AS and Libertarianism

Post Reply New Topic

@AG - Orwell is right, I value empirical proof far more then any kind of theoretical fantasy; trying to argue that the real world is complicated and so we should ignore it is weak. Logic and rationality are very much GIGO systems, as far as I am concerned; useful tools, but not the be all and end all of decision making.

Taking libertarianism in a fundamentalist fashion, like you are doing, is ridiculous. Two of the core axioms of the philosophy are pretty flimsy - that people are really rational and that reason trumps other forms of argument and deduction. In the end, libertarianism has to come back to reality and produce results to justify its supposed supremacy, just like every other political/economic philosophy.

Yes, it's hard to try to understand how to navigate real world issues - they can be counter-intuitive, illogical, or contradictory. By necessity you have to deal with incomplete information, and make subjective judgements that may turn out to be laughable as things progress. But, if the ends don't justify the means, then the means certainly don't justify the ends. No matter how lovely or logical or perfect an idea is, if it implodes upon contact with reality, it isn't a good idea.

And while it is possible to find flaws with any system, it doesn't follow that all flaws are going to be equally bad. It also doesn't follow that the system with the fewest flaws will be the best - the total benefits of another more flawed system may push it on top. It's also important to consider the human nature problem; if the system requires people to behave in a unnatural manner, it's may not succeed no matter how good it would be if people weren't stupid, greedy, lazy, or whatever. The implementation of the system on what currently exists is also key - it doesn't matter how good a system might be, if it can't be implemented it's not helpful. This is one reason why I'm a bit exasperated about the contempt for unions you and Orwell are showing; they'd be a key part of my plan if I were to try to implement large scale libertarianism.

Regarding voting being too complicated for most people, the resources that you described being available to decode the overly-complicated bank loan are also available for voting decisions. They are actually more available, as loan sharks are better positioned to fluster, charm, or strong-arm people into accepting contracts without fully understanding it. Medical loans signed in th emergency room before treatment are a good example of this - some of the stuff that goes on there is just plain evil.

Also, it's not true that every voter has to understand economics in order to make an informed decision - the existence of Malcolm Gladwell's Mavens for his book The Tipping Point are pretty accepted in socioeconomics. You only need a few Economics Mavens, perhaps combined with a Connectors or two to inform a very large number of people of the expected effects of a politician's plan. Obama's campaign presents a decent Maven with two recently released youtube videos to counter some of McCain's Taxman attack ads (Mavens don't need to be unbiased in order to work; if their facts don't add up to a decent degree of accuracy, then people stop consulting them. It's no different then your arguments for the market). link

Finally, about your moral nihilism, I can respect that, then proceed to be nihilistic right back. Why should I care if you want complete freedom? I like the welfare state, so why should I let it be dismantled because you can't stand the idea of paying rent to it? While I'm not always happy with it, overall I think my government is doing a decent job (1). Given that government is already established, and that you don't really care about what happens to society, it makes more sense for you to go off and figure out how to make your own country, instead of asking people like me to give you a handout of what we've already established. If you can't or just don't want to, then you'll just have accept the terms of whatever is available.

You've used this argument often enough against socialists complaining that the poor may have less freedom in a libertopia(2), I don't see why it doesn't apply to you as well. Bringing nihilism into the discussion actually increases the need for empirical evidence; unless your actions help me or my values, then I have every reason to oppose them. Which could lead to you losing out if we ever were in actual conflict, as I suspect I would invest more of my resources to support my view then you would.
___________________

(1) It's important to remember that I don't live in the US; I'm actually slightly amazed at how passively some Americans seem to bend down and take it from the Bush Administration. I probably don't actually have enough information to make a clear judgement, but that's my impression of the situation. Seriously, what's the point of having the ability to impeach presidents if you don't use it for situations like this? I don't care if it'll cost more, or that it would be mostly symbolic, sometimes you just have to remind the powers that be that you can punish them. If the American people seriously let Bush and friends slink away without real punishment, they are officially the government's b***h. I'm not totally being funny here - future administrations will know that so long as conclusive evidence of major corruption doesn't show up until their term is almost done, they can get away with it. Tit-for-tat, damnit.

