Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has even one person in this thread supported the continued lockdown?

Continued? Maybe not, but you have consistently maintained that government has the legitimate power of prior restraint to statistically mitigate unintentional aggression. I'd be less critical if you (or several others) had consistently qualified that authority with hard limitations on the kind of enumerated powers the government may exercise to balance one kind of aggression with another, but I haven't seen you do so. Instead, you just argue the moral premise ever harder, deriding your opponents' understanding of libertarianism, without acknowledging any hard limits to government power to avoid abject tyranny (such as what we're seeing) if your pragmatic value judgments happen to be wrong.

So, in case I'm misunderstanding, let me ask you directly: What hard limits should apply to the use of governmental power to prevent Mary from accidentally infecting Bob? Barring an extinction-level event, is complete societal lockdown ever justifiable?

For instance, when you say this:
This isn't a freedom issue at all.

Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.

If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.
What I am hearing, is that if we lack the ability to prove the source of aggression in every case, people can have no liberty-based objection to the government exercising arbitrary power in order to ensure "no guilty man goes free." This is the exact opposite of the "innocent until proven guilty" premise that underlies a free and civilized society. Libertarianism cannot stand, and grows corrupted, without its roots.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Walter Block understands the issue.

Dr. Block also thinks abortion is not aggression and smacking around a child is not a violation of the NAP.

What if I and my neighbors want to voluntarily live in an area where we all choose to be vaccination free? Surely in a libertarian society, we can all voluntarily sign waivers that no one can be held liable if someone infects someone else from an otherwise preventable disease.
 
Continued? Maybe not, but you have consistently maintained that government has the legitimate power of prior restraint to statistically mitigate unintentional aggression. I'd be less critical if you (or several others) had consistently qualified that authority with hard limitations on the kind of enumerated powers the government may exercise to balance one kind of aggression with another, but I haven't seen you do so. Instead, you just argue the moral premise ever harder, deriding your opponents' understanding of libertarianism, without acknowledging any hard limits to government power to avoid abject tyranny (such as what we're seeing) if your pragmatic value judgments happen to be wrong.

So, in case I'm misunderstanding, let me ask you directly: What hard limits should apply to the use of governmental power to prevent Mary from accidentally infecting Bob? Barring an extinction-level event, is complete societal lockdown ever justifiable?

As I believe Krug and "several others" have mentioned, it's a matter of cost-benefit analysis; there are no other limits.

If the options are X and Y, and X will result in lower net costs than Y, then X is preferable to Y.
 
As I believe Krug and "several others" have mentioned, it's a matter of cost-benefit analysis; there are no other limits.

If the options are X and Y, and X will result in lower net costs than Y, then X is preferable to Y.

This is precisely the attitude that leads to no objective limits on government power, and hence totalitarianism. Any libertarian arguing this is abdicating the very roots of libertarianism in the hard-fought principles underlying the founding of this country. Absolute limits on government power were meant to curtail the excesses of arrogance in the pursuit of "cost/benefit analysis." If there is no limit to cost/benefit analysis, there is no limit to how far you can, and will, and DO, go astray. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
 
. What hard limits should apply to the use of governmental power to prevent Mary from accidentally infecting Bob?

None. Cost/benefit decision

Barring an extinction-level event, is complete societal lockdown ever justifiable?

Yes. Cost/benefit decision. It is morally justifiable now. I am strongly against it because I think the economic cost of a trillion dollars a month outweighs the value of lives saved. Not to mention I think it is dubious how many lives are saved by the lockdown.


Kind of silly questions, stopping aggression is always justified. It just depends on the trade-offs.
 
None. Cost/benefit decision



Yes. Cost/benefit decision. It is morally justifiable now. I am strongly against it because I think the economic cost of a trillion dollars a month outweighs the value of lives saved. Not to mention I think it is dubious how many lives are saved by the lockdown.


