155 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Comments on why you voted the way you did are appreciated.

Also of interested to me if you are Libertarian:

When were you first introduced to Libertarianism?

Have you always had Libertarian leaning, or was there a change in your perspective at some point?

If so, what caused this change?

[reason]

My comments on libertarianism, pragmatism and healthy life extension:

http://www.fightagin...ives/000159.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[eternaltraveler]

I voted for "2".

I have always had libertarian leanings. It wasn't until the last couple years that I actually starting identifying myself as a libertarian.

The reason I voted for "2" and not "1" is because every rule has it's exceptions, and some things supercede my political leanings.

[scottl]

http://www.imminst.o...t=0

This thread is an example of why I an a libertarian (even if I don't agree with everything they stand for).

[DJS]

As an individual I want the right to put any substance into my body that I wish (subject to the caveat that doing do does not cause me to harm others).

I agree. I strongly support individual rights.

The problem is governments increasing regulation because they wish to protect me from myself. Thus I see the danger from the left and increasing government regulation "for my own good" (you can throw fruit now) not from corporations. This is happening in Europe an area heavily influenced by socialism not some bastion of capitalism. Unless I am mistaken it is happening because someone has decided that higher levels of supps can be dangerous--as if they have a right to determine what I put in my body!

This is also why I'm a liberterarian.

I think that this second passage illustrates where you and I differ politically quite well. I do not discount the bungling bureaucratic nature of big government, but I am MUCH more concerned about the corporate influences than it seems you are.

From my perspective the government is a conduit, a tool for maitaining social cohesion and enforcing agreed upon social norms. When corporations maintain a disproportionate influence on the political process, they use the government for their own clandestined purposes.

What I'm saying Scottl is that you are not digging deep enough. Take a look at the supplements industry. Restrictive government legislation doesn't always originate with the government, but often with large donations from big Pharma PACs to the coffers of various political campaigns. Corporations use the government to uphold their special interests.

[eternaltraveler]

Don, the problems you speak of would not exist if the government machinery was not so open to such manipulation. Companies do indeed abuse it. Other companies just use it to keep themselves alive when they would otherwise be regulated out of existence. The cigarette industry is a good example of both )

The root cause is not in the corporations. It seems to me from this and other posts you've made that you believe the corps to be the root cause, and we should act accordingly. The root is a government designed in such a way as to encourage and foster the type of action you speak of.

It is you sir who is not looking deep enough into the problem.

[DJS]

Elrond

Don, the problems you speak of would not exist if the government machinery was not so open to such manipulation.  Companies do indeed abuse it.  Other companies just use it to keep themselves alive when they would otherwise be regulated out of existence.  The cigarette industry is a good example of both )

I agree. I am not disputing the fact there are also problems with our federal legal system. Until the Supreme Court permits there to be a distintion between money and free speech there will never - not in a million years - be effective campaign finance reform. However, this internal defect is also linked to our collective lack of "political will" to pass an amendment stating as much. Why? Well, for a number of reasons, but the most obvious is that it goes against all vested special interests in Washington. If there is one issue that could unify the various PACs of Washington like no other, it would be the possibility of real campaign finance reform.

The root cause is not in the corporations.  It seems to me from this and other posts you've made that you believe the corps to be the root cause, and we should act accordingly.  The root is a government designed in such a way as to encourage and foster the type of action you speak of.

It would seem to me Elrond, that you live in a fantasy world of your own making where Adam Smith gently strokes your tender bottom with his "invisible hand". Laissez faire capitalism doesn't exist -- never has existed, and this is where a great deal of your fallacious argument originates from.

I will not speak in generalities (Europe is obviously a different scenario), but the root cause of problems experience in the US is the corporate structure. Democracy, by definition is the control of society's central institutions by popular control. Compare that to capitalism, where control is priniciply autocratic in nature.

There has always been a tension between capitalism and democracy. The goal shoudl be to find a happy medium; a proven difficulty when it comes to human constructs.

[scottl]

Don,

I don't haved time for a full response now. Clearly corporations have problems e.g. think child labor before unions. However while the problems with corporations are certainly real, the only thing the gov't is really good at--the only thing that burocracies (I can't get a spell checker to give me the correct spelling) are really good at is continued employment of burocrats. The gov't will foobar up anything it tries to do.

