Libertarianism

Post Reply New Topic

Given what I've seen of the "street-level" libertarian, his assessment is fairly accurate. The rank-and-file libertarians of my acquaintance are rather far from enlightened philosophers of individual dignity.

Given what I've seen of any "street-level" person of any political party, they tend to be an ignoramus whose right to vote would be best given to a donkey to use. This goes for any of the political movements. Therefore, it seems to me, that it is best to judge political movements by the stronger people rather than the idiocies of the weakest ones.

Then you live in a fantasy world, because the real-world effect of any political philosophy is not determined by the angels among its adherents but by the ordinary schmucks who make up the majority of those adherents. Whenever considering any political act, be that a vote, a law, or a whole doctrine, it is more important for those of us who live in the real world to look more at what harm it is most likely to do than at what good its proponents' pipe dreams claim it will bring.

Well, one, I don't actually claim to care much about the "real-world effect" of a political philosophy because I think people suck, and that people suck sufficiently to take any good idea and turn it into a completely terrible idea. Because of that the "real-world effect" of any philosophy will be more defined by people sucking than it will be by anything else.

What does the effect matter? To care what happens presupposes an ends based moral system which I have no need to subscribe to. However, more to the point, many people's arguments are blatant ad hominems:
1) People who are libertarians are greedy bastards (mind you, I'm not endorsing this premise and in fact I see no evidence to support it beyond anecdotal "ZOMG u lyk don't think we shld redistribute wealth you selfish swine" which tends to redefine greediness/uncaringness and whatnot as not approving of centralized redistribution which completely sidesteps the process of intelligent critique in favor of simply "you're bad end of story").
2) Ergo, Libertarianism is a philosophy which rationalizes greed.
3) Thus, libertarianism is teh suxorz
People substitute the moral qualities of libertarians for the virtues of libertarianism; if everyone who is a "libertarian" is bad, this doesn't actually tell us anything about whether or not "libertarianism" is a good philosophy unless you redefine libertarianism; if someone's a jerk and believes in libertarian principles, this doesn't give us a good critique of the philosophy at all, and in fact, may not even be a decent argument against the beliefs of said jerk.

Now, this doesn't even address what I think is the core issue with most criticisms I hear on the interwebs of libertarianism, which is the fact that (1) is almost always concluded based on a presupposition of the fact that not wanting central redistribution makes you a greedy uncaring individual in and of itself. Of course, many people might say that only a person who is bad could ever be so callous, but this of course may or may not be true but is furthermore quite irrelevant without presupposing that a political philosophy ought to have positions which satisfy certain redistributive impulses which libertarianism rejects out of hand making these kinds of arguments completely ineffective at actually addressing a problem inherent in libertarianism; you can't presuppose your philosophy is "good" to demonstrate that someone else's is "bad" in any way other than a completely trivial case.

If people want to engage in a genuine critique of libertarianism this is fine and cool, but most arguments against it that I have to hear repeated ad nauseum simply involve presupposing political ideas that libertarianism doesn't necessarily hold in the first place.

Depends--If you jump in front of a speeding bus, do you go "splat", or at the very least something like "thud"? If you live in the world where it is dangerous to jump in front of speeding busses, effects matter.



The alternative is to adopt "No True Scotsman" for every actual extant libertarian.

For those of us who live in the real world and not some ivory-tower fantasy, Libertarian only exists as it is lived by libertarians, just as Communism only exists as it is actually lived by Communists. The theory of how it's supposed to be done is all well and good, but it's nothing better than an intellectual parlor trick if nobody actually lives up to it.

Well, the issue is that not all libertarians are Objectivists, there are libertarians of all stripes and beliefs, so we are only comparing an ideology to the sheep that hold it. Sheep are stupid, therefore, this is a bad comparison. Let me ask you a counter-question: is there a single ideology that is not narrowly defined(like that of a specific thinker or some other narrow quality), where most holders are not idiots?

Libertarianism only exists as a theoretical construct, same as Communism. The major issue is not how people are, but whether or not the theory can have any validity based upon it's construction. Nobody has to live up to the current construction of a theory given that a number of theories are progressive and do not imply a current ability to achieve but a theoretical ability to achieve. Because of that, the realm of ideas is the ultimate test of any notion to ensure non-contradiction.

Non-contradiction--what is that? Can a system be fully internally consistent and still be open? A closed system cannot be used, since it is closed. Is it time for us all to re-read Goedel, Escher, Bach?

Libertarianism is a philosophy; if you want to criticize a philosophy, you don't criticize the people who adhere to it, or you're committing an ad hominem. Never mind the fact that libertarianism is a political philosophy which doesn't make imperatives on the individual's use of his property so that the behavior of individual libertarians bears little relevance to the actual philosophical position.