Kind of silly questions, stopping aggression is always justified. It just depends on the trade-offs.

Indeed, this shows where your heart truly lies...not in minimizing aggression in practice, which history has shown absolutely requires hard government limits, but in some other motivation. Every utopian who ever used unchecked means to achieve perfection, achieved only catastrophic destruction.
 
Last edited:
I should have chosen my words a bit more carefully in my BOLDED post. [MENTION=40471]Mine-Me[/MENTION] is correct that protesting is a component of action. I didn't mean to sound as if it's totally a waste of time. It's a small component and as Amash says, it is an inherent right. Having said that, what authoritarians like Swordy neglect to mention is that authoritarians rely completely on large masses of people continuing to buy in to the illusion that a small handful of assholes in some far away ivory tower, that the masses have never even met, still have control over the lives of everyone else via words on paper, compliant media and threats of force. For this reason, authoritarians will always attack anyone that suggests that the main solution is to simply ignore the ivory tower and cease to legitimize (thereby consenting) their dictates.

This is the first time I'll publicly write this on RPF but I ran for office not long ago and spent more time than I'd like to admit around the assholes. I can fully say that yes, they are assholes and few were decent people, and of the decent people, none of the decent people won the offices. Only the assholes. After meeting and mingling with the assholes, I wondered even more than I did previously "Why the hell do I listen to these assholes??" Most weren't very smart, most would sell their mommas for a vote or a dollar, and most simply bought their office by outright bribing the most powerful local GOTV organization. That's it. Why would I care what they say or waste my time trying to get them to do anything I, as a constituent, wanted? They were clearly out for themselves and their cronies and that's all. Knowing what I do now, I know that protesting them is mostly a waste of time, is spun negatively by the compliant media, and only serves to reassure the assholes that they are in command of my life, not me.
 
Last edited:
This is precisely the attitude that leads to no objective limits on government power, and hence totalitarianism.

"Do X iff X is cheaper than Y" is just as objective a rule as "never do X."

Any libertarian arguing this is abdicating the very roots of libertarianism in the hard-fought principles underlying the founding of this country.

The root of libertarianism is minimizing aggression; whatever accomplishes that is what is best.

Absolute limits on government power were meant to curtail the excesses of arrogance in the pursuit of "cost/benefit analysis." If there is no limit to cost/benefit analysis, there is no limit to how far you can, and will, and DO, go astray. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean by cost-benefit analysis.

I'm not talking about just any costs and benefits that might be thrown at the board.

By costs I mean aggression which occurs, and by benefits I mean aggression which is prevented from occurring.

Those are very strict limits.
 
"Do X iff X is cheaper than Y" is just as objective a rule as "never do X."
No, because literally everyone measures utility differently, and nobody knows the full consequences of every action, especially inherently broad-brush government action. Not only does the math have more unknowns than knowns, but everyone is using their own pet coefficients and making their own mistakes. You cannot get more subjective than that.

When the government restricts Mary from infecting Joe based on statistical premises, the government is also inadvertantly (at best) restricting Sally from exercising her liberty. You can make a GUESS about which action will minimize aggression, but without hard limits on the means you're willing to use in the arrogance of your correct judgment, there is no limit to how wrong you can be, and how high the cost of aggression will grow.

Yours is the arrogance of every utilitarian totalitarian, and it makes your supposedly libertarian position effectively indistinguishable from Mao's.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, this shows exactly where your heart truly lies...not in minimizing aggression in practice, which history has shown absolutely requires hard government limits, but in some other motivation. Every utopian who ever used unchecked means to achieve perfection, achieved only catastrophic destruction.

Singapore isn't the freedom ideal but it does refute what you just said. Singapore was ruled by a dictator for decades who made every decision on cost/benefit and utilitarian grounds with no legal check on authority. The country is a technocracy. Worked and continues to work quite well. No catastrophic destruction yet. Per capita GDP was $300 a year 50 years ago and is $80k now. But maybe you are right that catastrophic destruction is right around the corner.
 
