Libertarians

[a_majoor]

And a Libertarian response to "nanny state" laws:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2012/03/23/putting-your-libertarian-principles-to-the-test/

Putting your libertarian principles to the test
March 23, 2012 10:07 am Dalwhinnie Political Correctness

The superb Dr. Sean Gabb, leader of the British libertarians, puts his money where his mouth is. On the subject of making alcohol more expensive, as the Cameron government currently proposes, he writes:

“These measures, if adopted, amount to an attack on the poor. The ruling class politicians who continually whine about alcohol will not be affected by minimum pricing or the abolition of special offers. I might add that none of them can be affected by such laws. Income aside, anyone who lies his way into Parliament can look forward to round the clock drinking in the Palace of Westminster of untaxed alcohol.

“But the measures will hurt poor people, for whom alcohol will become cripplingly expensive and hard to find. They have the same right to drink as the rest of us. Bearing in mind the problems willed on them by our exploitative ruling class, they often have a greater need to drink.

“The claim that drinking ’causes’ public disorder is nonsense. Alcohol does not run about the streets. People do. If people are making nuisances of themselves, the police should be instructed to stop behaving like some equivalent of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and to start protecting life and property again.

Sean Gabb is leading a crusade against how the governing classes of Britain are screwing the people who live there. God bless you, sir! I would that more were like him.

 

[Sythen]

Rather than starting a new thread, I think this will be a good place to put this as it deals with individual liberties.. If people disagree let me know and can move or just abandon the discussion.

Anyways, in light of the recent ruling on brothels by the Ontario Court of Appeals (  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.html ) I am in a debate with my sister and a few of her more religiously leaning friends about the legitimacy of this.. Anyways, long story short, in response to my saying what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone elses business, they said something along the lines of would I advocate for duels to the death be allowed to happen? Kinda gave me pause for a second and I was gonna say that was an extreme example.. But is it really? If dueling would be highly regulated in approved buildings, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

Just looking for others thoughts, and if anyone can think of any extreme example of what two (or more) consenting adults shouldn't be able to do, given proper regulation and facilities?

 

[Redeye]

Rather than starting a new thread, I think this will be a good place to put this as it deals with individual liberties.. If people disagree let me know and can move or just abandon the discussion.

Anyways, in light of the recent ruling on brothels by the Ontario Court of Appeals (  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.html ) I am in a debate with my sister and a few of her more religiously leaning friends about the legitimacy of this.. Anyways, long story short, in response to my saying what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone elses business, they said something along the lines of would I advocate for duels to the death be allowed to happen? Kinda gave me pause for a second and I was gonna say that was an extreme example.. But is it really? If dueling would be highly regulated in approved buildings, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

Just looking for others thoughts, and if anyone can think of any extreme example of what two (or more) consenting adults shouldn't be able to do, given proper regulation and facilities?

Wow. That's a creative counterpoint, and one that does actually sort of make sense. If two consenting adults, knowing full well what they're consenting to including the risks, choose to do so in an environment where there's no chance of "collateral damage", it's hard to argue against, I suppose. The same argument, I suppose, could be dovetailed off a discussion about assisted suicide/euthanasia. Tricky one to argue, too, although the ends are ultimately different when you're comparing prostitution and dueling, but at the core the argument to be used is substantially similar if it was brought into a discussion about assisted suicide. If we're going to permit people to aid others in terminating their life, why couldn't they wager it...?

Quite an interesting point indeed.

 

[Sythen]

If we're going to permit people to aid others in terminating their life, why couldn't they wager it...?

Exactly. But at what point do we stop? Because how far are we, if we were to allow duels to the death, from blood sport arenas as they had in ancient Rome? Is there anything even wrong with it, if the contestents are all willing?

 

[larry Strong]

Assisted suicide maybe....as the recipient is usually aware of things. Euthanasia is a different story as the recipient is not always aware of things , and it is quite often preformed with the consent of NOK not the recipient. See the stats for Belgium and Holland........

 

[Redeye]

Exactly. But at what point do we stop? Because how far are we, if we were to allow duels to the death, from blood sport arenas as they had in ancient Rome? Is there anything even wrong with it, if the contestents are all willing?

In my view, the idea of such things is repugnant - but at the same time, I have absolutely no issue with the idea of people choosing to end their lives when faced with terminal illness. While I don't see the two as being equivalent, an argument can be launched that they are, since the outcome is the same, it's just a matter of different means. I don't know how I could go about forming a really good argument on it.

 

[Redeye]

Assisted suicide maybe....as the recipient is usually aware of things. Euthanasia is a different story as the recipient is not always aware of things , and it is quite often preformed with the consent of NOK not the recipient. See the stats for Belgium and Holland........

