| | Post 15: Mr. Barnes describes the free rider fallacy and asks if anyone can explain how a voluntarily financed military can exist, given this perceived problem
Post 16: Eric J Tower explains how a voluntarily financed military can exist, despite the supposed problem, even providing a link to the Objectivism 101 article on the topic (which I wrote, BTW)
Post 18: Mr. Barnes ignores the majority of the points made in post 16, picks a nit, and insinuates that his fallacy is still unanswered.
Post 19: Byron Garcia explains that the free rider fallacy is not a problem, because people will pay what they will pay, and "I don't think they even give a rat's ass ... a rationally egoistic person would not care what everyone else is doing anyway." This is the Objectivist position summed up nicely. (The funny thing is, I didn't notice this nice turn of phrase before I used the exact same one! I guess the issue really is pretty clear to everyone but befuddled socialists.)
Post 20: Mr. Barnes ignores the refutations of his fallacy, pretends to respond to another issue, then explains that coercion is necessary because of his fallacy.
Post 22: Eric J. Tower explains that Objectivists are about individualism and we don't care about aggregate 'good', which is what the socialists are always on about.
Post 23: Mr. Barnes says that he's not being utilitarian, he's only concerned with minimizing coercion. Still ignoring the fact that people have responded to his fallacy and he's ignored them.
Post 24: Eric J. Tower says that the ends do not justify the means. That you do not fight coercion with coercion.
Post 28: Mr. Barnes says that asking if the ends justify the means is meaningless, which he demonstrates by turning the question around in a nonsensical and unsupported way. He labels a perceived potential effect as a means, and seems to think he's being profound.
Post 31: Eric J. Tower explains the error. "Your argument is justifying the means with the ends in Altruist fashion"
Post 32: Mr. Barnes completely ignores the lesson, and continues to equivocate a perceived potential effect with a means. He then again asks: "1) Why would it be in your rational self-interest to pay for the defence of other people who don't themselves want to pay?" which was answered in post 19 - Objectivists don't care about who is benefiting as a second-order effect of our actions. And some other questions that contain implicit contradictions, but are answered later.
Post 34: Eric J Tower again explains how volunteer financing would work and answers the questions from 32.
Post 35: Mr. Barnes is still concerned about paying for other people. He's very jealous, and can't stand that others may benefit. He says that Eric J. Tower wants to sacrifice the greater good for the freedoms of the few. (Sound familiar?) He again says we can never be free from coercion, and explains the "paradox of freedom".
Post 36: Andrew Bissel explains the fallacy imbedded in the so-called "paradox of freedom".
Post 39: I explain that the free rider fallacy is basically the same as the "prudent predator problem". According to the free rider fallacy, people will not pay because it's in their interests not to, which falls into the same trap, equivocating money with interests. I give a link to Joe's article about how life is not about how much stuff you have. I point out that the issue is not one of minimizing coercion, as Mr. Barnes would have it, but that coercion destroys value. Every bit of coercion, in any form, is a destruction of value. (A standard tenet of Objectivism.)
Post 41: Mr. Barnes is very indignant and shocked, for he did not invent this problem, it is in every economics textbook, and that, no, he's not here to trick people. He's genuine and honest. He then says that the issue is solely "whether you would like to subsidize the defense of people who do not themselves want to contribute" -- that jealousy thing again.
Post 44: I accidentally repeat Byron Garcia's post 19, but that's OK, because clearly Mr. Barnes didn't read it. (unfortunately he won't read this one either.) I then point out that jealousy is not a virtue, and that it is up to each individual to decide how they want to spend their money, not up to a socialist bureaucrat who would minimize coercion for out own good by coercing us.
Post 47: Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes pretends that jealousy has nothing to do with it, and then re-emphasizes that all he cares about is the horrible thing of subsidizing other people who don't deserve subsidizing.
Post 48: Craig Hayne points out that of course Mr. Barnes argument is resting on jealousy.
Post 49: Mr. Barnes begrudgingly accepts the charge of jealousy in the third-person. He then restates his fallacy, with a more clear assumption that there is only one level of defense spending that's acceptable, and that if other people stop paying, you will then have to pay more, and again states that we must minimize coercion, ignoring posts 16, 19, 34, 39, and 44.
Post 50: I give an analogy about how Objectivists don't care about others benefiting from 2nd order effects of our actions, and that since I as an individual choose what actions to take, I have no right to force people who benefit from my actions to pay me money.
Post 51: Mr. Barnes makes a different, similar analogy, that takes as an implicit premise that there is only one level of spending that's appropriate, and it's up to the government bureaucrats to extort the money to pay what's required for the level of spending. Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes then states that I now know that his fallacy is a difficult problem (it's not), that I accept it (I don't), and that my proposal is to "put up with it", even though I have never conceded that "it" exists. He calls all my arguments "weak hand-waving", and asks for an apology, though he has not answered a thing that I, Eric J. Tower, or Byron Garcia has said!
Post 52: I point out that Mr. Barnes counter-analogy is false because of his assumption that there is only one level of funding that's acceptable, and that each person should spend their money how they want, and to try to force them to spend their money on what you want requires you to shoot anyone who won't go along.
Post 54: Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes pretends that in New Zealand, people don't have to pay taxes, and that the power to tax is not the power to destroy.
Post 55: Reginald Firehammer agrees with me, points out to Daniel (again) that his argument is based on jealousy, and points out that "free-riders" cost us nothing.
Post 56: Reginald Firehammer nicely gives Mr. Barnes the name of an author who refutes this fallacy that Mr. Barnes holds so dear.