Singapore isn't the freedom ideal but it does refute what you just said. Singapore was ruled by a dictator for decades who made every decision on cost/benefit and utilitarian grounds with no legal check on authority. The country is a technocracy. Worked and continues to work quite well. No catastrophic destruction yet. Per capita GDP was $300 a year 50 years ago and is $80k now. But maybe you are right that catastrophic destruction is right around the corner.

Of course, and the US dollar hasn't imploded yet either. Is fiat money sound? Besides, you seem a lot more utopian than Singapore...and let's see what happens after a few more rulers get to exercise that same authority. You only need one despotic king, to do more damage with unlimited power than the good of a hundred wise kings.

In any case, let us laugh once again about libertarians arguing in favor of unlimited government power. How amazingly ironic.
 
Last edited:
Of course, and the US dollar hasn't imploded yet either. Is fiat money sound? Besides, you seem a lot more utopian than Singapore.

Except utilitarianism is the the complete opposite of utopian. I am a pragmatist and only care about what works in the context of a libertarian framework. The anti-government anarchists in this thread are utopian. Anarchy is an imagined ideal that has no possibility of working.
 
Except utilitarianism is the the complete opposite of utopian. I am a pragmatist and only care about what works in the context of a libertarian framework. The anti-government anarchists in this thread are utopian. Anarchy is an imagined ideal that has no possibility of working.

Accepting the premise of unlimited government power to correct every possible case of aggression IS utopian. The true pragmatist limits government power to cut their goddamn losses.
 
Accepting the premise of unlimited government power to correct every possible case of aggression IS utopian.

It has worked quite well for the United States for 244 years and counting. Works well in Hong Kong, Switzerland. Lot of places. Seems very pragmatic. But maybe your doomer vision is correct and the US is about to collapse and anarchotopia is around the corner and will work just great.
 
No, because literally everyone measures utility differently...

Again, the rule I'm offering includes clear definitions of cost and benefit.

I'm not saying "go minimize whatever you see as costs."

I'm saying "go minimum costs defined in this particular way."

If you say "well people might ignore that," yea, I guess they might, but then they might ignore your alternative rule too, so...?

and nobody knows the full consequences of every action, especially inherently broad-brush government action. Not only does the math have more unknowns than knowns, but everyone is using their own pet coefficients and making their own mistakes. You cannot get more subjective than that.

The future is uncertain and action is always risky; stubbornly applying a rule (never do X) in all cases doesn't make it less so.

When the government restricts Mary from infecting Joe based on statistical premises, the government is also inadvertantly (at best) restricting Sally from exercising her liberty. You can make a GUESS about which action will minimize aggression, but without hard limits on the means you're willing to use in the arrogance of your correct judgment, there is no limit to how wrong you can be, and how high the cost of aggression will grow.

There have been plenty of predictions about what effect the closures will have on GDP.

I'll bet you the average prediction will be pretty close to the mark.

Putting a dollar-value on harm isn't a matter of pure guessing.

Yours is the arrogance of every utilitarian totalitarian, and it makes your supposedly libertarian position effectively indistinguishable from Mao's.

LOL

Let me as you this, are you a minarchist; do you think the state should provide a judiciary, police force, or army?

If so, how would you have the state decide, for instance, how many soldiers to hire?

Would you have a fixed rule (never more than [insert arbitrary number]) or might you compare the costs and benefits of different options?
 
It has worked quite well for the United States for 244 years and counting. Works well in Hong Kong, Switzerland. Lot of places. Seems very pragmatic. But maybe your doomer vision is correct and the US is about to collapse and anarchotopia is around the corner and will work just great.

I may sympathize with the voluntaryists, but who ever said I was one? You're barking up the wrong tree here.

