Libertarianism...A Parody

Yeah, yeah...I know.

Whenever the nonsense of libertarianism is called to the attention of libertarians...we get this alternate kind of nonsense in response.

Libertarianism is opposed to the mind-set that allowed humans to band together in communities, societies, and nations.

Ultimately, libertarianism will lead to chaos and anarchy. Time for libertarians to recognize and acknowledge that. It does seem to be what they want...until it is called to their attention...and then they pretend it is not what they want.

 

Once again, Rothbard proposed that the state be eliminated entirely, so there would be no divine right of kings because there would be no kings to grant title to anything.

Are you just making this stuff up?

Are you just making this up too?

Citation, please.

 

No, they aren't. What you are stating is simply a mindless meme that has little basis in reality espoused by those who have little to no understanding of libertariansm and fear it irrationally. But since you made the assertion, using the thread I linked and that you quote please demonstrate your assertion that "Somalia, Sudan, Congo....etc" are libertarian.

 

You can keep saying no its not if you like. I listed the elements of the libertarian platform and show how they all exist in Somalia. I made my case. You have not.

 

Actually, this is what I have a problem with.

The other version, consequentialist libertarianism, seems to make more sense, though I would disagree with them on their obsession with growth.

Forget my comment about maximizing utility for a second and just focus on my other criticisms. I think that those issues are present in both forms, to greater or lesser extents based on the issue under discussion.

To clarify, I disagree with any philosophy that contains the errors I pointed out. Libertarianism seems to be the most accurate umbrella terms for those positions, though it is obviously a big tent.

I will certainly go grab the book, and I wholeheartedly agree with that line of philosophical inquiry--it is the method I use when I debate. For me, conclusions should logically follow from the premises/value judgements. Whether or not I like the initial position is irrelevant, and I do not try to convince people to pick up different values. My goal is to find a common premise and then to show them that their conclusion is wrong (if there is a disagreement and assuming I'm not the one in error).

I was referring to the "the veil of ignorance" as a useful thought experiment, not the minimax principle he derives from it--I should have been more specific. I think that, when evaluating the relative merits of a society, "the veil of ignorance" is a useful way of looking at hypothetical poltical/economic systems.

If their beliefs lead to any of the problems I mentioned, what I consider to be the biggest problems, then I oppose them. Whether or not the maximization of utility is their primary objective does not change my resistance to the umbrella term "libertarianism".

Of course. A more humane approach is a mild form of eugenics. I think genetic inequality is at the root of a number of currently intractable problems. The libertarian resolution is, frankly, aesthetically unpleasing to me, to put it mildly.

I am not sure what I would support, but I would not support a completely deregulated drug market. I agree that the current approach is wrongheaded, but addictive substances, combined with changing cultural norms, could prove to be disastrous and produce negative externalities.

Like drug prohibition, I do not have a firm position on the issue, but my gut tells me that a completely deregulated market would be a social catastrophe. As it is, the relations between the sexes are becoming a serious social problem, and I can't even imagine how bad it might get if given free license in the U.S., especially with our fully mature advertising industry and consumer-oriented market. That said, I'm open to arguments on the issue and am not fully settled.

Generally speaking, I have no problems with the state interfering with a person's decisions, at least not in principle--it just depends. I don't use an algorithm or set of principles to determine my positions on issues like this.

Exactly. The best you can do is ensure that your belief system doesn't go against the grain of what is, at least not too much. For instance, any system that has the objective of eliminating hierarchy is doomed to fail. Hierarchy is embedded in the human condition and isn't going anywhere. Humans will always seek to position themselves above others in order to acquire social standing, material resources, and reproductive opportunities.

I can't, but I'm not the one who keeps suggesting that the economic positions I laid out and Jeffersonian libertarianism have no connection (not saying you did).

Fair enough.

I am against this.

I am fine with a "cartel in the labor market" because I am fine with the idea of not treating everyone the same. I think the concept of a greater community with interests beyond the monetary is a valid one.

I also can't get behind the idea of letting people die. I would rather have a benign eugenics program to make this competitive process less brutal.

The same way we protect our kids or animals from harming themselves, within reason.

It does, but that isn't stopping me.

Agreed, but this wasn't my point. I am arguing that a central bank assists in the waging of war, which is true. In fact, some libertarians who oppose war and imperialism cite this as a reason for decentralizing banks.

I think a society's ability to wage both hot and cold wars is an essential feature of a strong society. Sometimes, a robust defense is necessary, and sometimes aggression and coercion are necessary.

I think we already have enough on our plate!

Maybe not logically equivalent, but to say that you value a person enough to let them die if they can't produce enough is a statement of how you value that person as much as anything can be. Obviously, this is a matter of preference that can't be argued one way or another, as you suggested.

I like many of Friedman's ideas, especially his attack on professional cartels and land-use restrictions. I also like his idea of a basic income or negative income tax.

I think we have some obligation to save others, but I don't have an absolute position on it--it just depends. Our current system reflects this perspective. Sometimes we intervene to save others, and sometimes we don't.

I'm not sure what you mean in this latter statement. I believe in human tribalism, think it is important, and don't want to undermine it to such a great degree. More practically, human beings are not fungible and having this free movement of persons is a good way to dilute the gene pool.