To pick one example--look at Nasa. They are a disgrace. Jerry Pournelle (science fiction writer, longterm computer writer..and other hard science credentials) on how to get to space (for we desperately need to):

http://www.jerrypour...242.html#prizes

I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.

I had Newt Gingrich persuaded to do this before he found he couldn't keep the office of Speaker. I haven't had any audiences with his successors.

Henry Vanderbilt points out that having a prize, say $1 billion, for the second firm to achieve point (1) above will get more into the competition, and produce better results. I agree. For more on Prize

[John Doe]

I'm a libertarian.

[eternaltraveler]

It would seem to me Elrond, that you live in a fantasy world of your own making

Funny, I was thinking the same thing in relation to you )

Laissez faire capitalism doesn't exist -- never has existed, and this is where a great deal of your fallacious argument originates from

Firstly my argument has nothing at all to do with laissez faire capitalism. I do not think that laissez faire capitalism would spontaneously come into pure existence if the government kept it’s big butt out. I do however believe the situation would be better. The whole idea of the government subsidizing anything appalls me.

A recent regulation put into affect in the moving business (as in moving a person’s stuff from their old house to their new house) basically is putting my friend out of business. He owns a small moving company. A new regulation is requiring him to buy a $10,000 business license to continue operations. This business license requires nothing other than simply paying the fee. Paying that much money makes it economically inviable for him to continue operations. Big moving companies with thousands of employees lobbied this regulation into existence. For them the small cost of 10 grand is nothing, more than worth it to wipe out their numerous small time competition. I envision a country where making a law like that is completely illegal.

Well Don, I would like to hear your solution to this problem. My solution is to limit the government's power to affect corporations positively or negatively. I would not call wanting corporations to live in a Darwinian environment "living in a fantasy world". One could even argue that all these anti trust laws have done far more harm than good. Sure monopolies are bad, but now anti trust laws are just tools of special interests to threaten companies to do what they want them to do.

I might as well state right here that I do have big problems with the whole idea of democracy in general. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Unfortunately I do not have a better system in mind. I would have thought the constitution was a pretty damned good idea. The constitution was written in such a way to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible; unfortunately the constitution doesn't really matter any more (how about all this anti terrorism legislation as a ready example). The Supreme Court judges have been voting quite often along party lines. How's that for unbiased.

The media is a problem. For some reason the media has spontaneously developed into the propaganda machine of the government. All I need to prove that point is to remind you of the news coverage during the so-called active phase of the Iraq war. It’s amazing what isn’t reported by the popular press. Be it Ted Turner’s lefty CNN or Rupert Murdock’s rightist Fox News. Fringe news outlets like the Drudge Report have broken a lot of news. He doesn’t do any investigation of his own but gets leaked stories from other news outlets that they won’t release for some reason.

The system is unlikely to spontaneously correct itself until such time as it collapses under it’s own weight. It’s funny how people think after only a couple of centuries that our system has withstood the test of time. We have a long time to go before we catch up to the Romans.

I better stop right here before I find myself imprisoned without trial or counsel under the patriot act and I’m unable to reply to your next response. )

[eternaltraveler]

You see, the whole problem with lawmakers (congress, senate, etc.) is that they believe it is their job to make laws. So they do. They make as many as they can. There might be some corporate influence here and there but it doesn't take much. Because after all, these law makers spend all their time just looking for laws to make. At some point someone gets the bright idea of creating something called the FDA, IRS, EPA, ATF... who also have the power to make laws. The law makers realize that they can sure get a whole lot more laws made if they don't actually do it themselves but instead made organizations whose whole purpose is to make laws all day. So they make all kinds of regulatory agencies who each make as many laws as they can. Trying to shut down one of these behemoths is virtually impossible. And besides, that would defeat the lawmakers’ whole purpose. To get laws made.

Whenever someone is elected to anything they have some kind of agenda they would like to see a law or two made for. Who is going to get elected who runs on the platform of not making bright new things but instead getting rid of all the stupid things that have already been created which have a life far different from what their creators intended? That's negative. People don't vote for negativity.

There's your root cause Don.

If that's too complex I'll make it real simple. Democracy doesn't work because the majority of people are stupid.

I may have said too much. Look for me in Guantanamo Bay if you don't get another reply )

[DJS]

Cosmos

Ok Don, we know you're critical of libertarianism. Tell us your political leanings.

I'll give it a shot Cosmos. Although, to be quite honest, I am not entirely sure what my "politics" are. It's still a work in progress.