The trajectory of the United States is a textbook lesson in the creeping tyranny of insufficient limits on government power. Let's institute a 1% income tax on the top 1% of earners...oh, nevermind, now it's 30% from the middle class. Let's spy on some terrorists who are planning mass murder...oh, nevermind, let's spy on literally everyone so we can have controlling dirt on anyone who ever tries to hold office. If you think things are going swimmingly, how'd you ever end up a libertarian even in name? That said, learning you think everything is okay doesn't surprise me, considering the argument you're making is only superficially different from the one every unchecked utilitarian makes. "Oh, get the right person in office with unlimited power and they'll do the right thing." Whether your utility function is the NAP, or equity for all, it all leads the same place if you're too arrogant to limit the means.
 
Last edited:
The direction this thread has taken, especially using Block and the NAP to justify forcibly vaccinating someone against their will, indicates once again why most people regard libertarianism as a joke, well represented by Vermin Supreme.

Go sue a tornado.
 
The Right to Not Get Sick?

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2020/05/14/the-right-to-not-get-sick/

By eric - May 14, 2020

We were told, at the onset of the “lockdown” that it was necessary to imprison the populace in order to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed with the Corona’d. This never happened – even in New York, where the Javits Center – a massive indoor exposition facility used for major events like the annual (until this year) New York Auto Show – was converted into a massive urban field hospital, whose beds were never used, because they weren’t necessary.

The military hospital ship Comfort – also dispatched to deal with the overwhelmed overflow – was likewise never needed.

Of course, the answer given is that the “lockdown” prevented the overwhelming – which works like the medicine man taking credit for the sun reappearing after an eclipse. This is how the medicine man keeps the tribe in line.

It works so long as it’s not questioned.

Maybe people ought to do that.

Most states have experienced Corona fatalities – as distinct from “cases” – in the high hundreds. If that high. Out of populations in the millions. If millions of Americans weren’t innumerate, millions of Americans would be much less terrified of Corona.

Which is less of a threat to healthy adults than going for a drive.

Some 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents each year and your odds of being one of them don’t depend chiefly on your being over 80 or in poor health. Speaking of the latter. America has among the highest proportion of morbidly obese, hypertensive and diabetic people in the world.

Exactly the demographic most likely to get Corona’d by any virus. Because they’re already sick.

Maybe these people should lose some weight, stop drinking liter bottles of fructose-sweetened soda.

In order to be less vulnerable to getting sick.

Instead, the new line – now that the “overwhelmed” line isn’t holding water – is that the “lockdowns” will remain necessary because people might get sick. In other words, a new right – enforced by the government – to be free of the threat of sickness.

In exchange, of course, for our freedom.

It’s a beautiful thing, too – because there is no way to eliminate the threat of sickness. But that possibility can be used to justify practically anything – very much (as this writer has been saying for decades) the same way that “getting dangerous drunks” off the road has been used to justify treating every driver as presumptively drunk – and every air traveler as a presumptive “terrorist.”

Principles matter. They become the basis for practices.

This newly minted “right” percolates to the surface as the logical, inevitable denouement of the idea that risk is intolerable. That “we” – defined by them – can’t be too saaaaaaaaaaafe!

People mustn’t drive a car without a seatbelt on or ride a motorcycle without a helmet; kids can’t be permitted to play outside without a parent supervising at all times; every new car must have a back-up camera and six air bags and technology that applies the brakes automatically – just in case the driver doesn’t.

Why not the inverted right to be free of the threat of getting sick? As distinct from the right to take steps to reduce your chances of getting sick, such as giving a wide berth to anyone who seems sniffly and – most of all – taking good care of your own self so as to make yourself healthier and so less likely to get sick, whether from this Corona or some other Corona?

Instead, this new – and more dangerous than unshielded plutonium – “right” to be free of any threat that you might get sick.