(2) I'm aware you don't like me calling your proposed society a utopia. However, if it's not connected to reality that's what it is. I'd also currently consider dongiovanni's vision a utopia, but I since I haven't asked it's worthwhile giving him/her the benefit of the doubt

@dongiovanni - I hope you aren't bothered by me using you as an example in my posts. I should probably ask permission before I do stuff like that. I'd also welcome your comments on the discussion; after all, you were the one to get the conversation going in the first place . Sorry if I'm kind of dismissive at times

Right, and I value theory above any empirical evidence. Arguing that the real world is complicated therefore it should be ignored is actually a very solid position, in fact, for complicated subjects, that is the reason why theory can often be so emphasized, because empirics has difficulty establishing the real relations.

Umm.... let's see I am aware of behavioral economics, it does not really prevent a libertarian position. In fact, there are libertarians who argue behavioral economics, like Bryan Caplan who I've likely mentioned a number of times who argued behavioral public policy. Also, I don't think that your philosopher really disproved logic as an epistemology, he only argued that it has flaws, and I don't think I would deny that, I mean, I am a fan of the existentialists and Hume, and have used the regress argument and others a number of times. In the end, every other political/economic philosophy must provide reason to justify it's supposed supremacy, and to be honest they all attempt to do that, so libertarianism does not stand against the rest of them.


The means *do* justify the ends though. You may argue that the ends are the test of all things, but we can never consistently arrive at the right ends without the right means, and the right means is theory. We cannot escape the necessity of theory.


Ok. Umm.... our system relies upon greedy people, and does not deny the laziness or stupidity of people at times, only that the long-run will adapt to these tendencies even if the short-run falters a bit at first.

No they aren't. I disagree with you. I know my position. The average person is a moron who cannot think through his position and has no incentive for doing so. A major issue is that we have different standards for what is required for a good voter, and I am not going to agree with yours. Ok, loan-sharks *can* do that, but people do not have to put up with them necessarily. Systems adapt.

No, I think it is very true. Look, I know about the idea of connectors, I rely somewhat upon the idea for my own notions of the market. I just do not think that they are applicable for politics due to the lack of truth-seeking in politics as compared to other fields such as consumption, the lack of reality testing in politics compared to other systems, and the fact that stupid opinions on significant issues are more common in politics than in consumption where most issues are not significant.

Except that it is different and I have been arguing that for a while now. I even have mentioned a book where the thesis is explicitly that these 2 realms are different. Mavens have to be less biased in politics to work due to bigger feedback issues, and less ability to check real accuracy, and less of a reason to distrust the wrong "mavens". I do not think I am going to give in to your position, as you are not saying anything that notable, only pushing the orthodox "markets efficient, politics efficient" position, which I am arguing is critiqued by the "markets efficient, politics inefficient" position, and done so effectively for X reason, and the rest of that goes down upon how true X reason is.


Who says you should?


Don't presume what I can or cannot do, I'll surprise you. Not only that, but asserting might is right does not win your argument at all and you know that. The whole stance of moral nihilism ends the argument finally.


No it doesn't. The issue is that I don't care about your values, and am fine telling you off whenever I want to. Trust me, if I ever decided to conflict with anything, then that opponent will lose. I have a willpower that scares most people.

You obviously don't have the faintest idea how impeachment works. It is not a public recall. The process is explicitly stated in the US Constitution. Only the House of Representatives (made up of 435 of the exact same members of political elites from which presidents come) can impeach a president--this impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. Then the Senate (100 more of those political elites) tries the president. The people as a whole have no say in the process--or I should say, they only have as much say as they have influence over individual Representatives and Senators. It would take tens of millions of ordinary people, at least, to exert enough influence to get an impeachment started--presuming that Representatives listen to their non-wealthy constituents, which they usually don't. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. You had better represent no less than 250,000 adults (100,000 voters) or prove that you do in order to be sure to sway a single Representative. (I didn't pull that number out of my ass. On average, a US Representative's district represents roughly 500,000 adults, most of whom don't vote). Now, tell me just how easy it is to do that at least 220 times (to get more than half the Representatives on your side). Of course, if you're obscenely wealthy and influential, it's much easier to do, but the common people have to face those numbers.



FUTURE? FUTURE? It's been known by Democrat and Republican leaders for a very long time. Long before we passed the 100,000,000 population mark, rule of this country by competing elite interests was assured by sheer numbers, alone. A single Representative "represents" more people than live in some entire countries.