Political Theory

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Wheylous — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:35:31 GMT

I drink and serve raw milk to my kids, by the way. It tastes better and I trust it more. I own shares in a cow.

Just finished a glass myself

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:12:36 GMT

For my death, primarily me assuming that I could find other resources and understood your terms, but that's quite a radical shift from the hypothetical that Friedman and that hippy are going by.

If I didn't pay once, and we assume that no food = a fairly instant death, then it's a little closer to the one in the video. And while I would still say blame primarily lies with me, you are not free from taking part in it.

Now if we extend the hypothetical, and say that you have a policy of never stopping food delivery, I would not argue that my neighbors or your other customers are the only ones to blame for your lack of resources or the high cost. You are also to blame for having that policy.

Humans are more than number crunching cyborgs, and given enough thought they can choose to do things that don't make sense economically. I think that while it is likely that few people would pay a power company that never shuts off the power if that happened tomorrow, it is not impossible to see such a case in the near future.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

James — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:04:29 GMT

I reckon it would be wrong if you positively misrepresented to the consumer that it was pasteurised - by advertising it as such, or lying when asked - and if the cause of their sickness or whatever would most likely not have occurred if it had been pasteurised.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

TANSTAAFL — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:46:27 GMT

Birthday Pony,

Let's change the senario slightly and see if you still adhere to the same position. You are a vegan. I am an organic farmer. I grow the best most nutritional organic produce and will deliver it to your door. You contract with me to provide you with all the food you need, delivered fresh to your door each week. My time and resources are limited. Six months go by and you have always paid on time. Then one week you do not pay me for the food I delivered. You still eat the food. The next week the same thing happens. Afte you stiff me on the thrid week I refuse to deliver food on the fourth week. You die of starvation three weeks later. Who is to blame?

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Charles Anthony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:01:34 GMT

If I was born with lactose intolerance and I drink raw milk with chocolate syrup and then get sick, who is to blame?

Why, God is to blame of course for making me without the ability to resist chocolate!

I drink and serve raw milk to my kids, by the way. It tastes better and I trust it more. I own shares in a cow.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:01:34 GMT

He went on to a hypothetical where the power company never shuts off the power, to say that the power company is an inhuman entity, and that responsibility would lie completely outside of the power company to prove that it still does not have any responsibility, no matter the case.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

John James — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:20:38 GMT

Birthday Pony:
Because we all know a problem with reasoning doesn't effect the outcome or similar cases.

huh?

Call me crazy, but it sounds more like you can't reconcile the two oppositional beliefs you hold.

Okay. You're crazy. I hold no oppositional beliefs.

Regardless of whether or not I'm offering an alternative, the answer given by Friedman directly contradicts the implications of self-ownership. People are not in fct responsible for their actions once they sign a contract and have no free will to do as they please. Whether or not I have a solution, that seems like a pretty gaping hole in your philosophy.

Friedman asked "is it really the responsibility [of those at the electric company]? Should I blame [them for the man dying]?" Your entire argument is rooted in claiming Friedman said the electric company is not responsible for shutting down the electricity. He said no such thing. The only reason the case was brought up was because the man died. Friedman posed the question of who is ultimately to blame for the (supposed) tragedy of the man's death (of course it is only a supposed tragedy because for all we know the man died of natural causes). Here again, you have absolutely no point unless you assume the fallacious view that "no electricity = death".

And this fallaciousness aside, one has to really appreciate the irony of a self-proclaimed socialist talking about gaping holes in philosophies.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:11:13 GMT

Because we all know a problem with reasoning doesn't effect the outcome or similar cases.

Call me crazy, but it sounds more like you can't reconcile the two oppositional beliefs you hold. Unless you can explain to me otherwise I'm fine accepting that that's the case.

Regardless of whether or not I'm offering an alternative, the answer given by Friedman directly contradicts the implications of self-ownership. People are not in fct responsible for their actions once they sign a contract and have no free will to do as they please. Whether or not I have a solution, that seems like a pretty gaping hole in your philosophy.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

John James — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:11:55 GMT

Birthday Pony:
Ignoring that I acknowledged that the scenario need not be that the man died*...

Only by veering the course the point you were implying, which is why I didn't find it necessary to address that part. And again, it's all irrelevant if you aren't suggesting anything be done differently, which you directly confirmed you weren't doing. So, here again, in another thread, you have no real point, it just appears you're looking to argue.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Wibee — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:11:28 GMT

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:04:17 GMT

Ignoring that I acknowledged that the scenario need not be that the man died*...

Are you able to reconcile your belief that people both have agency and that the power company was not in some capacity responsible?

*my second post, 12th line: "Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not."

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

John James — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:59:55 GMT

Birthday Pony:
if we are considering the case as it was laid out in the video, basically if his power is shut off then he dies...

Birthday Pony:
If we examine the situation as it's laid out in the video (if the power goes out this man dies, if it stays on he lives)

Birthday Pony:
"Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that 'no electricity = death'."

No, I didn't notice that.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:46:30 GMT

"Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that 'no electricity = death'."

No, I didn't notice that.

Meanwhile, a few posts up: "Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not."

No matter what the result, even if the man's power is shut off providing him with a greater insight into his being and the nature of modern civilization causing him to move to Tibet and live a long, simple, and happy life as a monk, there is action and therefore responsibility on the side of the power company.

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

John James — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:42:32 GMT

Birthday Pony:

"1) Are you going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your bicycle generator again?"

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am discussing, and no, I am not. What I am picking at is Friedman's assertion that the power company or someone there is void of responsibility.

"2) Are you a socialist?"

Sure am.

"I believe people have the ability to freely choose their actions."

Then there's a problem if you agree with Friedman's assertion that the power company has no responsibility in the matter. Self-ownership, to use terms more widely accepted here, is not a one time deal. It is not just in effect at the moment of contract, but at every point before and thereafter. It is inalienable. If its in alienable, then all actions, no matter their relationship to any contract, are wholly those of the actor, and no one but the actor can be held reponsible for them. At the moment the power was shut off there was an action on the side of the power company. That is not to say it was not a predictable action or one that lay outside of the contract, but that someone made a decision when they could have just as freely not.

Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that "no electricity = death".

Re: Raw Milk and sickness

Birthday Pony — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:27:14 GMT

"1) Are you going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your bicycle generator again?"

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am discussing, and no, I am not. What I am picking at is Friedman's assertion that the power company or someone there is void of responsibility.

"2) Are you a socialist?"

Sure am.

"I believe people have the ability to freely choose their actions."

Then there's a problem if you agree with Friedman's assertion that the power company has no responsibility in the matter. Self-ownership, to use terms more widely accepted here, is not a one time deal. It is not just in effect at the moment of contract, but at every point before and thereafter. It is inalienable. If its in alienable, then all actions, no matter their relationship to any contract, are wholly those of the actor, and no one but the actor can be held reponsible for them. At the moment the power was shut off there was an action on the side of the power company. That is not to say it was not a predictable action or one that lay outside of the contract, but that someone made a decision when they could have just as freely not.