Elrond:

Funny, I was thinking the same thing in relation to you )

Is it possible then that we are living in a world of relative values...? Are we simply focusing on different bad guys?

Firstly my argument has nothing at all to do with laissez faire capitalism.  I do not think that laissez faire capitalism would spontaneously come into pure existence if the government kept it’s big butt out.  I do however believe the situation would be better.  The whole idea of the government subsidizing anything appalls me.

I would not call wanting corporations to live in a Darwinian environment "living in a fantasy world".

This Cosmos, is one reason why I find Libertarianism so distasteful. (And for the record, I am discussing classic Libertarianism, not TH Libertarianism or any other variety). Libertarianism embraces the "lone wolf" mentality... So it seems that you are a McGuyver Elrond. That's great. But for everyone one of you there are twenty people who can't tie their shoe laces properly. Libertarianism wrongly assumes that individuals possess a high degree of competence.

What will happen to the individual who doesn't live up to the Libertarian's lofty standards? The answer should be obvious. As Elrond points out (underlined above), the Libertarian agenda supports the creation of a Darwininan economic environment. Now Lib proponents can try to maintain a healthy degree of separation between themselves and that dirty S word (Social Darwinism) all they want, it doesn't change the fact they are proposing a radical socio-economic agenda that dismembers all of society's current safety nets. Basically, they are telling the little guy to "go screw".

There are just so many exceptions to the Lib Ideal. What about seniors who can't afford their medicine? What about college students who haven't accumulated enough wealth yet to put themselves through college? What about children who are orphaned? The list goes on and one, and the impression I am left with is that government is indeed necessary. Some kind of equalizer is necessary to buffer humanity from the harsh realities of capitalism in its purest form.

And there is also the fact that individuals do not start out on equal footing. There are inequalities that exist within society as a result of family structure, inheritance, cultural heritage, etc. One of the roles of government, I would contend, is to correct these inbalances -- to make the playing field equal.

The media is a problem.  For some reason the media has spontaneously developed into the propaganda machine of the government.  All I need to prove that point is to remind you of the news coverage during the so-called active phase of the Iraq war.  It’s amazing what isn’t reported by the popular press.  Be it Ted Turner’s lefty CNN or Rupert Murdock’s rightist Fox News.  Fringe news outlets like the Drudge Report have broken a lot of news.  He doesn’t do any investigation of his own but gets leaked stories from other news outlets that they won’t release for some reason.

I'm not gungho on Drudge anymore, but I agree that the media is simply part of the party apparatus. In no society is the effective use of propaganda more important than in a democratic one.

The system is unlikely to spontaneously correct itself until such time as it collapses under it’s own weight.

I agree with you that the system will not correct itself spontaneously -- I don't believe in miracles. Yet I maintain hope that it is possible for us to turn this ship around gradually in the right direction. Perhaps that's DonSpanton the naive optimist talking. )

[DJS]

Elrond:

At some point someone gets the bright idea of creating something called the FDA, IRS, EPA, ATF...

Did somebody say EPA...

From the Liberty Animation thread:

“the noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: ‘What is injurious to me is injurious in itself,’ he knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on things; he is a creator of values. He honors whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality is self-glorification." Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

"The environment is the libertarian Waterloo: it reveals the flaws of the doctrine in a way that seems to ensure that no 'answer' is forthcoming... Perhaps the best thing libertarians can [do] is put their dreams of changing the world on hold while they attempt simply to understand it."
Jeffrey Friedman (I would be somewhat less harsh in my pronouncements)

One of the typical arguments I have heard from Libertarian types is that all environmental problems stem from "common ownership" of natural resources. The Libertarian solution: Privatize it.

But if ownership is the motivational factor in environmental maintenance, what is to stop someone from polluting another individual's natural resources? The Libertarian would counter that such an act would infringe on the second individual's property rights (the big no-no according to the Libertarian Ethic) and is therefore an illegal act to be decided by ...the courts (because courts are just sooo infalliable .)

Good, fine. I'm going to sweep any objections I have to this line of reasoning under the rug, and instead consider the implications of such a scenario.

