Support NeoGAF

[Synth_floyd]

SPLITTERS!

 

[CyclopsRock]

So much for logical.

You really think there's a "logical" answer to when a foetus becomes a living person? It's been troubling philosophers for millennia, so if you have a logical answer, I'm sure we're all ears.

 

[Stet]

You really think there's a "logical" answer to when a foetus becomes a living person? It's been troubling philosophers for millennia, so if you have a logical answer, I'm sure we're all ears.

Somehow, I don't think the philosophers should be the ones deciding it.

 

[Duffyside]

You really think there's a "logical" answer to when a foetus becomes a living person? It's been troubling philosophers for millennia, so if you have a logical answer, I'm sure we're all ears.

When the umbilical cord is cut, dude. Duh! Magical scissors!

 

[The Technomancer]

They wouldn't, though. Models with agents who each act rationally but together produce a less than optimal outcome are a dime a dozen. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the most obvious one.

The way I see it, libertarianism is premised on the idea that most government attempts at correcting a sub-optimal social outcome will likely cost society more than it will benefit it. Libertarians also reject any attempt to make a social outcome less unequal by violating "property rights" (e.g. via redistribution) and the "sanctity of contracts."

Right, good point, the Prisoner's Dilemma came up in a class recently and I was thinking about this recently: perfectly rational agents create unresolvable situations.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I thought a good amount of libertarianism was built upon the notion that governments accomplish what they do through a monopoly of force, and taxes is a very large part of that. If they're a libertarian and believe in paying tax, then that's not really very consistent.

I don't know, from what I've read it seems to me that the only difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that the former is in support of an external entity that will ensure that everyone's inalienable rights are upheld.

A libertarian that doesn't believe in a government doing this (and it would require taxation in order to uphold those rights) would be pretty out there - as a libertarian.

 

[Zaptruder]

They wouldn't, though. Models with agents who each act rationally but together produce a less than optimal outcome are a dime a dozen. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the most obvious one.

The way I see it, libertarianism is premised on the idea that most government attempts at correcting a sub-optimal social outcome will likely cost society more than it will benefit it. Libertarians also reject any attempt to make a social outcome less unequal by violating "property rights" (e.g. via redistribution) and the "sanctity of contracts."

I hate that rational has been coopted to mean concern for self.

You can work towards a rational group/social goal that ultimately provides more benefit for self then without!

 

[CyclopsRock]

The way I see it, libertarianism is premised on the idea that most government attempts at correcting a sub-optimal social outcome will likely cost society more than it will benefit it. Libertarians also reject any attempt to make a social outcome less unequal by violating "property rights" (e.g. via redistribution) and the "sanctity of contracts."

I believe the former also inspires the latter, here. It's partly about property rights, but once one acknowledges the need for a state (ie they aren't an anarchist) then the "it's my property, not yours! Fuck off, Uncle Sam!" gate is broken. From that point on, it comes down to precisely your top point - which ones actually help and which ones, despite the best of intentions, do not. Many Libertarians do not believe that simply taking money from one person and giving it to another solves the problems of inequality, because the person you took it from is still making loads more, and the person you gave it to still isn't, only now they're relient on the government for their livelihood. That's one of the reasons why I roll my eyes a bit at all the hate Libertarians get around here - bash the ideas all you want, but the people do, like most people, have the best interests of the majority of people at heart. Not many people think they're being "kind" by advocating policies they think are harmful.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't know, from what I've read it seems to me that the only difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that the former is in support of an external entity that will ensure that everyone's inalienable rights are upheld.

A libertarian that doesn't believe in a government doing this (and it would require taxation in order to uphold those rights) would be pretty out there - as a libertarian.

Really? Because the libertarians I've ran into as of late (and on this forum) have been of the anarchy variety. They think the free market would provide enough protection, somehow, and even if not government in and of itself is a breaking of those rights right of the bat.

 

[The Technomancer]

I hate that rational has been coopted to mean concern for self.

