• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Libertarianism?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

Poll: What is your opinion of Libertarianism? (82 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your opinion of Libertarianism?

  1. 1. I identify myself as a Libertarian. (24 votes [29.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  2. 2. I identify myself as a Libertarian, but have some areas of disagreement with its tenents (18 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  3. 3. I have no opinion on Libertarianism (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. 4. I do not identify mself as a Libertarian, but I agree with some of its tenents. (33 votes [40.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.74%

  5. 5. I do not identify myself as a Libertarian and I strongly disagree with all of its tenents. (6 votes [7.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:54 PM

As am I Cosmos, which is why I posted it.

I would love to hear a Libertarians response to Marc's comments. For me personally, I find his comments to possess uncanny timing (I was actually beginning to fall more toward a Libertarian ethic over the past couple of weeks -- yes, I fully admit I am one of those "flavor of the week people" [lol] ). I have found in my ethics class that Libertarianism can be argued quite powerfully as an ethical system.

Still though, the more I delve into the various social sciences, the more I am left believing that there is no "unifying system". I also completely agree with Duane that evolutionary psychology may prove to be an invaluable tool in the social sciences -- which is why I plan to really under take a study of it when I get some free time.

#32 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:57 PM

Captain "Lucky" Jack in Master and Commander (the far side of the world) stated "Men must be governed!" Sounds great, as long as your the governor.

A friend of mine once told me that over 95% percent of the people on the earth are "sheep". They can't think for themselves, they can't provide for themselves, they're incompetent, etc...My friend said they need someone to tell them what to do. I refused to believe it. The longer I live the more I believe it. The small majority of people pulling 95% of the load humanity has to bear, rise to the top no matter what the form of government. The ambitious and talented become the leaders of socialist countries, or the business leaders in more libertarian societies. Still, tyranny is tyranny whether it is promulgated by individuals or if it is the tyranny of the majority. The libertarian ideal is to maximize freedom. People certainly can freely choose to become dependants of some social structure they wish to create. Such a situation is libertarianism at work. It just seems unethical to me to FORCE some people to support others.

I identify most closely with libertarianism because it is the most non-arbitrary and logically sound political philosophy. I don't identify with anarcho-libertarians....those who are basically anarchists. I believe in voluntary yet enforced contracts, enforcement by a mutually agreed to third party. In most cases this would be a government authority. Also in my ideal world there would be guards against the rich from manipulating the market in their favor...meaning you go as far as your talents take you, but it would be illegal to create structures that barred other people from competing against you. Now I know the argument against this, "the rich always end up manipulating the market in their favor no matter how hard you try to prevent it", well....the same thing happens in socialist countries. The rich and powerful people in socialist democracies also manipulate the society to their favor. It is almost a "horse apiece" in my view. Almost, but not quite, because I highly value freedom, and I think we should err on the the side of freedom instead of tyranny.

Now, after saying all this, it is apparent to me that individuality will be less important in the future, because of convergent communications technology. When we have direct brain to brain communication, we will all be more like one person than individuals. But guess what, the bright, strong, talented, and ambitious will also dominate the meta-mind.

#33 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 11 March 2005 - 12:04 AM

I actually don't disagree with {edited: most} of the points you've made Mind, I just don't know if I could be willing to commit to any political or economic philosophy at this point. I think the human mind has this tendency to want to place everything into nice, neat little patterns when no such patterns exist. Why not just judge every situation as it arises (act consequentialism)?

Edited by DonSpanton, 11 March 2005 - 06:54 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 11 March 2005 - 12:13 AM

As am I Cosmos, which is why I posted it.

I would love to hear a Libertarians response to Marc's comments.  For me personally, I find his comments to possess uncanny timing (I was actually beginning to fall more toward a Libertarian ethic over the past couple of weeks -- yes, I fully admit I am one of those "flavor of the week people"  [lol] ).  I have found in my ethics class that Libertarianism can be argued quite powerfully as an ethical system.

Still though, the more I delve into the various social sciences, the more I am left believing that there is no "unifying system".  I also completely agree with Duane that evolutionary psychology may prove to be an invaluable tool in the social sciences -- which is why I plan to really under take a study of it when I get some free time.


You know, I really should defer to Chip more often, this is near his area of expertise. Unfortunately in not so kind words, I told him off (4th post down on this page).

Libertarianism isn't tarnished in my eyes, there is still hope for it. Does that hope rest in humans? Maybe not, but perhaps in posthumans. Oscrazor's thread on stupidity would fit well here, humans may be too stupid in general to be afforded the rights and freedoms of a minimalist libertarian style government. That's not to say such a form of government wouldn't succeed to some extent, but that it may not be the best form of government for humans. I'm not too concerned with perfect governance for humans, as I think it's likely the posthuman era will come about before 2100.

#35 ddhewitt

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New England

Posted 11 March 2005 - 12:53 AM

Mind;

You make several good points.

At times I have been thinking along the lines of explicit social contracts where people can sign into a legal system and are not just born into one. This is stolen from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.

Don, I agree with you that libertarianism provides a coherent and powerful ethical system but something seems to be amiss when it comes to applying it consistently to groups of people.

Duane

#36

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 11 March 2005 - 09:24 AM

I don't understand why Marc is so critical about Tech Central Station?

