It's easy to say that the US should behave angelically on the international stage from our current vantage point, so let's consider a hypothetical that removes this bias and test your principles. Pretend that we are a very small but productive country, and that we have two neighbors. One of them is Iran. It wants our territory and our stuff, and is currently preparing to annex us. The other is another small but militarily weak country that happens to be sitting on a strategic resource. If we had that resource, we could use it to successfully repel or deter an invasion from Iran. Here are our options. We could try to buy that resource from them, but sadly, the amount they're willing to sell us is not enough to meet our military's needs. The other option is to quickly annex the parts of that country that contain that resource. We would then have enough of it to repel an Iranian attack. Now, in this scenario, which is not too unrealistic (at least I think so), are we justified in "violating the rights" of the people in the other country? I think most reasonable people, and by "reasonable people" I mean "anyody who doesn't want to live under an oppressive Muslim theocracy", would agree with me that we are.

Sure, if you want Hillary to win.