What stats are those? Although legal, voluntary euthanasia is extremely rare in the Netherlands, and a strict series of requirements must be met before it is acceptable - including a persistent request from the patient, the existence of extreme suffering (which is taken to mean physical pain, generally), and the confirmation that the patient has the capacity to understand the request and their circumstances, which must be certified by another physician. That's not the same as withdrawal of life-saving/sustaining care or things like DNRs, where decisions aren't made by the patient. Generally speaking, such cases are guided by advance care directions or living wills, which with as much detail as possible specify the terms under which such actions can take place. In Canada it works the same way, though you can only specify the withdrawal of treatment, rather than medical intervention to bring about death. It's commonly the decision of someone legally appointed to make decisions for the patient, since the triggering events generally would terminate the capacity of the patient to make such decisions. That's why I have an extremely detailed ACD drawn up to set out what exactly I want. However, the decision, for example, to withdraw someone from life support is generally made by whoever holds power of attorney for personal care, or the legal decision maker if no document specifies one.

To Sythen's point though, in the abstract it's hard to specify a difference, though in locales where euthanasia is legal, there's generally a strong set of criteria that must be met to make it acceptable, which probably would not apply to bloodsports.

 

[larry Strong]

Maybe stats was the wrong choice of words....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/explaining-euthanasia/1531267127001

However this is not the thread to get into this, all I am saying is euthanasia is not always a personal choice.

 

[Redeye]

Maybe stats was the wrong choice of words....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/explaining-euthanasia/1531267127001

However this is not the thread to get into this, all I am saying is euthanasia is not always a personal choice.

I can't stream the video, but I'm guessing the content refers to cases where people have felt pressured into euthanizing elderly family members, I've heard stuff like that before, and that shouldn't be able to happen - caveats should be strict enough to prevent that, to make clear it's fully voluntary and requested solely by the patient - that I'm comfortable with, anything beyond, not so much.

 

[larry Strong]

I am out of time and this is the wrong thread, IIRC and should you wish to continue this, we have been down this road some years ago, try searching "Sue Rodriquez". Suffice to say after a cursory search in Holland alone there is rampant unreported occurrences, changing COD to reflect "natural causes" instead of euthanasia, and miss use of the system.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0021.html

A case was reported in 2000 where a doctor assisted in the suicide of an 86 year old man, simply because his life had become meaningless. He was later charged with murder, but given a token penalty. Additionally, underreporting and life-taking without patient request have dogged Dutch euthanasia for many years.

It is not as rosy or black and white as you might wish it to be.......

Got to go to work

later
Larry

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wow. It took one post to take one tangent, on duelling, off the rails and sequay to another tangent on euthanasia.

Great thing about agendas, let nothing stand in your way if you've got one.

We're going to split the chaff off, and give it a general title, while you guys decide which tangent you want to discuss.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

Wow. It took one post to take one tangent, on duelling, off the rails and sequay to another tangent on euthanasia.

Great thing about agendas, let nothing stand in your way if you've got one.

We're going to split the chaff off, and give it a general title, while you guys decide which tangent you want to discuss.

Milnet.ca Staff

Please don't split it off, recceguy; I think both dueling (as an example) and assisted suicide are logical outcomes of Libertarian beliefs.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please don't split it off, recceguy; I think both dueling (as an example) and assisted suicide are logical outcomes of Libertarian beliefs.

We'll watch it then, until it turns the thread, a la the Abortion issue. When it becomes the main focus, instead of Libertarianism, it'll get split.

Just so that everyone knows the reasoning.
We've started losing track, of tangents, and haven't been able to keep up, to the point where we now have threads out there that have absolutely nothing to do with their titles. While that's very difficult to police, now that they've escaped the cage, we can take a harder stand and cut them off at the wellhead, which was the intent here. The Mods don't have time to track every single tangent, most times we rely on Report to Mod, even then though, most tangents don't get caught. It's a quick judgment call when we do spot them ourselves as we have to move on to the next fiasco across the board somewhere.

It would be appreciated, if Senior members could help us out spotting these and if all members would pay attention, stay on track and not segue from the original intent of the thread.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

Right: let me explain why I think e.g. assisted suicide is a logical outcome of Libertarian thought.

The classical liberals can be, roughly, subdivided into:

1. Utilitarians, like me, who believe in the "greatest good for the greatest number," which, perforce, means that minorities must sacrifice for the greater, common good - conservatives, like US Democrats and Canadians Liberals and Dippers believe that the greater, common good must be "milked" to appease minorities; and

2. Libertarians who believe that the sovereign individual must always prevail.

(Now, while I believe in a "smaller" (less intrusive) state and in private property as an absolute right, I also believe that the community is essential for a civilized society and I accept, indeed welcome, the communitarian compromises that we all make to achieve social harmony (sounds like something Hu Jintao might say, doesn't it?).)

Two Libertarians, having taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that their actions would endanger no others and that every reasonable course of action had been tried and had failed, would, indeed should consider a duel an acceptable way to settle a dispute that involves a clash of rights oir principles. Equally, a Libertarian ought to feel free to ask for help in ending his or her life, under certain circumstances, but (s)he can never, not while being a Libertarian, countenance forcing anyone - a doctor, for example - to assist in his/her suicide. Libertarians ought to oppose conscription and confiscation of property and moral values. (A utilitarian, on the other hand, who was convinced that assisted suicide is an important right might decide that a reasonable compromise is to require doctors who are paid by the state to provide such assistance.