I think it is an insane concept. Even if you removed welfare, hordes of savages would try to get into this country.

Fair enough. I think we've cleared up the distinction between deontological and consequentialist theories of libertarianism.

Of course. Many useful ideas can't be described mathematically. The majority of ideas we have can't be described mathematically and, as a result, are forever doomed to having an element of imprecision and ambiguity.

People with the means to project power always do, and no system will ever stop that.

I don't believe in rights; I believe in power, and I believe that the allocation of power, in all of its forms, is of primary importance.

No one gives you the right--you take it.

You are right. This is why it behooves the individual to support the actions that best represent their interests. Those actions don't always necessarily hash with individual liberty. If liberty supports your way of life, then pursue it. If liberalism does, then pursue that.

Very few Americans would be prosperous if a stronger country came and had their way with our system. What is your answer to dealing with hostile states?

I think we know where we disagree, at this point. I just don't put as a high a price on liberty as you do.

I'm curious to know. I derive my political ideology from my moral philosophy. If I can find it, I'll post it here (I wrote a detailed summary of my position). Here you go:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/447741-sam-harris-anyone-3.html

Are you a grad student?

Tutoring is fun! I used to tutor composition, and I always used it as an opportunity to flirt with women lol. Who wants to have a study session at the bar?

- - - Updated - - -

See my reply to steadypie.

 

Umm no, no it doesn't.

Too vague.

The difference is in where people start. It's not meritocratic if some people have to work ten times as hard to achieve the same things.

I consider myself a nationalist.

There can be no clear, absolute principles.

Yes, some can and should be told what to do.

Unlike others who agree with me, I have no problems admitting it.

I'm glad you liked it. Why don't you respond to my actual criticisms, instead of focusing on the fictional parody. It wasn't meant to initiate a discussion, a discussion you seem to have missed.

Did it strike a nerve?

 

So allowing individuals to live their lives in a generally free and peaceful manner will lead to anarchy and chaos? I dunno man, seems to me like things would be similar to how they are now, only with less people being jailed, less people being killed by us in third world countries, just less death and violence in general as we accept that people are free to live as they wish so long as they don't hurt others. I suppose I could see the busy bodies having mental breakdowns and start killing people because they have the audacity to do something that doesn't meet their approval like smoke within 10 feet of a doorway or, gasp, INDOORS! (*)(*)(*)(*) they may float down a river on an inflatable raft and not have a life vest! Savages!

 

Wouldn't a libertarian country have to be comprised of people who are libertarians?

 

Yes. And?

 

Where are the libertarians in Somalia?

 

They are in somalia. Not sure what your question is. By definition if they all wanted democracy they would have it. They don't.

 

So what percentage of Somalis would you say adhere to and advocate for the non-aggression principle? How many of them self-identify as libertarians?

 

Almost none identify with non aggression or self identify as libertarians. They simply have all the other principles of libertarianism at play in their country

 

And that's why Somalia isn't a libertarian country. Because it has virtually no libertarians in it.

 

It just is run by libertarian principles.

 

No it's not. It's not run by the non-aggression principle.

 

As is no country on the face of the earth. LOL

 

Thank you for admitting that Somalia is not an example of a libertarian country.

 

But it is. Largely. You only named one principle they don't follow. No country is PURE anything

 

No. But libertarianism WILL.

Is that how it seems to you?

Thank you for sharing that.

It seems to ME that demanding more and more personal freedom at the expense of the kinds of restrictions that decent and functioning societies and civilizations require...will lead to chaos and anarchy.

Civilization and society in general...began with people giving up some of their personal freedom. The crap being sold by libertarians is destructive of that end.

Go for it if you want. But you will never prevail, because society will not allow it; and because civilization will not allow it.

You are welcome to move away from civilization and society, however.

 

Their new plan is to set up new governments in the ocean.

Let's see how that works out lol.

 

You can download a condensed version of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations from the Adam Smith Institute for study. Be advised to not just go by the summary they provide but actually study what Smith wrote because the devil is in the details.

http://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/

The Constitution Society provides the text of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that is also very much worthy of study. Specific to "property" is Chapter 5 "Of Property" that I found I needed to read over and over again as it takes considerable time and study to connect all of the dot's that Locke presents in a very concise and limited chapter of his treatise.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Get back to me in about a year or so after you've had the time to study and digest all that there is to learn from these to historical individuals.

 

Your idea of government turns into what Venezula has become because reasons!

^^ argumentation in the style of Vegas Giants.

Like all those without reason, you just have faith. In this case, faith in the state like a good government worshiper.

- - - Updated - - -

There can be no clear, absolute right and wrong, either. However, you can pick a principle and go with it. For you, that's might is right.

 

What I said was libertarianism in a nutshell, so not sure what you're arguing against if you agree with it.

This is some funny, authoritarian stuff but does nothing to show that if we leave people to live generally free lives that we'll end up in anarchy. You know there is still a place for HOAs in a libertarian society. You all can live next to eachother and make eachothers lives hell while leaving the rest of us alone.

 

Morons have to work harder to produce the same contribution. Cripples have to work harder to climb the same hill. How hard you work is only a consideration when you want to inspire children to attempt. When you're an adult, what matters is only what you put on the table.




​