You can work towards a rational group/social goal that ultimately provides more benefit for self then without!

I think (and I'm sure if they don't, they'll correct me) Libertarians do think that rational includes acting for the greater good. That greater good in fact emerges out of rational behavior. I might even agree, if I thought that the necessary level of rational state-less co-operation was actually possible.

I believe the former also inspires the latter, here. It's partly about property rights, but once one acknowledges the need for a state (ie they aren't an anarchist) then the "it's my property, not yours! Fuck off, Uncle Sam!" gate is broken. From that point on, it comes down to precisely your top point - which ones actually help and which ones, despite the best of intentions, do not. Many Libertarians do not believe that simply taking money from one person and giving it to another solves the problems of inequality, because the person you took it from is still making loads more, and the person you gave it to still isn't, only now they're relient on the government for their livelihood. That's one of the reasons why I roll my eyes a bit at all the hate Libertarians get around here - bash the ideas all you want, but the people do, like most people, have the best interests of the majority of people at heart. Not many people think they're being "kind" by advocating policies they think are harmful.

Right, this is where I almost always disagree with Libertarian beliefs about government welfare. I believe that a.) people don't always find a way to survive and do in fact need some social infrastructure to stay alive (they wouldn't just work harder to find work and succeed if the government didn't support them) and b.) just because one is dependent on the government for a short period does not mean that a person cannot (and statistically often does) then use the improved position to become unreliant. And this position is entirely rational to me, and has a fair amount of statistical backing.

 

[Arksy]

So much for logical.

How isn't it logical? Please substantiate your claims instead of making insulting snipes.

I believe the former also inspires the latter, here. It's partly about property rights, but once one acknowledges the need for a state (ie they aren't an anarchist) then the "it's my property, not yours! Fuck off, Uncle Sam!" gate is broken. From that point on, it comes down to precisely your top point - which ones actually help and which ones, despite the best of intentions, do not. Many Libertarians do not believe that simply taking money from one person and giving it to another solves the problems of inequality, because the person you took it from is still making loads more, and the person you gave it to still isn't, only now they're relient on the government for their livelihood. That's one of the reasons why I roll my eyes a bit at all the hate Libertarians get around here - bash the ideas all you want, but the people do, like most people, have the best interests of the majority of people at heart. Not many people think they're being "kind" by advocating policies they think are harmful.

Yes people routinely insult what they don't understand or don't want to understand and it's a lot easier arguing from a morale high ground using straw man arguments then using proper non-fallacious arguments. Everyone always assumes the other side as an ulterior, evil motive.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Somehow, I don't think the philosophers should be the ones deciding it.

Quite, but there does have to be a law. Either it is legal or it isn't. The person I was responding to was suggesting that a split in the Libertarian camp over the issue suggested a lack of logic on behalf of those involved. I don't think that's the case.

 

[Zaptruder]

I think (and I'm sure if they don't, they'll correct me) Libertarians do think that rational includes acting for the greater good. That greater good in fact emerges out of rational behavior. I might even agree, if I thought that the necessary level of rational state-less co-operation was actually possible.


Right, this is where I almost always disagree with Libertarian beliefs about government welfare. I believe that a.) people don't always find a way to survive and do in fact need some social infrastructure to stay alive and b.) just because one is dependent on the government for a short period does not mean that a person cannot (and statistically often does) then use the improved position to become unreliant.

Damn. That's a sweet tag.

Whatever the case is, libertarians are generally 'rational' without a full understanding of human behaviour.

Individually rationally, socially irrational.

 

[RDreamer]

How isn't it logical? Please substantiate your claims instead of making insulting snipes.

Because he jumps straight to using the word "murder," which is a very emotionally charged word, which someone who is purely logical would probably not hop straight to. A logical person might realize that birth is a process, rather than a straight up either or event that can be summed up with murder.

 

[The Technomancer]

Damn. That's a sweet tag.

Oh shit!