On a particularly pleasant weekend in the middle of the summer I decide to take a camping trip at a local state park. While I'm there I get stuck out in rain. Unfortunately the rain happens to be acid rain and I am severely burned over 80% of my body (I know this isn't realistic, but its just a thought experiment). Obviously my personal property has been harmed. So what is my best course of action? Well first I must find various "scientific authorities" to legitimate my claim and identify the culprit who infringed on my property rights. Once the culprit is identified it can be presumed that he/she/it (your team of experts versus the team of experts GSK can afford, who do you think has the advantage, but I digress) will gather up his own "experts" to defend his side of the case. Now here comes the big question: how is the case to be decided upon? Again, according to the Libertarian model, the case would be adjudicated in a court of law according to agreed upon standards created by by by.....um.....the EPA, NIH and other "big government" regulatory agencies Libertarians love to hate! Hence, the Libertarian "solution for pollution" through tort law does not eliminate government since governmental institutions will still be necessary to codify and defend property rights.

My entire line of reasoning however, has made one GIANT assumption and that is that the natural world can be privatized. Of course this is an absolute absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum, with no way of being logically defended. First, how would this apportionment of the natural world take place?

Forget that question though, it just a minor inconvenience... Let's get really crazy with this one. How will I identify my property? I guess I'll have to "brand" my zebra. But what happens if your lion eats my zebra? What court will assess the damages? What agency will collect the relevant facts for the case? Who the hell is the owner of these carpet beetles that just ate my favorite sweater damn it, I want some compensation pronto. 

Trying to argue for the privatization of the atmosphere is even sillier than the example I gave above. How exactly do I locate my "piece"? How do I determine if it is damaged? How do I prove that a particular individual damaged it?

The point of all this preposterous banter: complete privatization of natural resources is impossible= Libertarian ideal is impossible.

Government regulation is, and will continue to be, necessary in maitaining environmental standards.

[jaydfox]

A little off-topic, but is it tenents or tenets?

Okay, seriously, I was actually formulating a similar response to the one that Don quoted, that government regulation will be required in some form. I wasn't thinking about acid rain so much as I was thinking about air quality. At face value, I might not have a right to tell company XYZ that they cannot pour millions of tons of sulfur dioxide or carcinogens into the atmosphere from their 600 factories. However, I have to breathe that air eventually, so in effect they are trampling on my rights, are they not? What gives them the right to give me lung cancer or whatever?

Then we could bring up the issue of my suing them for compensation, but A) what if there is no reasonable way for me to sue them, and B) if the awarded damages are small enough, what's to stop them from continuing the practice? Then we have to get into issues of how much "lung cancer" costs, and allowing these companies to buy lung cancer credits at my expense. In effect, they could buy "death" credits. I know it's cliched that you can't put a value on life, because I think spending a billion dollars to save one life can be wrong (not "is", just "can be", based on context), but it's still open enough to interpretation that a "market" value on life is entirely unethical.

On the other hand, a moderate level of regulation could have avoided all this. Yes, the regulation is inherently limiting of rights, etc., etc. Taking government regulation to the extreme is not what I'm suggesting. I am simply suggesting moderation. Taking libertarianism to the extreme would be nearly as bad (I say nearly, since I think an extremely libertarian world would be less inhospitable than an extremely regulated one). The solution probably lies closer to libertarianism's view than where we are now, which is why I sympathize with the libertarian view from time to time, but taking it to the extreme would be bad, in my uneducated opinion.

[scottl]

Jay and Don,

I've posted more on this in the supp forum under the the regulation thread.

I don't think Don commented on my comments above.

Jay re: your comments on regulations above

Elrond may have thought this through, but at first thought I agree. Getting free enterprise to accomplish things (e.g. like above where we substitute them for NASA) and then finding ways to "keep them in line" seems a lot more likely to accomplish things then trying to get the gov't to do it to begin with.

[DJS]

Heh, I liked your conclusion:

As long as one depends on political labels one remains subject to control and minipulation by the 800 pound gorillas.

I think that's sort of how I'm starting to feel. Every political/economic/philosophical school has its flaws.

[Scottl: I saw your post, I'll try to respond when I get some time]

[eternaltraveler]

So it seems that you are a McGuyver Elrond. That's great. But for everyone one of you there are twenty people who can't tie their shoe laces properly. Libertarianism wrongly assumes that individuals possess a high degree of competence.

.

I love MacGyver (spell it right, this is important ) ). I set my TiVo to record it whenever it is on. Generally it is on some channel about once a day.