Here's an interesting article from there about the growing rift beftween conservatism and libertarianism.

http://www.techcentr...om/031005F.html

#37 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 11 March 2005 - 04:29 PM

ah, this thread lives again. I'll be back to dismantle Marc's points when I have some time ;))

#38 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 March 2005 - 05:55 PM

elrond ah, this thread lives again. I'll be back to dismantle Marc's points when I have some time ;))

Me too, elrond. Problems and suffering, especially in perceiving others as the cause, are just as much delusional fantasies as the pursuit of happiness, and with a worse net effect.

#39 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 11 March 2005 - 06:43 PM

Okay, I have some time now to type a response.

Elrond

Charity would be able to deal with it.


Please [sfty]

Don, I know people like you mean well.


People like me? What the Irish? ;))

You have these ideals of everyone getting the same opportunities, everyone being equal.


Yes, my I DO believe that everyone should be afforded equal opportunity and I DO believe that everyone should be equal -not in their abilities necessarily, but in the eyes of the law.

I think we both agree Elrond that Freedom is a good thing. We just disagree on how we go about attaining it.

Health care, food and shelter should be universal human rights. How exactly does this position jeopardize your freedom?

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.


Just because you say this is my position doesn't mean that it is so. Can you please point out to me where I've said that everyone is of equal abilities?? Please stop putting words in my mouth. Its nothing more than a veiled attempt at creating a straw man -- and not a very good one at that.

About 6 months ago I applied for the position of deputy sheriff of Denver County.  The first step in the process is that you go take a test.  It’s a kind of IQ/knowledge related to police work test.  I received the highest score anyone has received in over a year.  However I did not even get an interview after that.  I did a little digging.  Talked to a few people involved in the recruitment process.  As it turned out the sheriff’s office was behind on its affirmative policy.  They needed some more black people and Hispanics to get up to their arbitrarily set level.  I never even had a chance.  If I was black or Hispanic I would have certainly at least gotten an interview.  I was discriminated against very clearly based on nothing other than my race.


You're viewing this from your personal (very white) perspective. You may be discriminated against in those very rare instances where you apply for a job that is trying to fulfill requirements set by affirmative action policies. But you're omitting one very important point: minorties get discriminated against every day of their lives. Stop whining. There's no way to put a price tag on the benefits of being a white american.

And also, for the record. I've never come out in favor of affirmative action. I do not support affirmative action as it is currently forumulated. I believe that it is like trying to put a band aid on an amputation. The problem needs to be addressed much earlier than when an individual is applying to college or a job. There is a growing body of evidence that children acquire most of their mental acuity before the age of 5. We (the US) needs to focus on inner city preschool education programs that will cut to the heart of the "racial" (what is race anyway) and socio-economic aptitude divide.


Moving on.  Let’s talk about welfare.

.

I'm against welfare. I'm for workfare, as long as its "fair" (hardyharhar)

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.


The purpose of various "affirmative action" programs is not to treat certain people "special". It is to make things fair. I really need to drive this point home. As a Libertarian you have stated your opposition to the tyranny of the majority. And I agree. The majority can be tyranical. Some times society (which is controlled by the majority) can discriminate against certain minority groups. This is what programs like affirmative action are trying to deal with. They are trying to address and alleviate the fundamental internal biases that society possesses. The reason why you can't seem to grasp that this inequality exists is because....well, its because you're white and can't put yourself in someone else's shoes apparently.

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. 


You're missing the point entirely. The Libertarian socio-economic model strives to eliminate the catagory of public property. The environmental issues reveal how silly this notion is.

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.


Please practice your pseudo economics else where.

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.


I agree with you on this point. The tax code in this country is out of control.


People like me are not evil.


I never said that you were. I just disagree with some of your politics.

#40

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 11 March 2005 - 09:08 PM

Me too, elrond. Problems and suffering, especially in perceiving others as the cause, are just as much delusional fantasies as the pursuit of happiness, and with a worse net effect.


I'll be waiting to read both your responses.

#41 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 15 March 2005 - 07:27 AM

Elrond

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.


The problem, Don, is that without the state, corporations would not have the power they do. Corporations are creatures of the state. THeir power comes from the state. The state is their protection agency. You get rid of the state and you disempower the corporations.

One thing concerns me that you say that government should 'enforce social norms'. WHOSE social norms are you talking about? Generally anti-corp people I see who have this attitude want to enforce norms of distribution of wealth, i.e. using the monopoly of force of the state to steal the honestly earned wealth of some to give to others. Looting, in other words. If this is not what you mean, please explain.

#42 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:14 AM

Hi Mike,

It's funny. I see from your profile that you are from New Hampshire. I just got back from a four day vacation visiting friends who just moved out to Burlington Vermont. We took a road trip on my second day there over to NH (just because I've never been there before). Immediately I noticed the license plates - LIVE FREE OR DIE. My friend also told me that there was an online Libertarian movement to organize a mass migration (10,000+) of Libertarians to NH in order to significantly affect the political climate of the state. The hope is, I am told, that the conversion of one state to a Libertarian ethic would act as a catalyst for a "Libertarian domino effect". Interesting stuff.