The “asymptomatic” – which is everyone who isn’t sick – must be presumed sick and forced to wear a surgical mask as if they were in fact highly contagious. Everyone must stand six feet apart from everyone else – because someone might have Corona, without any need to establish that in fact they do have it.

Sickness must be presumed – everywhere – and this will never end because there is no way to establish, for sure, that someone isn’t sick.

The idea enshrines pathology – germ-o-phobia not only normalized but institutionalized.

It’d be seen as crazy – if so many people weren’t.
 
Again, the rule I'm offering includes clear definitions of cost and benefit.

I'm not saying "go minimize whatever you see as costs."

I'm saying "go minimum costs defined in this particular way."

There are still too many unknowns, and you'll still make mistakes in your math.

When the government restricts Mary from infecting Joe based on statistical premises, the government is also inadvertantly (at best) restricting Sally from exercising her liberty. You can make a GUESS about which action will minimize aggression, but without hard limits on the means you're willing to use in the arrogance of your correct judgment, there is no limit to how wrong you can be, and how high the cost of aggression will grow. No Menshevik or social democrat ever thought they'd pave the road for Stalin either.

If you say "well people might ignore that," yea, I guess they might, but then they might ignore your alternative rule too, so...?

The future is uncertain and action is always risky; stubbornly applying a rule (never do X) in all cases doesn't make it less so.
Hence hard, brutally enforced limits on government power. My goal isn't to make a utopia. It's to do everything in my power to prevent the worst case scenario, which we are approaching.



There have been plenty of predictions about what effect the closures will have on GDP.

I'll bet you the average prediction will be pretty close to the mark.

Putting a dollar-value on harm isn't a matter of pure guessing.

LOL

Let me as you this, are you a minarchist; do you think the state should provide a judiciary, police force, or army?

If so, how would you have the state decide, for instance, how many soldiers to hire?

Would you have a fixed rule (never more than [insert arbitrary number]) or might you compare the costs and benefits of different options?

If I had my way? Hah, as if. Off the cuff:
First, the Constitution would impose stricter limits on the kind of powers government may exercise, and the kind of powers they must absolutely under no circumstances ever even attempt to exercise, Bill of Rights style. Unlike our current Constitution, there would be an explicit, 72-point-font provision stating unequivocally that any politician, bureaucrat, executive, or judge who proposes, votes for, executes, or upholds any law which would in any way abridge those rights, ever, under any circumstances, is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. There would of course be a trial with the presumption of innocence, but upon proof of guilt, the crime is unequivocally treason, and the punishment is unequivocally death. (This would be the ONLY case of death penalty permitted by the Constitution. Public servants beware.) Furthermore, anyone who attempts to institute, execute, uphold, etc. a law or policy outside the scope of enumerated powers is guilty of sedition, which is punishable by N years of imprisonment and a lifelong ban from any form of public office or public employment. No such provisions may be amended, except to make the mandatory penalties harsher. There are a lot of unspoken details here about checks and balances and the power of the people to easily repeal laws with a sizable minority, etc. Actually writing a bullet-proof Constitution is outside the scope of this post, and actually getting there from here is another matter. If achieved though, it would be a good baseline for a government that stays limited indefinitely, instead of starting to grow without limit from day 1. As a side note, such rules would apply to every level of government, but any powers that could possibly be exercised by more local forms of government would not belong to e.g. the federal government, should such a government even exist (maybe a confederacy is superior, etc.; that's not the point).

There are indeed cases where subjective judgment calls must be made, but the goal should be to minimize these to the greatest extent possible. For instance, within the scope of powers the government may exercise for the ostensible purpose of protecting life, liberty, and property, yes, I would institute upper bounds on the cost/benefit analysis permitted by politicians. Perhaps the Constitution would provide for them to be overridden in extreme cases by an extreme supermajority vote (e.g. 95%) for a duration of no more than one year. The exact numbers, ratios, etc. are arbitrary of course, but that's no excuse to make literally everything arbitrary.

