Ed, Let's see if your own posts meet the standards to which you hold others.
On 3/29/09 you said to "boycott the ARI", and thereby addressed a problem and suggested a solution in one step. But you did not "complete the task", according to your own claim. You did not provide information about universal implementation and possible negative consequences. Why not? You have implied that it is the burden of anyone addressing a problem or proposing a solution. It looks like you failed to do your duty, as you have imposed on others. I believe that's called a "double-standard". But maybe you just forgot or were in a hurry. But if so then why did you also commit the same neglect when you advised on 4/11/09 that "the only way to stop this sort of thing is to eliminate the pirates and deter anyone from becoming one"? Although you followed it with advising that "the navies in the area be allowed to use deadly force", that's far from completing the task as you have described it. After all, "a minimum time spent analyzing this shows not only the political impossibility of this but the practical disaster that would result". So here is the problem and the solution in one, as I see it: "eliminate your double-standard posting". And I say that without assuming the slightest of responsibility to follow it up with a detailed instruction manual for a fool-proof plan of action of how to accomplish it and a master-list of all the possible negative consequences if you do. That being said, I could more agree to such an implied burden if the end-result of one's position (argument/solution) would obviously be more/worse problems. But you have not proven that result. The main purpose behind libertarian principles is that they provide REAL solutions and REDUCE problems. This also applies to your comments about fiat money and a gold standard, and to your drug-war comments; of course there will be problems during and after the transition, but the point (of any real "solution") is that the problems will be far fewer and far less severe. Your "easy-to-refute" comment was this absolute exaggeration: "You can scream (or write) all you want about how government is evil and use terms like 'glorified protection racket' but this will never get you anywhere". "NEVER" and "ANYWHERE" are the easiest to refute; all I have to do is prove one tiny bit of benefit to Sasan. You don't believe I can do that? Well how about THREE? 1) The phrase was an insightful description to me; 2) it was a fresh perspective to me; 3) I respect Sasan more for writing it. Regarding your accusations that we denigrate others as "tyrants and barbarians": Are you sure you aren't mistaken? Are you sure we don't just criticize what others advocate/do as being "tyranny" or "barbaric"? You do understand the difference, don't you? But if you stand by your accusation, again please specify a quote. --------------------------- Please see comments embedded below. Ed$ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed$, > > If I may reply to your comments to Sasan: > > An argument against an underlying cause of lots of problems is > NOT "the sole argument for everything" or "a substitute for the > complicated problem of describing how to get from here to there > in a realistic fashion" - nor is Sasan implying that it is > (either). It seems the only reason you are inventing the two > mischaracterizations is so you can criticize a good argument. 1) It is OK to describe an underlying cause. It just doesn't complete the task of describing a solution. Sasan's only solution seems to be an immediate move to anarchy. A minimum time spent analyzing this shows not only the political impossibility of this but the practical disaster that would result. One would only have to contemplate what would happen to the security of the US if the federal government were dismantled. > > I personally think "glorified protection racket" is a very > insightful description. It provides a very fresh perspective and > seems to be catching on quite well. So much for your absolute > exaggeration (very easy to refute). Sorry. The description is neither insightful nor fresh. It's been around a long time. I've heard it for decades. This is not to say it is particularly wrong, just not helpful. So much for your "easy" refutation. > > What do you mean "libertarian solutions to non-libertarian > problems are extremely difficult or impossible" and "applying a > truly libertarian solution to a problem created by government is > often the pathway to total disaster"? Your type of libertarianism > seems most unusual. If you disagree with libertarian arguments > advocating libertarian solutions, what exactly do you suggest? I've read no "libertarian arguments advocating libertarian solutions." All I've heard are libertarian arguments. What I mean by libertarian solutions to non-libertarian problems can be explained by example. A libertarian solution to the non-libertarian problem of fiat money is an immediate return to a gold or silver standard. Again, a little thought about this reveals some disastrous economic consequences. One might be able to accomplish the transition but it would entail years and would require a number of non-libertarian laws and regulations requiring the acceptance of fiat money in the interim. > > Where is Sasan's denigration of others? Please specify. Sasan characterizes those who disagree with him as not libertarian and implies that they are tyrants and barbarians. Oh, and so do you. It is something like my referring to those who advocate immediate an immediate anarcho-libertarian society as immature idealists with no sense of practical consequences. This kind of thing hardly promotes civilized or useful discussion. > > It is curious that you characterize Sasan's as not a "civilized > debate", since the disagreement is against tyranny and barbarism; > and the point is MORE civilized behavior. > > Regarding your challenge: Since this is not only (really) a > project forum, discussion of principle is perfectly fine here. > Since I often argue against prohibition and advocate for its > elimination without including any suggestions regarding any other > intermediate plans of action, am I also guilty of your charges? > Would you lay the same criticism against an anti-war argument if > there were no further details about HOW to "stop the war"? You > seem to imply a new burden of proof for those who address > problems; that they should not do so without also including all > the precise details for a complete plan of action. It is OK to discuss principles and I do not insist on precise details. However, if you do not explore the difficulties of transitions you are just making wishes and arguing about angels on pinheads. I assume by "prohibition" you mean laws against certain drugs. This is one of the easier transitions to freedom but even it has difficulties many of which are the result of non-libertarian problems. For instance, if the US were suddenly to make all drugs legal, what effect would this have on international relations? Some other governments might object and impose consequences. What about children and drugs? Would it be legal to sell or give them to children? There are some drugs that really are very dangerous and addictive. Are all drugs like this to be legal? Drug use does cause various physical and mental problems. The US requires all emergency rooms to treat sick people whether or not they can pay. Again, a non-libertarian problem and the libertarian solution is to allow these folks to just die. Is that a practical solution? > > ---------------------- > > > Sasan, there are ways of saying the same thing that are > "civilized" and "uncivilized". I don't have too much of a problem > with pointing out that the basis of all government is force. I do > it all the time. > > What I do have a problem with is using that as the sole argument > for everything and as a substitute for the complicated problem of > describing how to get from here to there in a realistic fashion. > You can scream (or write) all you want about how government is > evil and use terms like "glorified protection racket" but this > will never get you anywhere. > > I've always said that libertarian solutions to non-libertarian > problems are extremely difficult or impossible. In fact, applying > a truly libertarian solution to a problem created by government > is often the pathway to total disaster. > > My understanding of your initial post was that you are done with > "civilized debate." You denigrate others for proposing solutions > or principles for solutions (such as srict consitutional > interpretation) that don't match your strict anarcho-libertarian > opinions. My challenge is to tell us what you are going to > actually do to effect true change in a way consistent with your > statements. Otherwise, you are just using this forum to vent your > rage at the state. This would better be done using other forums > such as letters to the editor and your congress critters. > > Ed$ >