I do not believe libertarianism makes any assumptions about people not being able to tie their shoelaces properly. Other than that under a libertarian system they would be forced to actually do a better job of it and thus, many more people would be able to tie their shoe laces properly. The burden on society would be far less. Charity would be able to deal with it. Of course the transition to that would be very tough. Russia is dealing with that right now. It takes a lot to change a lifetime of non self-reliant mentality.

Don, I know people like you mean well. You have these ideals of everyone getting the same opportunities, everyone being equal. But you see your assumptions rest on one fallacious argument. That everyone is equal. Everyone is not equal. No person is in anyway equal to anyone else. Sure, the law should treat them equally, that I believe firmly. I also believe that every person should be judged as an individual.

Lets talk about your programs that equalize the playing field. Things like affirmative action (which is completely unconstitutional but as I demonstrated the constitution doesn’t matter anymore).

At my college I knew someone who filled out that they were African American on their application for admission. This person was in fact white and from South Africa. His family had lived in South Africa for 600 years. He moved here in his late teens and got US citizenship.

When this the administration figured out that he was white (it wasn’t until his junior year they threw him out of school. Luckily for him there were a lot of protests and legal challenges over this and they let him return. This person is very clearly an African American.

Generally when I bring up lines of discussion like this people scream and point at me “RACIST! RACIST!” which I certainly am not. I don’t give a crap what color someone’s skin is. All I care about is their ability. Every person is an individual who should be treated as such. No one should get special treatment under the government.

As far as your statements about the EPA goes they don’t address the issue as I see it. Making laws that protect the environment in general is certainly not against libertarian philosophy. A company spewing tons of toxic gas into the air is no different from me walking down the street in a local town smashing all the windows with a baseball bat. I doubt you can find a libertarian who thinks it’s ok to do that. I do however think the EPA is a bureaucratic nightmare whose laws could be greatly simplified. Most of them could easily be governed by the individual states, and other situations that are of greater scope than states should be administered by the congress and senate directly instead of pawning it off. I believe the same holds true for the other organizations I’ve listed as well as others I haven’t.

I really don’t think you comprehend what we have lost as a result of the behemoth federal government. For more than 100 years the United States did fine without any income tax at all. Then suddenly they decided they need one after all (at least they did it right by making a constitutional amendment). Just imagine how much more wealth there would be in America if all the income tax wasn’t flushed down the toilet. You can assume that it would have grown at the same rate as the non income tax money did. About 3% a year. Compound that over a century. The federal government would still be getting more money now that it is currently anyway from its old little taxes and the US would be much more wealthy and more technologically advanced.

Some taxes I agree with. I agree with Gasoline taxes because they predominately go to make roads. Sounds fine to me. If you want to drive then you automatically pay to maintain and build roads.

The IRS is nonsense. Forget the bit about income taxes in general being bad for the moment. The tax code is currently set up so that no human on earth actually knows what it is. Not the best accountant you can find. How can a law have meaning if no one can possibly know it? The tax code looks like the bible. Passages contradict one another. It’s bred an entire industry in our society that does nothing but drain it even more. Accountancy. It’s only needed because the tax code is so ridiculously complicated.

Every one of those organizations creates similar industries. Just think where’d we be if all that money were invested in something useful, or in circulation. Even it being squired away in banks would be more useful.

Anyway my whole rant has to do with how all these nice social programs, even though they might feel like good ideas, do dramatically more harm than good. Even if you think the ends justify the means the ends are nothing at all to be proud of.

People like me are not evil. We do care about others, but we want them to be able to stand on their own two feet. For what it’s worth I’ve worked (and plan to go back while I study) at a developmentally disabled center. Worked with people with severe mental disabilities. Many of them we manage to get to stand on their own two feet. To find jobs. To give them something to be proud of themselves. These are people with severe mental retardation and they still can do it. For other people there is just no excuse.


P.S. Forgive any lack of coherence, I’m sick as a dog currently with a temp of 103.4

Edited by eternaltraveler, 17 November 2010 - 10:26 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Chip,

I don't see libertarianism as quite like the other political parties. This is for a very simple reason. We are few. If we were many we would be just like the republicans or democrats. Chosing one seems to me to be like chosing a team to be on. Us vs them! Being a libertarian is currently more of an ideal I think.

[scottl]

"So it seems that you are a McGuyver Elrond. That's great. But for everyone one of you there are twenty people who can't tie their shoe laces properly. Libertarianism wrongly assumes that individuals possess a high degree of competence."