Another thing that I find interesting is the idea that variances in life style resulting from things such as population density and *urban development* have a noticable affect on the odds of one having a particularly political persuasion. I think it may be easier to maintain the notion that one is an *island* when one lives in a rather isolated rural environment such as NH. (This is not meant to be insulting, but rather posited as speculation on possible environmental/cultural/memetic influences on political ideology). Now I understand that this may sound like a rather "fluffy" statement, but its something that I really got a sense of going from the country side of NH/Vermont back to the urban environment of Jersey City ( I can see the statue of Liberty as I'm typing this).

But I digress.

The problem, Don, is that without the state, corporations would not have the power they do.


This statement is just dead wrong. One should never speak in absolutes, but with zero protection provided by the state, corporations would have nothing holding them back from exploiting the public for their own gain. One must remember that a corporation's number one priority is not the public good, but *profit*. I would also suggest that a Libertarian ethic does not need to defend the value of corporate entities in a capitalist system in order to maitain a fair degree of consistency within their socio-economic paradigm.

Corporations are creatures of the state.


Wrong again. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. This is why I often find debating politics so distasteful. It is, by its very nature, suppositional. How exactly are corporations creatures of the state? I am puzzled how, even if you were coming at this from a Libertarian perspective (and I won't assume that you are, though it is a possibility), you could maintain this kind of position. Corporations are a direct manifestation of the ecomonic system of capitalism. They represent of convergence of productive and distributive potential geared at improving effeciency and also, if there is a lack of governmental safe guards, acheiving a preponderance in a given (economic @@) niche (ie, monopoly). You are inverting your inferences.

Their power comes from the state.


Wrong again. Their power comes from their disproportionate economic leverage. Indeed, they can use the state as a tool to further amplify this leverage, but the *source* of their power lies not in the government, but in the dynamics of capitalism.

The state is their protection agency. You get rid of the state and you disempower the corporations.


Again, you make the wrong inference. Yes, corportations use the state to "protect them" in various ways. However, there are also certain checks on corporate power (which admittedly do not work very well) that serve to reign in corporate power to a limited extent. An example of this would be anti-trust legislation. Furthermore, getting rid of the government in no way logically implies that corporate power would disipate, nor does it imply that corporate priorities would suddently and miraculously evolve to take into account the public good.

One thing concerns me that you say that government should 'enforce social norms'.  WHOSE social norms are you talking about?


Society's social norms, or rather, social norms agreed upon by a democratic majority (which also pays respect to minority rights). Some examples of the less controversial (I would hope) social norms a pluralistic society would be in favor of would include *equality* and *respect for the individual*.

@@ Edited

Edited by DonSpanton, 19 March 2005 - 05:54 AM.


#43 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:39 PM

So where did I go wrong?

(1) Underestimating human selfishness and capacity
for self-serving deception….  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…  Human nature isn't pretty at all…
Talk about 'enlightened self-interest' is just an
excuse for bad behavior……Libertarians were just rationalizing their own
selfishness.


1-3% of the population are libertarians. Hmm… I wonder… :))

Well if you don’t believe in altruism this is tough to argue with, which is true of many if not most libertarians, disbelief in altruism is a rational conclusion. I do not think they use it as a way to rationalize their own selfishness because without a belief in altruism this is something that does not require rationalization (did I just rationalize that? :)) ).

Libertarians however do believe that this selfishness doesn’t have to be a bad thing. And it’s easy to confuse this libertarian selfishness, with the selfishness mothers yell at their children for. I for one do not value myself above all of creation. There are people and ideas I would die for if it came to it. This is true of most people. And those few that it isn’t true of would have to fake it in order to make it in any world.



(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.


The only way to mitigate stupidity is democracy?! Are you kidding me? Can I get a vote on whether we should ban embryonic stem cells research please? How about a vote on whether Jesus Christ now sits at the right hand of God?

Reality is the only thing you need to mitigate against stupidity. You see when a stupid idea meets reality it simply fails. All these barriers between stupidity and reality do nothing but give stupidity the fertile breeding ground it needs to grow, while at the same time holding down potentially brilliant ideas (the majority of people don’t know a thing about cryonics or stem cell research, I suppose we should let the ignorant majority rule).

I for one don’t for a second underestimate human stupidity. The majority of people are stupid, or at least ignorant. Libertarianism is a philosophy where the majority cannot terrorize the minority.

(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. 

All these examples are in third world countries where it wouldn’t matter if there were regulations or not. No regulations are followed in most third world countries. All it takes is a bribe to a petty official to pave the way through anything. But that’s hardly needed anyway. These countries need major overhauls in infrastructure before these problems can be fixed. Not to mention their pseudo-socialist pseudo-capitalist regimes.

And he uses the word “deregulation” as though it is all encompassing. I do believe in some kind of “regulation” which is nothing more than an extension of libertarian values into our modern age.

Allow me to explain. Libertarians believe that you can do whatever you want with yourself and your property as long as it doesn’t harm others. Well polluting the water I drink sure as hell harms me. So does feeding me contaminated meat, and curing my diseases with poison drugs. This does not strike me at all as something that would be a problem under libertarianism.

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.


There was a laissez-faire era?

I know the roman’s had sewage, but the whole idea kind of got forgotten for about a thousand years; something about barbaric hordes wanting to redistribute the wealth of Rome because they didn’t have the same health care and plumbing is what I hear happened :)).

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.