 

[Arksy]

Because he jumps straight to using the word "murder," which is a very emotionally charged word, which someone who is purely logical would probably not hop straight to. A logical person might realize that birth is a process, rather than a straight up either or event that can be summed up with murder.

Murder is almost unquestionably (at least in the common world) defined as taking the life of another with intent or recklesness. It is a matter of definition not emotion. There are exceptions such as self-defence, or killing in a war. If you want killing a foetus to be one of those exceptions argue that case but devoid of any argument it still falls within the definition of murder to some people.

 

[dinazimmerman]

I hate that rational has been coopted to mean concern for self.

You can work towards a rational group/social goal that ultimately provides more benefit for self then without!

Rational doesn't mean selfish, and I didn't use the word that way. However, a sociopath can be just as rational as an altruist. And two rational sociopaths who play the prisoner's dilemma just once will never cooperate (a rational agent never plays a dominated strategy). Repeated interaction can produce cooperation, however.

 

[KHarvey16]

Murder is almost unquestionably (at least in the common world) defined as taking the life of another with intent or recklesness.

Another what?

 

[Arksy]

Another what?

Human.

 

[Devolution]

Because he jumps straight to using the word "murder," which is a very emotionally charged word, which someone who is purely logical would probably not hop straight to. A logical person might realize that birth is a process, rather than a straight up either or event that can be summed up with murder.

Yup. In all of his abortion arguments he refuses to actually show a logical basis. He refuses to acknowledge the variance of "life" and "human" such as with tumors. There is no logic there, just bullying and emotional venting about how a fetus is the most important and a woman's claims to her own freedoms mean nothing. I would think a libertarian would argue that no person has unlimited and unpermitted access to another's organs.

 

[RDreamer]

Murder is almost unquestionably (at least in the common world) defined as taking the life of another with intent or recklesness. It is a matter of definition not emotion. There are exceptions such as self-defence, or killing in a war. If you want killing a foetus to be one of those exceptions argue that case but devoid of any argument it still falls within the definition of murder to some people.

Murder is the killing of a person, by common definition. And, again, a logical person would acknowledge that birthing is a process. At one end you have something that is not a person and at the other end you have a person. It changes from there. Now, whether this logical person subscribes life at the extreme end or not, he should still, logically, acknowledge that because of the circumstances others may not. A logical person would also acknowledge the emotional aspects of the words they choose, and would (and should) prefer to speak through things in a more rational manner devoid of extraneous frivolities. An illogical person jumps straight to "You're murdering full stop!" Perhaps that passes an internal logic test to this person's own convictions, but do not try and sit here and tell me it's logical behavior in a more general social sense. It isn't.

 

[Arksy]

Yup. In all of his abortion arguments he refuses to actually show a logical basis. He refuses to acknowledge the variance of "life" and "human" such as with tumors. There is no logic there, just bullying and emotional venting about how a fetus is the most important and a woman's claims to her own freedoms mean nothing. I would think a libertarian would argue that no person has unlimited and unpermitted access to another's organs.

My mistake. I wasn't aware you were directing towards a particular poster.

Murder is the killing of a person, by common definition. And, again, a logical person would acknowledge that birthing is a process. At one end you have something that is not a person and at the other end you have a person. It changes from there. Now, whether this logical person subscribes life at the extreme end or not, he should still, logically, acknowledge that because of the circumstances others may not. A logical person would also acknowledge the emotional aspects of the words they choose, and would (and should) prefer to speak through things in a more rational manner devoid of extraneous frivolities. An illogical person jumps straight to "You're murdering full stop!" Perhaps that passes an internal logic test to this person's own convictions, but do not try and sit here and tell me it's logical behavior in a more general social sense. It isn't.

Right and that's where two well-meaning rational people can disagree. You could argue that insemination begins an irreversible process towards personhood and to deny it at the start is logically indistinct from denying it further down the line. Again I wasn’t aware you two were responding to a particular person. I think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that only one side has any merit whatsoever.