Cosmos,

This is where the charge of elitism of the left in the US comes from. Libertarians assume everyone can tie their own shoe or have someone help them do it. The left (again in the US I'd love to know more about what liberals are like where you are as I think there are important differences) assuume that you can't tie your own shoe so we have to have the all wise, all competent gov't tie it for you. This from the party that preaches we are all equal and screams if one mentions that different sexes/people have different (NOT BETTER OR WORSE) abilities.

[jaydfox]

I agree with Elrond about the government handouts thing, to an extent. Perhaps the "extent" is more of my way of saying that I qualify what "handouts" are. I believe strongly in unemployment benefits. People are spread too thin, in a system where they are not educated enough from childhood to plan ahead and have that six-month emergency reserve that we all keep hearing about when we go broke. "Why didn't you have six months' worth of your income set aside for an emergency?" Oh, now you tell me. I was barely scraping by on my bills as it was. I guess I should have waited a year to get married. I should have waited a couple more years to have kids. Well, I was young and in love and pretty stupid, so now I guess I have to literally pay for it.

The problem is, if you lose your job and fall on hard times, it would cost society less to get me through a few months while I look for a job, than to let me fall into bankruptcy, lose my apartment and car, and by extension, the ability to get a job and fix the situation. Now I'm in a situation where I can no longer reasonably get a high-paying job like the one I had, so now I'm stuck doing menial tasks that pay a third of what I was making. That situation will last for years. I'm totally screwed, but more importantly, my college education and skillset are pulled out of the economy for years.

So I believe very strongly in unemployment benefits. They are by definition a temporary crutch, so they don't breed laziness to nearly the extent that other welfare programs have.

In a way, I don't think Libertarianism would be against unemployment benefits, because as I said, the cost of not paying the benefits is higher than the cost of paying them. That's just financial cost. Never mind the personal suffering it will ease.

However, welfare programs that do not depend on and encourage a person's actively searching for a job are compounding the problem, not helping to fix it.

PS, the above scenario isn't quite what happened to me. I sort of had an emergency fund: my 401k. That got me through a few months. As for unemployment benefits, I was told I didn't qualify because I voluntarily quit (never mind the 3-hour commute each way, and not having any time with my family during the week, I guess that's not enough of a hardship). I got a two-month contracting job about 7 months later, and after that ended, I did qualify for unemployment. Go figure. Anyway, the paperwork took three weeks, by which time I had been hired somewhere else, so even though I technically qualified to receive money for two of those three weeks, the government decided it had better uses for that money than I did, so again I didn't see a dime.

So no, I'm not personally a beneficiary of unemployment benefits. But I should have been, and I know how much it would have helped my family (my pregnant wife had to get two jobs, and I got two hours of sleep a day running a paper route at night while I applied for jobs during the day).

[DJS]

Lots of interesting dialog guys (I'm gaining a great deal from this thread). Unfortunately I'm going to have to bow out for the next couple of days...tests and stuff. [glasses]

[xlifex]

Libertarianism: A Philosophical Introduction:

http://www.againstpo...nism/index.html

[DJS]

Wow, this is a rather surprising revelation coming from Marc Geddes over at the WTA list:

I'm publicly renouncing Libertarianism - I've been conned! Part 1

Note:  I know this really belongs in wta-politics but
I hope the moderator leaves this up here.  I had
posted numerous arguments in favor of Libertarianism
to wta-talk in the past, but it appears that in the
war between liberal-left and libertarian, I had chosen
the wrong side   So I want to make it clear to
everyone that I’ve switched sides.

I've now abandoned economic Libertarianism.  I was
finally talked out of it.  Not that I'm likely to
become a socialist or anything, but economically I'm
now moved to the center.  I'm convinced that
(economically at least) the exact center is likely the
optimum for over-all quality of life.  The reason I'm
posting this is become I passed through a phase
lasting several years where I was a supporter of
moderate Libertarianism and I posted arguments in
favor to the wta lists.  It's important that I tell
everyone on the list that I now believe I was
seriously deluded.  This must come as quite a shock to
some here.  My conversion to the centralist position
is quite recent.  The fact that I've changed my mind
shows you that it's possible for others on the lists
to make major shifts too.  Although it must be said I
was never really a hard-core Libertarian in the first
place. 

Since no one is more familiar with Libertarian
arguments than me, I can give an insight into why I
was seduced by this philosophy and possibly come up
with the arguments which can help other Libertarian
ideologues see sense.

So where did I go wrong?