Currently the United States is paying for the research and development costs of many new medications. In many countries like much of Europe caps are put on how much pharmaceutical companies can charge for drugs. They do a rather simplistic analysis of the cost of producing a drug. If it say, costs 10 cents to produce one pill of some new drug and they decide the company can charge 1 dollar per pill that’s a ten fold profit, right? Wrong. This does nothing to address the enormous research and development costs. The costs of failed medications, and the costs of getting it approved with organizations like the FDA (which is complete nonsense). Now of course these companies are still going to sell these drugs under these conditions because that’s still 90 cents per pill to their bottom line. But meanwhile the US consumer is paying for all of the other issues I mentioned; whether the drug was developed by an American company or not. If the US joined the rest of the first world countries with these policies it would tremendously slow down new drug development. I don’t think those of us here are ok with that.

US health care is the best in the world. And the reason that is true is because we pay for it. People point to the tremendous costs of HMOs and the like these days. Well HMOs do a great job of demonstrating the problems of socialized health care. With HMOs you can go see the doctor as often as you want and only pay a minimal co pay. Well as it turns out, after people no longer had to pay for their health care they would start going to the doctor much more often for every little thing. Originally HMOs were pretty cheap, but their prices have gone up dramatically because so many people use them frivolously. At the same time health care providers can keep charging more and more because they just charge some nameless corporate entity instead of the person standing in front of them who might not be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for the prescription for the antibiotic they were prescribed for a head cold.

Making a giant government HMO will solve nothing, it will make matters much worse. We need to move away from this system, not deeper into it. I think having major medical insurance with a high deductible is the best way to go. I’m paying 49 bucks a month for mine, if I need to go to the doctor’s office for something minor I would much rather pay the 150 dollars or so myself, rather than paying an extra 250 dollars a month just in case I might want to go at any time. If I need major surgery, or have cancer I’ll certainly find a way to come up with the 5 grand for the deductible.

If the government controlled this one of two things would happen. Costs would go up much more, or service would decline in value.

If I could pay for my 50 bucks a month in major medical insurance while working at night at home depot while paying for the school I went to during the day so can most everyone (most of these people you worry about without health insurance are relatively young and healthy, it would not cost them much to purchase such insurance, this is not true of all obviously).

(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.


Ok, BIG problem here. The total wealth in existence is not remotely constant. Every new technology and every new idea creates more wealth out of NOTHING. If you create wealth it damn well should be yours. Otherwise why bother creating it (if you create it to share with your fellow man that is still your choice)? If you create this wealth just the act of you using it increases the wealth of your fellow man.

And trying to argue that libertarians believe only in freedom for themselves is ridiculous. Libertarians want freedom for everyone (this does include themselves) This means that the majority should not be able to oppress the minority.

I don’t know anything about people running for handouts from the government when times were tough for them. I don’t doubt it though. It’s like a big cookie jar, it’s hard to keep your hands out of it when you can reach it. I think it’d be better if we all didn’t have to give up our cookies to begin with. They get all stale and moldy in that jar.

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.


While in the matter of education I am more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian. I think it should be left in the hands of the states. But the federal government has found convoluted ways to change this without actually bothering to amend the constitution. I went to a state school, and it was fine.

I do stray a bit from my hard-line libertarian philosophies when it comes to children, and particularly, education.


(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.   


So smart people because they’re smart have dumb ideas… I guess I need to revise my definition of the word “smart”. You know physicists are usually pretty smart, as a result I suppose that everything they have unveiled about physics is completely false. And I’m never going on a bridge or an airplane again; smart people designed those things. What the heck holds an airplane way up in the air anyway? For those non-smart people reading this paragraph I’m being sarcastic :))

Seriously though, people can tend to be blinded by ideas they like, but making the argument that smart=irrational is pure nonsense.

(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. 


This argument makes absolutely no sense at all, and he completely contradicts his second point, underestimating human stupidity. So humans are for the most part stupid, but still magically know the best way to vote? The only reason democracy works at all is because politicians agree with each other rarely so that the government is limited in its impact. All the infighting prevents it from actually doing much. That was why everything was so great under Clinton. Because the government was in deadlock for eight years.

To say that somehow the average of everyone’s ideas is somehow the correct idea is pure fallacy. Most people didn’t think we could get to the moon, and most people don’t think curing aging is possible. If we decide that most people are automatically right we might as well throw in the towel.

(7) Much of economics is actually pseudo-science


Economic models are not perfect. Neither are our theories of physics. As time moves on we develop better models for both. I think the classical economics he quotes here as false is equivalent to Newtonian physics. It can’t explain the orbit of mercury but in general it does a good job.

#44 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 March 2005 - 05:18 PM

Don

Health care, food and shelter should be universal human rights. How exactly does this position jeopardize your freedom?


I hate to be ruthlessly logical here Don. But if these were made universal human rights at this moment it would bankrupt the planet and the population would explode out of control until it collapsed. Not to mention the wars we would have to preemptively start in order to make sure the corrupt governments weren’t just gobbling it all up. We have finite resources to work with unfortunately, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

Just because you say this is my position doesn't mean that it is so. Can you please point out to me where I've said that everyone is of equal abilities?? Please stop putting words in my mouth. Its nothing more than a veiled attempt at creating a straw man -- and not a very good one at that


I apologize if I misinterpreted your position here.