And the no true scotsman is an overhyped fallacy. The fact that you and I disagree on the limits of a priori constructs amounts to little more than an issue of communication. The problem is that people genuinely think that if they say "libertarian guy is bad!" they are actually refuting the political stance of libertarianism which means they are confusing the two a priori categories which amounts to an argument which is a steaming pile of fried apples.

Are you implying that the incompleteness theorems have a bearing on politics?

Yes, actually. They have a bearing on all the branches of philosophy.

Non-contradiction, the notion that a system follows it's premises rather than contradicting itself at one point or another. Yes, a system can be internally consistent and open, the issue is slight alterations to the premises or the nature of the premises, these can be desired if the consistent system is viewed as having imperfect premises or imperfect conclusions, or etc as consistency does not mean subjective perfection. There is no reason a closed system cannot be used, Objectivists claim to actually have a closed system, but they use it all of the time. I have never read Godel, Escher, Bach.

I'm afraid I don't follow. The incompleteness theorems don't even apply to many axiomatic mathematical systems (e.g. Euclidean Geometry).

The point is not global warming. The point is one I have stated repeatedly. What you consider an obvious solution, that those who are being harmed should buy off those who profit from causing harm, will usually concentrate wealth and power. That would conflict with your aim of reducing concentrations of power:

This is what I see as one of the internal contradictions of your position. You want to reduce concentrations of power, but when I ask about an externality, you propose increasing concentrations of wealth, and inevitably also power. When I made that point explicit, you digressed:

If you read again what I wrote, you will see that I know this. I didn't ask you about government. I asked what happens to concentrations of power under libertarianism. The only part of your answer that even mentioned libertarianism was:

That says nothing about whether libertarianism concentrates power more or less than government.


And what would happen under your proposal that those who are harmed by CFCs should buy off those who produce them? Assuming that those who have been paid to stop producing don't just ignore their promise, what's to stop someone else starting production? Then they have to be bought off, only for yet someone else to start production. Where is the efficiency?


I'm afraid that to me, this is meaningless jargon. If you want me to get that point, you have to explain in a little more detail.


I don't see the relevance of inside or outside a libertarian system. If you have more than one person making decisions, there will be some freedoms that are in competition: giving more freedom to one actor means reducing the freedom of another. If I were free to keep you as a slave, that would reduce your freedom. The system used to allocate those freedoms doesn't make a difference to the fact that some of them compete. Does libertarianism have a position on how freedom should be distributed? If it favours an even distribution, it includes what I would consider an aspect of social justice. You said How does that fit with Why wouldn't you be happy with any distribution of freedom, however uneven? Or does social justice mean something different to you?


I am not asking whether you can come up with a method to achieve this solution to maximizing freedom. I am asking whether the solution itself is consistent with libertarianism.


That would include freedom. That makes me wonder: you sometimes seem to dismiss an argument because you say it is based on something subjective:

So when you write

what do you say when I substitute a few other terms for externality?

Government coercion exists, it will always exist, it is not even wrong for it to exist as the very existence of coercion is subjective.

Concentrations of power exist, they will always exist, it is not even wrong for them to exist as the very existence of concentrations of power is subjective.


You missed the point. I'll change my example, in the hope that the new one is clearer.

We both live in a libertarian society. I am your neighbour. I know that I have a terminal disease which is guaranteed to kill me within a month. I want to live well during that month and promise to dispose of radioactive waste. I get paid for the job. I store the waste in containers that will keep the stuff perfectly safe for just over a month. I store the stuff in my garden, by the fence to your property. Disposing of the waste safely will cost more than all my property is worth. Everyone knows all this. After a month, I die. Who owns the waste? No one will want to own it. Let's make the problem more acute. I make a will in which I give all my property to you. Are you now the owner? If you refuse, who else will be?


You haven't told me yet who will own the waste and be liable to deal with it. Taking me to court won't give you, my pissed off neighbour, enough compensation. Remember that disposal costs more than the total value of all my assets. That is exactly the same situation as when a company goes bust, with debt left over. Who owns the liabilities?

Even if I had enough money that you, my pissed off neighbour, could use it to deal with the waste, that doesn't address my original question what happens when the time delay is long enough that those who are affected are not yet alive and so unable to object. I reduced the time delay only to explain my separate question about who will own what no one wants to own when the original owner no longer exists.


What is your reason for wanting to reduce concentrations of power? Do you have any reason that is not related to some moral position, and therefore empty? Do you have a reason that is not subjective? Would you agree that "just" and "fair" have very similar meanings? Is there anything in your objection to "just" that would not apply to "fair"? You justified your reference for libertarianism over government by reference to fairness:

Unless there is a difference between "just" and "fair" that makes "just" empty and "fair" not empty, I take this as another internal contradiction.

The issue is that I do not see the issue of externalities as a very large one compared to how you see it. Yes, externalities exist, but they are not a dominant/defining feature of economic relations as you seem to claim.