(1)  Underestimating human selfishness and capacity
for self-serving deception

The more I studied history the more I realized that
the tendency of the powerful to abuse the weak is far
more pervasive than I ever realized.  Discrimination
and abuse is everywhere.  I was sobered by learning
that according to psychologists 1-3% of the population
are psychopaths.  Thugs, fraudsters and psychos
quickly float to the top without strong democratic
checks and balances.   For instance I was sobered by
learning about how the mafia used to run Las Vegas in
the absence of proper gaming regulations.  Human
nature isn't pretty at all.

Talk about 'enlightened self-interest' is just an
excuse for bad behavior.  Indeed the more I heard
opposing arguments and the more I learned about
history and human nature, the more I worried that
Libertarians were just rationalizing their own
selfishness.  I was disturbed by learning about the
background behind 'Tech Central Station' for instance
- how it was funded by corporations.  Or learning that
the motives of many of the people making Libertarians
arguments were less than pure.  I increasingly began
to worry that I'd been conned.

(2)  Underestimating human stupidity

Humans are ... to put it mildly... generally far more
stupid than I realized.  We're way too short-sighted
and we all tend to over-estimate our own reasoning
abilities.  The only real way to mitigate the
stupidity is democracy - where multiple competing
view-points come under intense public scrutiny and
views are averaged out - this is inefficient but it
does succeed in washing out the irrationality over the
long run.

(3)  Failing to realize the importance of public goods

A closer study of history showed me that it didn't
conform to the Libertarian stories I was being fed
about the virtues of deregulation.  In India for
instance where there are few fire safety regulations,
I discovered that schools regularly burn down there
and many children die.  Or in parts of Asia with no
food safety regulations tourists are falling over half
the time from food poisoning. 

Numerous examples from the laissez-faire era showed me
that people were dropping like flies because of lack
of infrastructure.  For instance lack of a sewage
system in London during the 19th century causing
thousands of deaths from chorea.  Or infectious
diseases wiping out millions - and infectious diseases
don't respect class boundaries.

Clearly public goods do exist.  Certain necessary
goods and services simply weren’t being handled by the
market, because they required large scale social
co-ordination and you couldn't divide up their
distribution - hence the free rider problem preventing
the making of a profit.    The only solution is
democratic government to provide these public goods.
I was disturbed by statistics on health-care which
didn't seem to conform to the Libertarian fables I was
being fed.  Why if capitalism was so great did
Canadians spend far less on health-care than
Americans, yet actually have longer life-spans?  Why
were so many in the U.S uninsured and why all the
expensive un necessary tests?  Libertarian
rationalizations seemed increasingly difficult to
justify.


(4)  Simplistic notions of 'liberty'. 

Libertarians had fine ideals, but the more I heard the
opposing arguments, the more I suspected that
Libertarianism involves a flawed notion of 'freedom'.
Freedom is something we can all agree to, but the
question is freedom for whom?  The more I listened to
opposing arguments, the more I worried that
Libertarians were really only interested in freedom
for *themselves*.  I was increasingly disturbed by the
level of hypocrisy I came across in Libertarian
forums.  The people calling for 'freedom from big
government' when things were going well for them were
the same people running to the government for
hand-outs when things went badly.

Real freedom has to take everyone into account.  At
any given time the total wealth in existence is
constant.  Exercise of resources by the rich means a
restriction of freedom for the less well off.  Freedom
for a few is not real freedom.  Real freedom has to
include everybody. 

Further real freedom has to take account of the
long-term, not just the short-term.  During the
laissez-faire a tiny minority got rich whilst large
numbers of people lived their lives in slums in the
absence of public education.  Without some minimum
level of opportunities for all, large numbers of
people would have no future.

(5) Trusting smart people too much - failing to
realize that 'Smart people believe weird things'

I think I was seduced by Libertarianism because it's a
popular ideology in cyberspace and many people on the
net have exceptionally high IQ's and can hence produce
'kick ass' arguments which really impress lesser
intellects.  But in fact IQ is not the same thing as
rationality and if anything the higher the IQ the more
susceptible to irrationality one is, because the high
IQ types can rationalize their views so well and hence
make ideologies seem very convincing.

Even immensely smart people are susceptible to
irrationality.  I increasingly became disturbed by the
fact that even very smart people on the transhumanist
lists seemed to have some very serious 'cognitive
blindness’s'.   I begun to realize that arguments for
Libertarianism were much less impressive than they
first seemed.   