Post 58: Mr. Barnes states that the free rider fallacy is "the basis of *all commerce*". Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes then equates individuals spending their money how they choose to letting people steal. He then confuses opportunity costs with costs, and says that there, the costs are staring you in the face.
Post 59: Craig Haynie points out the errors in the above.
Post 61: Mr. Barnes says that free riders "take my my[sic] defence contributions". He then ignores post 59 and again equates free riding with stealing, evading the fact that benefiting from a second-order effect is quite different from taking another’s property. He then says that if another person decided to stop doing something, from which you were benefiting from its 2nd order effects, you will be worst off.
Post 64: I agree that if another person decides to stop doing something from which I was benefiting from the 2nd order effects I will be worse off, but that doesn't justify forcing the other person to keep doing what they were doing. I then point to several institutions in reality that refute the free rider fallacy, because honest and genuine Mr. Barnes was ignoring posts 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 34, 39, 44, 48, 52, 55 & 56, and I thought maybe if I was just a little bit clearer, he might listen.
Post 65: Because I agreed that we can be worse off if someone stops dong something that had beneficial 2nd order effects, honest and genuine Mr. Barnes gleefully states that I've accepted his argument as true. Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes then denies that he has advocated killing people who don't want to pay for what the fatally conceited have determined that they pay, evading again that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Somehow, he plans on coercing people to do what he says without harming them. He then takes my examples from real life that refute his fallacy and then for some reason asks us why they don't refute his fallacy. Apparently he needs help in his argument.
Post 66: Mr. Barnes repeats himself at length, ignoring what everyone else has said.
Post 67: I quote extensively from honest and genuine Mr. Barnes' past posts where he has advocated using coercion against people, and put it up to his quote where he essentially claims that he hasn't advocated using coercion. Perhaps here I was assuming that the link between coercion and the willingness to shoot people was obvious. In hindsight, I guess I was giving Mr. Barnes too much credit. In this case, it was probably less an issue of dishonesty and more an issue of stupidity or ignorance. For that, I apologize.
Post 68: Reginald Firehammer points out more problems with the free rider fallacy and compares Mr. Barnes' proposals to mafia extortion.
Post 70: Lindsay for some reason thinks that the last 69 posts have been interesting.
Post 73: Mr. Barnes affects to be a school teacher. Apparently we've forgotten his lessons. Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes claims that I have admitted that to maintain an adequate level of defense, I will have to bear the costs of free-riders!!! He goes on to talk about "adequate defense" some more, and asks if we will ever come up with an argument against the free rider fallacy!!! Honest and genuine Mr. Barnes must not have seen posts 16, 19, 22, 34, 39, 44 & all the rest, but if he's responding without reading anything we write, what's the point? Maybe he will just keep ignoring all the arguments we make, without pointing out why he thinks they fail, until we make one that he will buy or at least see.
Post 74: Craig Hayne explicitly asks Mr. Barnes where he gets off wanting to coerce other people for his ends.
Post 76: I point out that a defense force can only be "adequate" or not to an individual. Mr. Barnes is using the phrase "adequate defense" as a socialist would and in a way that only socialists would agree with. Apparently he doesn't realize that this is an Objectivist web site.
Post 77: More of the same garbage and lies from Mr. Barnes, and a return to the minimization of coercion principle. He claims that he's asked us to refute his theory and that we've refused. He calls shooting anyone that doesn't agree with him what's "adequate" to be "barely an evil at all".
Post 78: Mr. Barnes declares victory, with "a decisive result". He says that I won't answer his direct questions. If you do a find for "?", you will see that honest and genuine Mr. Barnes has asked me five questions in this whole discussion. Three have been thoroughly answered, one was rhetorical, and the other was beside the point, relating to his "all trade is based upon the free-rider problem" premise.
1) "I take it that means you are fine with it then. Is there a particular limit at which you would *not* want to, or are you happy to subsidize others to the limit that you can afford?" If he thinks that, "Who give's a rat's ass", is not an answer, then I can't help him. As has been pointed out multiple times, Objectivists don't care if other people are benefiting from our side effects, because we do not see jealousy as a virtue.
2) "What has jealousy to do with the topic at hand?" This has been thoroughly answered.
3) "why keep going on?" Because I'm passionate and practicing my Wm. L. Garrison.
4) Do they force people to pay taxes in the States? This has been answered, and Mr. Barnes is no longer claiming that he's not arguing for shooting people who disagree with his chosen adequate level, so he must realize at least that I've answered this one.
5) "Isn't what generally happens *in real life* is you get your part of the overall cost confiscated - just as your housepainter would do to you if you got him to paint your house, but didn't feel like paying?" Of course, with a housepainter, you agree on the price at the beginning. If you don't pay, you are in breach of contract. This can not be equated with a level of defense many people may not want or want to pay for.
-----
You know, I would be willing to grant the premise that these evading dissenters provide some value. To take this thread for example, it was interesting through post 19. There were some points raised and discussed, then along comes Mr. Barnes, who asks a genuine-sounding question, which is then immediately answered by two different people in posts 16 and 19. He then ignores them, and Spams the thread over and over and over again, not adding any value; not saying anything new or interesting; declaring victory and his superiority the whole way. I can't imagine many people have found it interesting or have read it past about post 32, where it becomes more than clear that this guy has nothing to offer. I agree that, in principle, argument and debate is good, but when you have ridiculous threads like this and others that are poisoned by trolls, it destroys the potential for Objectivists discussing with Objectivists, which is the entire point of this website. If we weren't so passionate about what we hold dear, then we could just ignore senseless posts by the likes of Mr. Barnes, give them a non-sanction, and discuss something interesting. But A is A.
|
|