 

[Duffyside]

Yup. In all of his abortion arguments he refuses to actually show a logical basis. He refuses to acknowledge the variance of "life" and "human" such as with tumors. There is no logic there, just bullying and emotional venting about how a fetus is the most important and a woman's claims to her own freedoms mean nothing. I would think a libertarian would argue that no person has unlimited and unpermitted access to another's organs.

Just for the record, none of this is true, but some people need to think this because it makes them feel better. It's also not logical. (Teehee, this IS fun! I can call things not logical too to make me feel all smart 'n stuff!)

 

[KHarvey16]

Human.

So there's an implied claim carrying with it a corresponding burden of proof. Failure to meet this burden would qualify the statement as originating from an emotional origin as opposed to a logical one.

 

[pigeon]

Murder is almost unquestionably (at least in the common world) defined as taking the life of another with intent or recklesness. It is a matter of definition not emotion. There are exceptions such as self-defence, or killing in a war.

In other words, murder means "unlawful killing," which is in fact what you'll find in the dictionary -- so it's a tautology. Killing is murder when we say it is, and it isn't murder when we say it isn't. In America, abortion is definitionally not murder. Although you can argue that it should be (I don't agree, but one can certainly argue it).

 

[SteveWinwood]

Just for the record, none of this is true, but some people need to think this because it makes them feel better. It's also not logical. (Teehee, this IS fun! I can call things not logical too to make me feel all smart 'n stuff!)

So show your logic. That's what's fun about it! It can literally be shown!

 

[Devolution]

Just for the record, none of this is true, but some people need to think this because it makes them feel better. It's also not logical. (Teehee, this IS fun! I can call things not logical too to make me feel all smart 'n stuff!)

It is true, you do not use logic and you cherry pick arguments so you don't have to deal with contradictions to your claims.

 

[Arksy]

In other words, murder means "unlawful killing," which is in fact what you'll find in the dictionary -- so it's a tautology. Killing is murder when we say it is, and it isn't murder when we say it isn't. In America, abortion is definitionally not murder. Although you can argue that it should be (I don't agree, but one can certainly argue it).

Correct. Murder is unlawful killing; the debate is centred on whether abortion should be one of these lawful exceptions to the rule. (Or at least should be).

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Can we seriously not turn this into an abortion debate?

It was pretty interesting discussing libertarian egoism and rationalism.

No, you just say "you don't use logic" because you don't agree with my position, and I cherry pick people because some of them are so awful they're not worth talking to. Such as...

You're the worst.

 

[Devolution]

Can we seriously not turn this into an abortion debate?

It was pretty interesting discussing libertarian egoism and rationalism.

We have a libertarian against abortion claiming to be logical, the burden of proof is on him to do so.

 

[Duffyside]

It is true, you do not use logic and you cherry pick arguments so you don't have to deal with contradictions to your claims.

No, you just say "you don't use logic" because you don't agree with my position, and I cherry pick people because some of them are so awful they're not worth talking to. Such as...

 

[SteveWinwood]

No, you just say "you don't use logic" because you don't agree with my position, and I cherry pick people because some of them are so awful they're not worth talking to. Such as...

Me? Who you didn't respond to asking you to directly refute what you said?

It should be really easy for you being all logical and whatnot. Or if you've done it before it should be easy to just link to the post.

 

[Arksy]

We have a libertarian against abortion claiming to be logical, the burden of proof is on him to do so.

Please don't assume that one person is representative of the entire group and can speak for everyone. As it has been pointed out already it is something that people from all political backgrounds routinely disagree on and has little to do with the philosophical doctrine itself.

 

[ronito]

No, you just say "you don't use logic" because you don't agree with my position, and I cherry pick people because some of them are so awful they're not worth talking to. Such as...

No you just say I cherry logic people. Because you're such an awful "here's a quote" something agree.

 

[Devolution]

No, you just say "you don't use logic" because you don't agree with my position, and I cherry pick people because some of them are so awful they're not worth talking to. Such as...