And also, for the record. I've never come out in favor of affirmative action. I do not support affirmative action as it is currently forumulated. I believe that it is like trying to put a band aid on an amputation. The problem needs to be addressed much earlier than when an individual is applying to college or a job. There is a growing body of evidence that children acquire most of their mental acuity before the age of 5. We (the US) needs to focus on inner city preschool education programs that will cut to the heart of the "racial" (what is race anyway) and socio-economic aptitude divide.


I cannot respond to the key issue here with the only logical argument against it without being labeled a racist and dismissed so I will not.

But it does seem as though through your analogy that you think current affirmative action is not nearly enough?

As a Libertarian you have stated your opposition to the tyranny of the majority. And I agree. The majority can be tyranical. Some times society (which is controlled by the majority) can discriminate against certain minority groups. This is what programs like affirmative action are trying to deal with. They are trying to address and alleviate the fundamental internal biases that society possesses. The reason why you can't seem to grasp that this inequality exists is because....well, its because you're white and can't put yourself in someone else's shoes apparently.


Before I argue with someone I always like to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, I’m a mile away and I have their shoes :))

You seem to see “society” as a single meta entity. With it’s needs outweighing it’s constituent parts. I see it as a bunch of individuals, with billions of individual needs. And I think the individuals in it can deal with their needs far better than the meta entity “society” ever could. (I’m not putting words in your mouth here, I have merely reached this as a likely conclusion from what I have read here. There are other possible conclusions to be reached)

Now speaking specifically of the issue addressed in your paragraph above. You seem to be jumping to some erroneous conclusions of your own about me. I certainly do believe that inequality exists, I just do not believe that the solution could possibly be an artificially induced inequality. Telling me I can’t understand because I’m white may or may not be true. But if it is true then you can’t possibly understand either white-boy :))

Slavery ended 140 years ago. Everyone who had anything to do with it is dead. I’ve already explained how I believe affirmative action and welfare to be holding down minorities. I would like to see you address that issue rather than side stepping it before I respond further on this matter.

You're missing the point entirely. The Libertarian socio-economic model strives to eliminate the catagory of public property. The environmental issues reveal how silly this notion is.


I’ve already explained this in what I believed to be simplistic terms. Both here and in other areas you have responded too. I really don’t know now much simpler I can make it.

For the record:

Libertarian philosophy says that you can do whatever you want so long as you don’t harm others. Polluting their water and air harms them in a very physical way. Libertarians believe in criminal courts. Harming people is a crime.

And as far as public land goes (I assume you speak of wilderness land) most of it is in places where accessibility is difficult which is really the only reason it is still public. If you are worried about what would happen to our national parks if they were privatized why not sell them to organizations like the sierra club and greenpeace? They would do a hell of a lot of a better job in managing them than our government is now.

Please practice your pseudo economics else where.


Please enlighten me with some rational basis of your unilateral dismissal of my economics.

Another thing that I find interesting is the idea that variances in life style resulting from things such as population density and *urban development* have a noticable affect on the odds of one having a particularly political persuasion. I think it may be easier to maintain the notion that one is an *island* when one lives in a rather isolated rural environment such as NH. (This is not meant to be insulting, but rather posited as speculation on possible environmental/cultural/memetic influences on political ideology). Now I understand that this may sound like a rather "fluffy" statement, but its something that I really got a sense of going from the country side of NH/Vermont back to the urban environment of Jersey City ( I can see the statue of Liberty as I'm typing this).


I grew up in the New York/ Philadelphia metro area. I moved to Colorado because the regulations in that area are strongly against anything entrepreneurial. It would be stupid of me to try to invest in real estate there for one. In New Jersey for one it is almost impossible to kick out a tenant for just about anything (including not paying rent) meanwhile you are still paying the mortgage. People wonder why these rent controlled heavily rent controlled buildings in major cities fall to shambles, and why anything good costs a fortune.

Here the lease is the law. It is a mutually agreed to contract. When I made the lease with my tenants we sat down and worked it out together (starting with a form from office depot). Which reminds me. It expired last week so I need to sit down with them.

Wrong again. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. This is why I often find debating politics so distasteful. It is, by its very nature, suppositional. How exactly are corporations creatures of the state? I am puzzled how, even if you were coming at this from a Libertarian perspective (and I won't assume that you are, though it is a possibility), you could maintain this kind of position. Corporations are a direct manifestation of the ecomonic system of capitalism. They represent of convergence of productive and distributive potential geared at improving effeciency and also, if there is a lack of governmental safe guards, acheiving a preponderance in a given (economic @@) niche (ie, monopoly). You are inverting your inferences.


Corporations are legal entities created by the state. You cannot sue the owners of a corporation for something the corporation did, you can only sue the corporate entity itself. So I’m afraid you are wrong Don. This is business 101 here. All those other things you speak of “convergence of productive and distributive potential….” Are true, but they do not necessarily require the formation of a distinct legal entity to accomplish them. Without this barrier “corporations” might consider themselves much more accountable for their actions. But with all the frivolous lawsuits these days I don’t think abolishment of the corporate barrier would be a good thing.

Wrong again. Their power comes from their disproportionate economic leverage. Indeed, they can use the state as a tool to further amplify this leverage, but the *source* of their power lies not in the government, but in the dynamics of capitalism.