(6)  Elections/Debates usually end in a draw/close to
the center

Why if Libertarianism is so great were all the first
world countries either close to the center
economically, or racing towards the center as fast as
possible?  Why do people tend to vote in centralist
politicians?  Are entire voting populations so
deluded?  As I studied history I realized that there
are actually damn good reasons why on average people
vote the way they do.  More socialism was voted in
because laissez-faire policies simply weren't working.
The most successful nations (European) have ended up
close to the center for a reason.  Arguments for
Libertarian versus Socialism between ultra smart
people on internet message boards usually end up draws
over-all.  You should be able to see this from the wta
lists.  This strongly indicates that economically the
optimum position for over-all qualify of life really
is in the dead center. 

(7) Much of economics is actually pseudo-science

I had been led to believe that ‘neo-classical’
economics was a solid science but after reading
critiques I was rather shocked to learn that actually
most economic models are highly idealized conceptions
that do not conform to reality.  The more I read, the
more I realized that much of economics must be
regarded as pseudo-science and arguments for
Libertarianism just fell apart on me  (For instance
see my next post: I'm publicly renouncing
Libertarianism - I've been conned! Part 2)


So these are just some of the reasons why I've finally
seen sense and converted to the economic center.  This
conversion is likely to be my final position.  I still
think socialism as an economic theory is severely
flawed and am not likely to swing to that any more
than I'm likely to go back to Libertarianism.  After
years of arguments and counter-arguments I'm now
pretty damn convinced that the answer must be in the
center.

[DJS]

I'm publicly renouncing Libertarianism - I've been conned! Part 2

Here are some extracts from a book I recently read
which helped turn me away from Libertarianism for
good.  One of the world's most respected scientists
explained to me why much of economics is actually
little better than pseudo science.

Extracts fom 'Consilience' by Edward O.Wilson

Ch 9, 'The Social Sciences', Pgs 216-226

'...the theorists cannot answer definitively most of
the key macroscopic economic questions that concern
society, including the optimal amount of fiscal
regulation, future income distribution within and
between nations, optimal population growth and
distribution, long-term financial security of
individual citizens, the roles of soil, water,
biodiversity, and other exhaustible and diminishing
resources, and the strength of "externalities" such as
the deteriorating global environment.  The world
economy is a ship speeding through uncharted waters
strewn with dangerous shaols.  There is no general
agreement on how it works'

'...The models also fall short because they are
hermetic - that is, sealed off from the complexities
of human behaviour and the constraints imposed by the
environment.  As a result, economic theorists, despite
the undoubted genius of many, have enjoyed few
successes in predicting the economic future, and they
have suffered many embrassing failures...'

'...Expect in the most general and statistical terms,
economic models cannot forecast the onset of bull and
bear markets, or the decades-long cycles triggered by
war and technological innovation.  They cannot tell us
whether tax cuts or national deficit reduction is the
more effective in raising per capita income, or how
economic growth will affect income distribution.'

'Economic theory is impeded by a second, equally
fundamental difficulty...it lacks a solid foundation
of units and processes.  It has not acquired or even
attempted serious consilence with the natural
sciences...In economics and the remainder of the
social sciences as well, the translation from
individual to aggregate behaviour is the key analytic
problem.  Yet in these disciplines the exact nature
and sources of individual behaviour are rarely
considered.  Instead the knowledge used by the
modelers is that of folk psychology, based mostly on
common perception and unaided intuition..'

'Their models contain elegant graphical
representations and analytic solutions to theoretical
problems of equilibria.  Yet seen through the
established principles of the behavioral sciences,
they are simplistic and often misleading...Typically
the predictions arise from the commonsense intuitions
of the modeler, that is, from folk psychology...Seldom
are the premises of such models examined closely.'

[ddhewitt]

Don;

Thanks for the reposts on "Renouncing Libertarianism- I've been conned!"

The observations are dead on with my experience and I have been repositioning myself from strong objectivist/libertarian views to more centrist views over the past decade due to many of the factors mentioned in the post.

The psychopaths mentioned often end up being CEOs or politicians and from my experience the conception of American business operating rationally is fundamentally flawed. Control freaks and self-serving deception abound. The amount of waste is tragic. Power games and primate politics determine resource allocation more often than rationality. A new economic model needs to be created that takes the evolutionary psychology of power seeking behaviour into account.

Duane