I don't just say what? The last time we had an argument I don't recall you using any sort of logic, you moved goal posts frequently and when it was made obvious "human" isn't a particularly picky qualifier since tumors and cysts are also "human" and "dna" the argument shifted again. So tell me what's your logical basis that makes a fetus more important than an already born person in terms of organ usage?

 

[pigeon]

Can we seriously not turn this into an abortion debate?

It was pretty interesting discussing libertarian egoism and rationalism.

Sure. How about some quotes from, you know, the actual results of the study, instead of quoting the hypotheses and skipping the actual data as the OP does?

Like liberals, libertarians can be said to have a two-foundation morality, prioritizing harm and fairness above the other three foundations. But libertarians share with conservatives their moderate scores on these two foundations. They are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly. Libertarianism is clearly not just a point on the liberal-conservative continuum; libertarians have a unique pattern of moral concerns, with relatively low reliance on all five foundations....
Once again, we see that libertarians look somewhat like liberals, but assign lower importance to values related to the welfare or suffering of others–the benevolence value (which Schwartz defines as: “Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact&#8221 and universalism (defined as “Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature&#8221. It is also noteworthy that the highest mean for any Schwartz Value dimension was libertarians' endorsement of self-direction (defined as “Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploring&#8221. Self-Direction was the most strongly endorsed value for all three groups, but for libertarians the difference was quite large compared to the next most endorsed value, achievement (d = 1.04). If libertarians have indeed elevated self-direction as their foremost guiding principle, then they may see the needs and claims of others, whether based on liberal or conservative principles, as a threat to their primary value....
According to Forsyth's [44] classification system, individuals who score high in relativism and low on idealism — the pattern found for libertarians — are labeled “subjectivists” who “reject moral rules” and “base moral judgments on personal feelings about the action and the setting."

Doesn't sound particularly logical to me!

The libertarian pattern on the Big 5 complements our findings on their explicit values in Study 1. Libertarians report lower levels of the traits that indicate an orientation toward engaging with and pleasing others (i.e., extraversion and agreeableness). Low scores on agreeableness in particular have been said to indicate a lack of compassion and a critical, skeptical nature [51]....
According to Davis [56], low levels of empathic concern indicate lower levels of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others, which may underlie libertarians' lower scores on the harm foundation of the MFQ, and their general rejection of altruism as a moral duty....
The high levels of reactance expressed by libertarians fit well with the value they place on liberty as a moral foundation. It is of course possible that libertarians' responses to the scale are primarily expressions of their current political beliefs, but it is also possible that people who have the strongest visceral reactions to interference from others are also the people most drawn to the ideals and identity of libertarianism. Reactance may in fact function as a moral emotion that draws individuals toward the ideal of negative liberty....

So not unemotional -- just only emotional about people telling them what to do. This thread should probably be retitled "(Article) Libertarians are less moral; more paranoid."

Consistent with the libertarian desire for personal liberty, libertarians feel relatively low levels of connection to their community, country, and people globally....
Consistent with the results on the Identification with All of Humanity scale, the libertarian independence from others is associated with weaker loving feelings toward friends, family, romantic partners, and generic others.

"(Article) Libertarians are less loving; more self-centered."

 

[Arksy]

Sure. How about some quotes from, you know, the actual results of the study, instead of quoting the hypotheses and skipping the actual data?



Doesn't sound particularly logical to me!



So not unemotional -- just only emotional about people telling them what to do. This thread should probably be retitled "(Article) Libertarians are less caring; more paranoid."



"(Article) Libertarians are less loving; more self-centered."

You should be hired as a spin doctor. Still it's an interesting study and a great read.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

This thread should probably be retitled "(Article) Libertarians are less moral; more paranoid."

I have to say, I have noticed many conspiracy theorists lean Libertarian and many Libertarians I've seen tend to be more accepting of conspiracy-ish thoughts/thinking.