Euthanasia is a different matter and I cannot reconcile it with either libertarian or utilitarian values - it appeals to a certain kind of conservative, usually a socialist, who puts the needs desires of the community ahead of fundamental rights.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All well and good Edward. I'm not getting involved in the ethics or reasons on the inclusion, but thanks for you explanaition.

My concern is keeping the Board and it's Threads on track. At this point, I've accepted your reasoning for leaving it here, I don't need convincing.

The caveat being that when it grows it's own head, it gets moved.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

All well and good Edward. I'm not getting involved in the ethics or reasons on the inclusion, but thanks for you explanaition.

My concern is keeping the Board and it's Threads on track. At this point, I've accepted your reasoning for leaving it here, I don't need convincing.

The caveat being that when it grows it's own head, it gets moved.

Milnet.ca Staff

Of course, and rightfully so.

 

[Redeye]

Euthanasia is a different matter and I cannot reconcile it with either libertarian or utilitarian values - it appeals to a certain kind of conservative, usually a socialist, who puts the needs desires of the community ahead of fundamental rights.

That, I submit, depends on the context in which you present euthanasia. In the case of assisted suicide or medical intervention to end suffering at the request of a patient, then it's not a matter of community needs/wants, and sounds to me like something entirely consonant with libertarianism.

It's a matter of a person making a conscious decision based on their own needs/wants. In the case of involuntary euthanasia - eugenics type programs, well, I the greatest example I can think of - the T4 program of Nazi Germany isn't exactly something that appeals to many people at all. Such things, however, are often used to "scaremonger" about various programs that socialists among others like - witness the hysteria about the completely fictional "death panels" in the USA.

I hope that's not a derail - not intended to be!

 

[ballz]

Here's why I think the "duelling" example strikes a bit of a different chord in our heads.

One could see it as society allowing one man to murder another, based on who is more athletic.
If we are going to allow this, would we allow two people to play a game of checkers where the stakes are that the winner gets to shoot the other person? Basically, the "prize" for being better at checkers than your adversary is that you get to murder the SOB.

It seems to me that we're saying "Okay, if you really want to kill someone that bad, and he just happens to want to kill you too, we'll have a contest and the winner gets "one free murder.""

But to answer the question that was posed to Sythen, yes, I really would let two consenting adults in a highly-regulated environment have duel to the death or even play a game of checkers over it.... if that's what they want, might as well let natural selection take it's course.

 

[Jed]

So, taking a libertarian point of view: It should be perfectly legal to have games of Russian Roulette for those so inclined ?

I must be Utilitarian then, as I don't think anyone in society should have to clean up the mess that results from people doing irrational acts. (And many people do and will continue to do irrational acts.)

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The comparison of the legalization of prostitution and duelling is not a very good fit. The sexual act between a consenting (and of age) prostitute and the customer is itself perfectly legal. It is the business transaction that has been illegal.

In a duel to the death, the act of killing itself is illegal. The willing consent of both participants has no bearing. A duel with fencing sabres to determine "a winner" without injury is perfectly legal.

In a boxing match (or hockey fight) we have an act that is itself illegal  (assault and battery) but it is condoned within certain boundaries and rules. The fights are not to the death, and we do not accept greivous harm.

I think that it has soemthing to do with the tension between consequentialism or Kantianism (I hate the term deontologicalism). Consequentialsm and utilitariaism are very good friends, and both can easily find themselves in dangerous waters when taken to the extreme. You can make good consequentialist arguments in favour of the boxing match or hockey fight. The beneficial consequences (revenues, prizes for the fighters and its voluntary, the guilty pleasure of entertainment) outweight the negative consequences (bruises and teeth). The line certainly seems to be drawn at grievous injury. When a hockey fight results in a serious injury we see the negative consequences. The death of a player in a hockey fight or of a boxer in a match then raises serious questions. A Kantian might argue that the fights and boxing matches should not occur because the harm they cause negate any benefit.

If the point of the duel was to kill then the consequentialist would argue that we reject the duel on the grounds that the act (killing) is so repugnant that it makes it untenable regardless of any benefits. Even if both parties consented and there were huge profits to made and vast entertainment for millions of pay per view specatators the negative outcome of killing would outweigh those good consequences. A Kantian, of course, would reject the duel to the death outright because the act itself (killing) is immoral.

Now, we might well accept killing on grounds of self defence or within the bounds of the law.

Utilitarians can accept prostitution because it serves a purpose. It provides an outlet for some and an income for others. There are some negative consequences (health, criminal influence, unsightly traffic etc)  but those can be managed with proper zoning, oversight and licensing.

As an aside, I figure that we should be consequentialist on small matters and Kantian on the big ones. All bets are off, however, in the international arena...

Regarding the Libertarians, if two libertarians decide to have a duel to the death then their consent matters not to me. They are part of society, and what they are doing is criminal.