The issue is that I do not see this as an internal contradiction, as if we had an externality mediator, such a force would have to be more powerful than both parties so as to stand above both parties, and thus increase concentrations of power.


Well, the issue is emphasis. I emphasized government as a tool by the wealthy to concentrate power in their hands, whereas libertarian markets would not be so much a slave. You seem to think that the wealthy by their nature will own the market more than they could own the government.


Well, the issue is 1) a violation of contract is a negative blow to reputation, 2) various pay-offs could be over time, 3) if we have anarchism then the legal mechanism itself is privatized and therefore actual legal action and regulation can be undertaken.


And I think we are speaking past each other. Internalizing externalities means including them in economic decision making by economic actors and thus preventing dead-weight loss. That is my goal, getting rid of the dead-weight loss there. Your goal is different.


Ok. Some libertarians do, others do not. I do not take a position on how freedoms ought to be distributed. The statement "increase freedom" does not necessitate anything to do with social justice, and frankly has a lot to do with my own preferences on the matter. Heck, I tend to often express moral skepticism.


Maximum concentration like that, is likely not consistent with libertarianism. I mean, obviously like any framework, if you bend it like mad, then you can find all sorts of crazy things whether you speak of democracy, monarchy or whatever have you. It is theoretically possible though.


I do dismiss an argument based upon something subjective simply because you sort of have to do that if you hold to a certain system. I mean, frankly, subjectively, you can dismiss all systems in existence if you ever so chose.


I'd say that premises 1 and 2 are false(while they must logically be true with externalities), and that premise 3 of "subjective coercion", can be made false if we define the term coercion such that it is such. Frankly though, I have not been using the term "coercion" very much.


This one, however, I will say is partially true. I only wish that people allowed the 3rd premise to be truer, as the more subjective people claim the government is, the less objective capability it actually has. This is why I am not so much afraid of concentrations of power in a libertarian society, because there would be less monoculturalism, less monolegalism, less mono-anythingism, and thus power structures will be more competitive, and can have varying cultural bases.


Well, if everyone knows this, and knows that your waste will contaminate my property, then we already have a question of an externality that can be addressed before you die. However, if this damage ONLY impacts your property's value, then there is no problem. It is hard to say that any item in existence has negative value, even if it is covered with radioactive waste. I could even theoretically refuse ownership allowing the first person to want the land to take it(and it is hard to say that nobody will ever take anything that is completely free). Let's say that nobody takes it and nobody owns it, still no real problem. Now, I suppose this can be taken as a contradiction to the prior point of "unowned, how?", but then again, it is still arguable that an unowned piece of property is somewhat owned, in as much as the legal nature of it's ownership is defined. Perhaps more of a past overstatement on my part though, partially because I find it difficult to believe that something free would remain unowned, as at the very least a speculator might take the radioactive waste covered land and hold it in hopes of the land being desirable for one reason or another.


No, but it doesn't have to. If I screw you over enough, then that is a lesson to future screwer overers not to screw people over. I would say that the owners of the liabilities for a company that collapses would be the ones who have the debt owed to them, as after all, they lent to an entity that no longer exists, that is the nature of lending. So, it really seems a different situation.


The issue is that those who aren't alive but who know about the externality, cannot have an externality really thrust upon them. They will know in advance before they act, so it isn't a problem. Let's just say that we have the same situation, where you have radioactive waste that will ruin my lawn but only after 100 years, and everyone knows about that. Well, the fact that everyone knows that this will happen will lower my property values because nobody would want to get stuck with the corrupted land, therefore, the future externality is a present one as well, and thus information solves the system.



My reason? I don't like other people. I am not invoking morality at all, I am invoking my dislike of having other people tell me what to do. The issue is that subjective reasons cannot be debated, argued with, or anything like that, therefore they can be dismissed off-hand. I may not have said this before, I am not trying to convince you, I am pretty certain I never will, and I honestly don't care beyond that. All I care about is that I have some level of internal consistency, and not even that so much, as I don't care about politics too much anyway. It is a fun game and nothing more. Especially given that there is no such thing as a right answer so much as systems that can according to certain conceptualizations be coherent, and most of the time, any conceptualization dies a little on impact with reality, and such the system lacks a certain realism no matter what. Or what, do you think that political discussion will actually find any level of truth at all? The "fairness" justification, is partially just a terminological issue. I really did not care so much for the moral definition of fair, so much as I meant something more along the lines of egalitarian or some other term with a more analytic definition. Fair is empty, but I am not being internally contradictory just by using a commonly used term in a commonly understood manner when I should have been clearer.

Different political philosophies are most suitable for different types of people. For example, it is rare for a compassionate person to subscribe to libertarianism, and it is equally rare for an independent-minded individual to subscribe to communism or any other authoritarian ideology. Such individuals then extend the notion that what's most suiting for them should be the way the totality of society and government is organized. The fact that governments and social structures affect many people necessarily requires compromise to function maximally well for the most people.