 

[gohepcat]

Many Libertarians do not believe that simply taking money from one person and giving it to another solves the problems of inequality, because the person you took it from is still making loads more, and the person you gave it to still isn't, only now they're reliant on the government for their livelihood. That's one of the reasons why I roll my eyes a bit at all the hate Libertarians get around here

Sigh....people who actually work in public policy and create social programs do with thousands of years of history guiding their decisions. Your idea that we are "taking form the rich and giving to the poor" betrays your lack of understanding of the government's role.

Things like progressive tax rates help everybody by keeping the country that they live in from falling into chaos. It's not about fairness or equality. Well funded social programs are logical and beneficial to everyone.

 

[Arksy]

I have to say, I have noticed many conspiracy theorists lean Libertarian and many Libertarians I've seen tend to be more accepting of conspiracy-ish thoughts/thinking.

You see it from all sides of the political debate. "Obama has a socialist agenda." - "Romney is going to screw over the poor." Simple examples but you could go on for hours. I will say that cynicism of establishments is fairly central to some thought schools within Libertarian space.

Sigh....people who actually work in public policy and create social programs do with thousands of years of history guiding their decisions. Your idea that we are "taking form the rich and giving to the poor" betrays your lack of understanding of the government's role.

Things like progressive tax rates help everybody by keeping the country that they live in from falling into chaos. It's not about fairness or equality. Well funded social programs are logical and beneficial to everyone.

You're arguing that a flat tax would lead to chaos? Also the argument that most social programs are not well-funded is actually the heart of most Libertarian critiques.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

You see it from all sides of the political debate. "Obama has a socialist agenda." - "Romney is going to screw over the poor." Simple examples but you could go on for hours. I will say that cynicism of establishments is fairly central to some thought schools within Libertarian space.

One of these does not belong.

 

[Arksy]

One of these does not belong.

Replace it with whatever you wish. There's no shortage of accusations that either Presidential candidate has an ulterior motive.

 

[RDreamer]

You see it from all sides of the political debate. "Obama has a socialist agenda." - "Romney is going to screw over the poor." Simple examples but you could go on for hours. I will say that cynicism of establishments is fairly central to some thought schools within Libertarian space.

How the hell is "Romney is going to screw over the poor" a conspiracy theory?

 

[Devolution]

Replace it with whatever you wish. There's no shortage of accusations that either Presidential candidate has an ulterior motive.

I'm sorry but unless you're republican and or delusional Romney will fuck over the lower classes.

 

[Zaptruder]

Replace it with whatever you wish. There's no shortage of accusations that either Presidential candidate has an ulterior motive.

Well played misdirection.

*lets get these guys talking about the two presidential candidates instead of poking holes in my paper thin libertarian ideology again...*

 

[Arksy]

Well played misdirection.

*lets get these guys talking about the two presidential candidates instead of poking holes in my paper thin libertarian ideology again...*

Most unintentionally hilarious post I've ever read. Accusing me of an ulterior motive after ascribing libertarians as progenitors of conspiracy theories.

 

[pigeon]

Replace it with whatever you wish. There's no shortage of accusations that either Presidential candidate has an ulterior motive.

Wait, wait, wait. Presidential candidates do have an ulterior motive. They want to be President. What you're talking about is a policy goal -- and it is pretty much Romney's explicitly expressed and documented policy goal to cut basically all programs that benefit the poor.

 

[Arksy]

Wait, wait, wait. Presidential candidates do have an ulterior motive. They want to be President. What you're talking about is a policy goal -- and it is pretty much Romney's explicitly expressed and documented policy goal to cut basically all programs that benefit the poor.

It's Romneys policital goal to make poor people poorer?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Wait, wait, wait. Presidential candidates do have an ulterior motive. They want to be President. What you're talking about is a policy goal -- and it is pretty much Romney's explicitly expressed and documented policy goal to cut basically all programs that benefit the poor.

It's almost "Wanting to see Mitt Romney's tax returns is exactly the same as wanting to see Obama's birth certificate" talking point bullshit levels of false equivalency.

 

[ronito]

It's Romneys policital goal to make poor people poorer?

Make the rich richer. That money's gotta come from somewhere.