How would you go about “proportioning” the economic leverage corporations have?

I think you are overly simplifying things here. Their power comes both from the state and their economic (and other) leverage. Currently a strong argument could be made that the government uses corporations as tools, and corporations use governments as tools. The problem of course is that this abuse potential exists. How many kids can keep their hands out of the cookie jar when no one is watching (and how many dogs can keep out of the trash for that matter)? Increasing the power of the state certainly is not the solution. That just makes for starving kids whose only source of food is the cookie jar. I believe that decreasing the power of the state is the solution, while eliminating many of the barriers that prevent people from being accountable for their actions (like being a nameless faceless stockholder). I’m not at all against the concept of stockholders. But if their was a potential that I could be punished personally for actions of a corporation I own stock in I might tend to make sure it’s on the up and up (and such punishments must certainly be proportional to your stake in the company, and stockholders certainly wouldn’t be held responsible when their corporate officers defraud them as in the case of enron).

Society's social norms, or rather, social norms agreed upon by a democratic majority (which also pays respect to minority rights). Some examples of the less controversial (I would hope) social norms a pluralistic society would be in favor of would include *equality* and *respect for the individual*.


This is a very dangerous position to have. 51% of people might think that immortality is morally wrong and you shouldn’t have it, so they pass a law, while 49% think immortality is fantastic, but they’re screwed. 51% of people might think that drafting our young to fight in a war in North Korea is a great idea, and so they pass a law, while 49% are adamantly opposed.

Now here’s the kicker. Only 2% could agree with both laws. So with just two little laws you’ve oppressed 98% of the population.

Think about that and get back to me :))

#45 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:35 PM

Elrond you bastard. Look at the size of your post, I’m never going to be able to get done with my work. [lol]

Okay, first a point I wanted to make to Cosmos. Cosmos, I have yet to respond to you about your contention that Libertarianism will be the best system of governance in a post human world. My answer – Yes, absolutely. This system is sometimes referred to as “Transhuman-Libertarianism” and I think it will be a viable option in the future. The point is, however, that we are not there yet (and won’t be for the foreseeable future). I think Elrond (who is currently arguing the Libertarian position) will agree with me that human beings possess a tremendous amount of cognitive bias. Put bluntly, we are flawed creatures, and this is manifested in our societies’ social and economic structures.

I would argue that, until we get the “kinks out of our software”, we are going to continue to see political and economic systems that are…defective. It may turn out that it is not even the systems that are flawed, but the human beings who operate within them (or perhaps, it may be both).

This is not to say that I have succumbed to Upwinger political ideology. In fact, I find it to be inadequate**(edited for harshness [lol] ). Humanity has problems it has to deal with right here, right now – not tomorrow. You will not find me getting down on my knees before I go to bed at night praying for the Singularity.

[quote]
I hate to be ruthlessly logical here Don. But if these were made universal human rights at this moment it would bankrupt the planet and the population would explode out of control until it collapsed. Not to mention the wars we would have to preemptively start in order to make sure the corrupt governments weren’t just gobbling it all up. We have finite resources to work with unfortunately, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. [/quote]

Finite resources does not imply that certain resources can not be basic services provided by society. I think it is debatable as to whether humanity, with its current technological and material resources, could provide the three basic services I mentioned. But even if this is not currently possible, then certainly is should be a goal. And if we pull this discussion back from global proportions to say…the United States (the wealthiest nation on the planet), then certainly the three basic services I listed can (and should) be provided for.

[quote]
I cannot respond to the key issue here with the only logical argument against it without being labeled a racist and dismissed so I will not. [/quote]

You seem to be afraid that I am going to label you a racist. I can assure you I am not. I think you may possess some cognitive bias, but I most certainly do not think you are a racist.

[quote]
But it does seem as though through your analogy that you think current affirmative action is not nearly enough? [/quote]

NO! I think affirmative action sucks. I want to dismantle the current affirmative action system. It perpetuates stereotypes and is rather ineffective at doing what it sets out to accomplish. The public policy I envision would be aimed almost entirely at preK-12 – this way, minority students won’t need affirmative action to compete at the college level!

[quote]
You seem to see “society” as a single meta entity. [/quote]

You’re right. This is a substantial difference between you and I. You view each individual as a distinct unit, completely separated from the influences of society. I do not. Human beings are, with out a doubt, individual and unique, but they are also COMPLETELY the product of the society in which they live. There is no magical, mystical soul that defines the individual. We are, to put it bluntly, meme machines.

[quote]
With it’s needs outweighing it’s constituent parts. [/quote]

Completely wrong. You’ve just derailed. Like you, I believe that the ultimate goal of society should be to promote the “well being” of the individual. Don’t forget, I am a human being too. I want to live in the freest and most prosperous world possible.

