General

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Autolykos — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:57:56 GMT

Cortes, is that your way of saying my Latin was wrong?

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

vive la insurrection — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:30:29 GMT

damn, I thought this thread was about trying to come up with as crazy a hypothetical situation you could throw out there

Anyway,

I think it would be a good project to show these problems are worse than useless, and can't actually be done in the context most people wish them to be done. Incidentally, this may put me at odds with some of the economists who associate with Mises.org, as a few seem apt to tbring up hypotheticals.

Either way, I think most of these questions can just get thrown in the much less shocking things such as "externality", and the Austrians relation to them.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Cortes — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:37:10 GMT

Suntne reductiones ad absurdum semper absurdae?

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Seraiah — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:49:51 GMT

Nukes are silly, but the underlying premise isn't. The idea is that in a free society people might be able to create on their own land enough explosives to accidentally destroy their neighbors property (And potentially kill the neighbors). Would the neighbor have the right to step in to stop this person?

That's a perfectly legitimate question, and the answer is "Yes". Putting a persons property at a percieved risk is enough to justify intervention.

Someone can't build a bomb-manufacturing facility next to your house without an agreement from the neighbors (if they're at risk.), but on the flipside neighbors can't buy property next to the facility and then demand that the facility stop or move. This isn't a new idea.

If everyone has nukes, that would mean that no one objected to the risk their property was put into, and the fact that the questioner is objecting to this idea is evidence that our society would not make the same judgement.

Anyways, my point is just that even though the hypothetical situation is silly, libertarians should still have an answer.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

John James — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:43:25 GMT

Interestingly enough this thread was started only days after we actually did just what the OP describes...calling out the insane notion of everyday individuals having access to nuclear bombs, like the accessibility of guns today.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Seraiah — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:16:44 GMT

http:translate.google.com and no.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Autolykos — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:19:32 GMT

Suntne reductiones ad absurdum semper absurdae?

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Seraiah — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 04:21:38 GMT

Audience Member #7

That's all well and good sir, but why "7" of all numbers? I need to know.

Also, if it's within the realm of reality and challenges the principle, hypotheticals should be answered. Reductio ad absurdums often result in strange hypotheticals, but that doesn't negate their usefulness.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Cortes — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:21:14 GMT

This is not necessarily germane to discourse centered on economics and political science, but from a proper ethics perspective you still have to answer the question, even if it isn't a rosy scenario. I do agree that many libertarians, as any with all people of any ideology when faced with this situation, trip themselves up in this and sometimes you get a lot of attempts at evasion when all that's needed is just to accept the terms of the scenario, not try to change them. You can always answer back with an insane hypothetical of your own just to catch them in their tracks and see their reaction. Don't let them get away with what they're trying to do; reductio ad absurdum goes both ways. Take advantage of it.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Anarcho-libertarian — Tue, 17 May 2011 01:10:27 GMT

Actually, thinking about what you all have said, DiLorenzo could have answered that by saying, "Well, what if a bunch of child molesters got voted into office, and Mississippi wanted to secede from them?"

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Anarcho-libertarian — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:55:53 GMT

Here are a few real world examples -

Reporter: "Sir, if fighting should break out again, would you pull the marines out?"

President Ronald Reagan: "You're asking a hypothetical question, and I've found out that I never get in trouble if I don't answer one of those."

-----------------------

Tom DiLorenzo's debate with Harry Jaffa:

Audience Member #7

Just limit your answer to Mississippi, then. Would Mississippi have been OK to secede to establish a society based on the kidnapping and ritual rape of 9-year-old girls?

Thomas DiLorenzo

I’m not going to answer crazy hypotheticals like that.

Audience Member #7

Where do you draw the line?

Thomas DiLorenzo

I would say, if a state has a right to secede, if a right to secede exists, a right to secede exists even if slavery was the issue, and we should have diligently worked to get rid of it peacefully.

Audience Member #7

Or anything else?

Thomas DiLorenzo

No, I’m not going to answer crazy hypotheticals. Child rape—ridiculous.

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Jack Roberts — Mon, 16 May 2011 23:44:39 GMT

Reasonable hypothetical questions can be interesting to entertain, but unreasonable questions are usually questions designed to be used against you. Like a loaded question, where the person knows the answer that he will get based on his knowledge of your ideology, so he asks a question that will set you up to look like a fool or allow him to refute you with a pre planned argument. Very common online.

What i tend to do is force the hypothetical in to his ideology and then throw the question back at him by showing how it would be a bad situation even in today's society. This usually forces them to change the question in to a more reasonable one.

edit: i should realy read the whole thread before posting, not one thing in my post was original...

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Dewaine McBride — Mon, 16 May 2011 22:16:49 GMT

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Clayton — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:07:40 GMT

@mikachussets: You need to point out where the proposed thought-experiment fails to conform to the essential attributes of reality under discussion. Even in a more voluntary society (don't forget that society is already 99% voluntary... it's the 1% of legitimized, coercive interactions we have a problem with), a little girl would have parents. Children are extremely vulnerable to predation and an abandoned or lost child is in a desperate and dangerous situation government or no government. So, this "hypothetical" fails to discriminate between a stateless and stateful society, that is, the child is in a dangerous situation regardless of whether there's a government or not.

The thought-experiment is not properly constructed. Send them back to the drawing boards.

Clayton -

Re: Insane hypotheticals and the rules of discourse

Autolykos — Thu, 12 May 2011 17:52:04 GMT

xahrx:
You're not obliged to respond, and you're usually better off not. The person who poses such a ridiculous situation as if a failure to answer or a doctrinaire answer on your part is proof of your folly almost never accepts the same standard for their views. Pose a ridiculous hypothetical right back to them,

Indeed. That's what I often do, especially when faced with "In a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society, what's to prevent X?" I turn right around and ask them, "In today's statist society, what's to prevent X?" My point is to illustrate that they believe in an illusion of certainty provided by the state.