What Makes People Become Libertarians?

Post Reply New Topic

Well it's probably cuz they generally don't dig deeper. If they don't dig deeper than typical partisan politics, then they haven't dug deep enough to have insight into their simple emotional impulses either.

Looks like someone thinks Social Darwinism isn't a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage. Well here's some food for thought for ya. The neo-cortex, which is the most human part of the brain involving higher functions (planning, inhibition, abstract thinking, love, learning empathy, etc... etc...) is the most evolved while the monkey brain (limbic system) and the lizard brain (cerebellum) are the least evolved.

I was thinking of general relativity. Special relativity does not make as good an example, as it can be analyzed without understanding the simplicity of the underlying theory.


If one gets a good grounding in economics, one comes to understand why the market generally does a better job than government interference, and also the specific exceptions, which are monopolies and externalities. Both economics and general relativity are difficult to learn, but simple once learned.

I think the two theories are beautifully concise; newtons gravity never made much sense to in terms of intuition. Einsteins does. I think it's hard not to see the simplicity in special relativity, given that it is based on two simple postulates. Plus, the math is actually manageable for an undergrad

/de-diverts thread

mcg, the problem is really more complicated. What psychologists have found is that emotions are really actually our necessary short-cut when making decisions. We can't do everything calculated and explicit, so emotions basically end up controlling a lot of the rest of what is going on. What this tends to entail is that most decisions have a lot of emotions built into them, even though we often don't see this. I mean, the fact of the matter is that without some emotional impulses saying "Do this!!" people would actually spend an uncounted period of time debating an issue back and forth and examining all of the details(which is actually what people do if that part of their brain is damaged)

I can understand points 3 and 4, perhaps even 2 to some extent. And there are different varieties within libertarianism. Some push for more extreme actions, but a person can take the title if they are just on the more-market-oriented/small government range of intelligent US political discourse.

In any case, different libertarians present libertarianism differently. Some are "sketchy and simple-minded", but... when I say that there are libertarian intellectuals, I really am not just making something up. Libertarian economists are out there, and one doesn't have to look very far to find one, even a reasonably intelligent one. I mean, I find a number of libertarian intellectuals to be thoughtful and even somewhat deep thinkers, and a person I like and recommend would generally be Friedrich Hayek, although I am not as familiar with his very well-known work "Road to Serfdom"(certainly not enough to give comment one way or another) I do like his other writings such as his essay "The Use of Knowledge in the Economy" http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html, as well as his more generally social theoretic writings "Rules and Order" and "The Fatal Conceit".

All I am saying is that there is a distinction to be made between someone who adheres to an ideology based on an emotional impulse and someone who has given more thought to the matter.

I'm fine with that.

For me it was not understanding that what the libertarian party was founded for and what the libertarian party stands for today are two completely different ends of a political spectrum.

I believe in appropriately limited government. I believe this means that we should apply logic before emotion to questions of whether government is the functional answer to an identified extant problem.

I think there are things that only governments are likely to do at all, not even to broach the question of whether they will be done well.

Among these i include things like road construction, food inspection, fire protection, a bare minimum of education, a bare minimum of assurance that a series of unfortunate events won't result in you having to live under a bridge and digging through garbage cans for food.

Government is inefficient, but sometimes free market competition is contrary to solving the problem at hand, and the only functional solution is to pool the resources of the many to care for the needs of a few.

When it comes right down to it, I'm talking about entitlements and redistribution. I do in fact believe that the wealthier a person is, the greater the responsibility they have to provide for the less fortunate, and i don't think it's immoral for a government to enforce this with the power of law and the threat of loss of freedom.

In the post-ayn-rand libertarian party, this makes me a monster. But I'm pretty sure that it's founders wouldn't have had a problem with it.

And the blood will never cease from flowing if that's the way you want it. Humans evolved to work together and have compassion for one another. The advent technology and modern mass production has made life too easy for the majority of people so they can forget. It makes people blind. In harsher physical circumstances altruism becomes less of a choice but a duty. To choose selfishness is to choose death.

And that assumes that economic efficiency is the end all and be-all of everything.

I have a difficult time saying that it isn't pretty important though.

i have no prole with that at all, the financial system is a symbol and an idea, nothing more.
true it would be almost impossible to change today but it doesnt have to exist.

Humans also evolved to work against each other and have hatred for one another. The compassion and the hatred are the two sides of the same in group / out group coin.

To the extent that it downplays emotions, the libertarian philosophy skips the hatred.

People in the same tribe co-operate to make war against people in the other tribes. That is the way it has been since God invented dirt.

ruveyn

I haven't seen that that is the case.

My point was that modern luxury is the only thing that allows libertarians to downplay the importance of community and cooperation. The modern "nuclear family" is not the traditional atomic unit of society.