[quote]
I see it as a bunch of individuals, with billions of individual needs. And I think the individuals in it can deal with their needs far better than the meta entity “society” ever could. [/quote]

And I see gross inequalities in initial distribution of resources (financial, educational, etc) that lead to further inequalities being passed down from one generation to the next. I see some individuals as being better equipped by society to succeed than others. Yes, individuals can “deal” with the cards they are handed in life (they have to), but this does not mean that, as a society, we can not create policies that promote an environment conducive to equal opportunity

[quote]
I just do not believe that the solution could possibly be an artificially induced inequality. Telling me I can’t understand because I’m white may or may not be true. But if it is true then you can’t possibly understand either white-boy   [/quote]

Touche! Hehe, again though, I want to drive home an important aspect of my position. I am against affirmative action as it is currently formulated. I do not believe that, as you put it, creating inequalities either in the college admissions process or in the work place is accomplishing anything. I want to correct the inequalities at the sources. Starting with massive funding to preK education, after school programs, educational seminars for parents, and so forth and so on.

[quote]
Slavery ended 140 years ago. Everyone who had anything to do with it is dead. I’ve already explained how I believe affirmative action and welfare to be holding down minorities. I would like to see you address that issue rather than side stepping it before I respond further on this matter. [/quote]

I find it more than a little telling that you rage against the injustices of minority affirmative action, but not once have I heard you voice your objections to legacy policies. Now, I’m sure you are against them also, but not once have I heard you say as much. :))

[quote]
Please enlighten me with some rational basis of your unilateral dismissal of my economics. [/quote]

Sure. Economics is an immensely complicated subject that even most experts don’t have a thorough grasp of. Assuming a 3% growth rate that you compound annually is just silly. To put it politely, you are throwing around “fuzzy figures”.

[quote]
I grew up in the New York/ Philadelphia metro area. I moved to Colorado because the regulations in that area are strongly against anything entrepreneurial. It would be stupid of me to try to invest in real estate there for one. In New Jersey for one it is almost impossible to kick out a tenant for just about anything (including not paying rent) meanwhile you are still paying the mortgage. People wonder why these rent controlled heavily rent controlled buildings in major cities fall to shambles, and why anything good costs a fortune. [/quote]

Do you really want to get into this subject with me? Remember, I was a commercial appraiser for a number of years. :)) It is not impossible to kick a tenant out – it takes a total of three months. Yes, admittedly this sucks for the landlord, but there are also serious consequences for the tenant, including Black list (with a capital B) credit that makes it Very difficult for the tenant to secure another lease in the future. Defaulting on a lease is not a smart idea.

As far as rent control…Does it result in inadequate maintenance? Yes, of course. It results in slumlords who are trying to cut corners and maintain a large number of holdings (ie, less of a profit margin, but more of it) simultaneously. But what then is your solution? You have large inner city populations such as those residing in Newark and Camden who are well below the poverty line. In reality, what you are proposing is squeezing the destitute for every penny they have. Jacking the ceiling rates in places like Newark would only have the effect of putting more people out on the streets and in shelters (which actually adds to over all costs to society—that is, unless you want to close down the shelters too :)) )

[quote]
Corporations are legal entities created by the state. You cannot sue the owners of a corporation for something the corporation did, you can only sue the corporate entity itself. So I’m afraid you are wrong Don. This is business 101 here. All those other things you speak of “convergence of productive and distributive potential….” Are true, but they do not necessarily require the formation of a distinct legal entity to accomplish them. [/quote]

I think you’re arguing semantics here Elrond. Answer this question. Could a corporation exist without legally being defined as such? If so, my argument holds up.

[quote]
How would you go about “proportioning” the economic leverage corporations have? [/quote]

I was about to ask you the same question. :))

[quote]
This is a very dangerous position to have. [/quote]

What, wanting society to value equality and individual rights is a dangerous proposition?!?!

[quote]
51% of people might think that immortality is morally wrong and you shouldn’t have it, so they pass a law, while 49% think immortality is fantastic, but they’re screwed. 51% of people might think that drafting our young to fight in a war in North Korea is a great idea, and so they pass a law, while 49% are adamantly opposed. [/quote]

Ah, I see this argument pop up often in Immortalist circles and I think this is one of the reasons that Libertarianism has a strong presence within the Immortalist movement. This is the classic tyranny of the majority. I don’t disagree with you Elrond, but I do not really believe it addresses the validity of Libertarianism. I would argued that rule by a democratic majority is the best system humanity has yet to come up with. The key is that the majority respect individual rights. In this sense, I also favor limitations on state power. Perhaps I also have Libertarian leaning?? Hehe. Seriously though, there are aspects of Libertarianism that I find appealing (like individual rights), I’m just not sure this is enough for me to completely buy into Libertarianism.

Later

DonS

Edited by DonSpanton, 19 March 2005 - 09:40 PM.


#46 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:59 PM

You seem to be afraid that I am going to label you a racist. I can assure you I am not. I think you may possess some cognitive bias, but I most certainly do not think you are a racist.


Not you.

I will PM you.

#47

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 19 March 2005 - 10:30 PM

Thanks for the acknowledgement Don. [lol]

#48 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2005 - 10:57 PM

Elrond

The only way to mitigate stupidity is democracy?!  Are you kidding me?  Can I get a vote on whether we should ban embryonic stem cells research please?  How about a vote on whether Jesus Christ now sits at the right hand of God?


Don't have time to read through your whole post right now, but I think you've made a mistep here.

The fact that 80+% of American's believe in the virgin birth is not the point Elrond. The point is that the majority does not force (at least overtly) the minority to believe what it believes. This comes back to the whole separation of church and state thing, as well as *respect for minority rights* being one of the corner stones of plural democratic societies.