Regardless of the specifics of how I'd defang government if I could: Anyone who uses the argument that subjectivity is unavoidable in SOME cases, as the thin end of the wedge to justify unlimited subjectivity, is no friend of liberty.

We are rapidly approaching the point where a totalitarian government will have the technological control grid in place to make their tyranny eternal...a boot stamping on a human face, forever. That must NOT be allowed to happen, and I will not entertain any bullshit philosophizing that holds the door open for it, least of all from supposed libertarians who are so busy with their own pseudo-intellectual self-fellating that they've forgotten their roots entirely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
There are still too many unknowns, and you'll still make mistakes in your math.

When the government restricts Mary from infecting Joe based on statistical premises, the government is also inadvertantly (at best) restricting Sally from exercising her liberty. You can make a GUESS about which action will minimize aggression, but without hard limits on the means you're willing to use in the arrogance of your correct judgment, there is no limit to how wrong you can be, and how high the cost of aggression will grow. No Menshevik or social democrat ever thought they'd pave the road for Stalin either.


Hence hard, brutally enforced limits on government power. My goal isn't to make a utopia. It's to do everything in my power to prevent the worst case scenario, which we are approaching.





If I had my way? Hah, as if. Off the cuff:
First, the Constitution would impose stricter limits on the kind of powers government may exercise, and the kind of powers they must absolutely under no circumstances ever even attempt to exercise, Bill of Rights style. Unlike our current Constitution, there would be an explicit, 72-point-font provision stating unequivocally that any politician, bureaucrat, executive, or judge who proposes, votes for, executes, or upholds any law which would in any way abridge those rights, ever, under any circumstances, is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. There would of course be a trial with the presumption of innocence, but upon proof of guilt, the crime is unequivocally treason, and the punishment is unequivocally death. (This would be the ONLY case of death penalty permitted by the Constitution. Public servants beware.) Furthermore, anyone who attempts to institute, execute, uphold, etc. a law or policy outside the scope of enumerated powers is guilty of sedition, which is punishable by N years of imprisonment and a lifelong ban from any form of public office or public employment. No such provisions may be amended, except to make the mandatory penalties harsher. There are a lot of unspoken details here about checks and balances and the power of the people to easily repeal laws with a sizable minority, etc. Actually writing a bullet-proof Constitution is outside the scope of this post, and actually getting there from here is another matter. If achieved though, it would be a good baseline for a government that stays limited indefinitely, instead of starting to grow without limit from day 1. As a side note, such rules would apply to every level of government, but any powers that could possibly be exercised by more local forms of government would not belong to e.g. the federal government, should such a government even exist (maybe a confederacy is superior, etc.; that's not the point).

There are indeed cases where subjective judgment calls must be made, but the goal should be to minimize these to the greatest extent possible. For instance, within the scope of powers the government may exercise for the ostensible purpose of protecting life, liberty, and property, yes, I would institute upper bounds on the cost/benefit analysis permitted by politicians. Perhaps the Constitution would provide for them to be overridden in extreme cases by an extreme supermajority vote (e.g. 95%) for a duration of no more than one year. The exact numbers, ratios, etc. are arbitrary of course, but that's no excuse to make literally everything arbitrary.

Regardless of the specifics of how I'd defang government if I could: Anyone who uses the argument that subjectivity is unavoidable in SOME cases, as the thin end of the wedge to justify unlimited subjectivity, is no friend of liberty.

We are rapidly approaching the point where a totalitarian government will have the technological control grid in place to make their tyranny eternal...a boot stamping on a human face, forever. That must NOT be allowed to happen, and I will not entertain any bullshit philosophizing that holds the door open for it, least of all from supposed libertarians who are so busy with their own pseudo-intellectual self-fellating that they've forgotten their roots entirely.


Your last paragraph is pure gold and I wish I could +rep you for it (as well as several other posts recently) but alas I'm out of ammo again. Great post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top