#49 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 20 March 2005 - 05:25 PM

"This is a substantial difference between you and I. You view each individual as a distinct unit, completely separated from the influences of society. I do not."
"There is no magical, mystical soul that defines the individual. We are, to put it bluntly, meme machines"
"I would argued that rule by a democratic majority is the best system humanity has yet to come up with."
"I want to correct the inequalities at the sources. Starting with massive funding to preK education, after school programs, educational seminars for parents, and so forth and so on"
-DonSpanton

These statements are subjective opinions. In my subjective opinion, compulsory public education is a horrible concept. Its existence has contributed strongly to the growth of state authoritarianism and is grinding away at cultural and intellectual diversity and creativity. Also in my subjective opinion, democracy is a "god that failed", and is certainly not the best system humanity has yet to come up with. Although I do not believe in a soul as described by Christian doctrine, I do believe that free will exists. I cannot prove any of these beliefs to be objectively true, and although I may try to persuade others to agree with me, I do not wish to coerce them into agreement.

"wanting society to value equality and individual rights is a dangerous proposition?!?!"

No, the problem is that you are not treating them as values, you're treating them as moral absolutes that should be in the range of state power to enforce. Morality cannot be legislated because there is no such thing as absolute morals.

Classical liberalism (as described by Mises in Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition) is the only doctrine I'm aware of that accepts and understands the subjectivity of values. It also understands that capitalism is not an ideology, it is a natural description of human interactions. Corporations are a natural result of people deciding to work together for their mutual benefit. The current legal definition of a corporation is subject to change and does not provide much basis for this argument. Liberalism does not endow corporations or any organization with any super-rights over individuals. Liberalism replaces the state with voluntary organizations that are essentially corporations dealing in laws, and thus places them in the field of competition and selection.

If some people wish to live in democracies, or even in socialist communes, that’s their choice and there's nothing wrong with that. And they are free to try to convince others to join them through intellectual discussion. However, they are not justified in forcing others to comply with their ideologies. This is the nature of liberalism.

Of course, liberalism itself is an ideology, and therefore of subjective value. I think Elrond said it best in "As long as one depends on political labels one remains subject to control and manipulation".

Incidentally, this is my first post at ImmInst.org. I planned to read through more of the forums before introducing myself, but I couldn't resist commenting on this topic. I'll give myself a more formal introduction soon, but for now I'm out of time!

#50 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:12 PM

osiris

These statements are subjective opinions.


Welcome aboard osiris! :) In case you didn't notice this is the politics forum, which means everything you read here will be subjective opinion...hehe [sfty]

DonS

#51 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 20 March 2005 - 07:11 PM

osiris

In my subjective opinion, compulsory public education is a horrible concept.


I'm not sure that compulsory education is relevant to the conversation, but it is my subjective opinion [lol] that most parents would willingly enroll their children in as many educational programs as they possibly can.

Its existence has contributed strongly to the growth of state authoritarianism and is grinding away at cultural and intellectual diversity and creativity.


And what, pray tell, is your solution to this authoritarian problem? (I've yet to hear a good one, so please enlighten me) I do not necessarily disagree with you, in that I believe a society's educational system is - potentially - one of the greatest sources of indoctrination. I'm just not sure that I see viable solutions in our currently very flawed and very human state of affairs. You should realize by now that group think is part of the humanity's social dynamic -- compulsary education is indicative of this phenomenon, but it can in no way be mistaken as its cause.

Also in my subjective opinion, democracy is a "god that failed", and is certainly not the best system humanity has yet to come up with.


Oh really? [huh] What system is currently in operation that is working better? (And I want to make perfectly clear the fact that I am not some ra-ra cheerleader for democracy. I do not believe that it is the US's job to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world).

Does democracy have its problems? Absolutely, its an imperfect social system -- just like every system of human construction. The question is whether it is better than the alternatives.

Although I do not believe in a soul as described by Christian doctrine, I do believe that free will exists.


FW is the subjective perception of one's decision making processes, which are in accordance with the basic game theoretical system of moral responsibility, and that operate under the constraints of the physical laws of the universe. FW does not, in my subjective opinion, have anything to do with quantum randomness or determinism.

"wanting society to value equality and individual rights is a dangerous proposition?!?!"

  No, the problem is that you are not treating them as values, you're treating them as moral absolutes that should be in the range of state power to enforce.  Morality cannot be legislated because there is no such thing as absolute morals.


I agree that all values are relative, but I also think that it is impossible for a society not to maintain some kind of moral frame work. In light of this fact, I find that society must adopt at least some values. And the values I highlighted are, I would argue, better than any of the alternative. Osiris, first and formost I am a pragmatist. Whether I am an absolutist or a relativist is irrelevant if I arrive at the conclusion that society historical adopts base values as a matter of course.

Furthermore, for a democratic society to function properly, it is more or less essential that it adopts the values I highlighted. These cultural values tend to offset many of the fatal flaws the democratic system of governance possesses.

capitalism is not an ideology, it is a natural description of human interactions.


heh, I could definitely come up with a counter argument for this, but it is not my intent to bash capitalism. I am a proponent of the capitalist economic system (with qualifications, of course). It should be noted, however, that genocide and slavery are also "natural descriptions of human interactions". In general, arguments made about what is natural and what is not are fuzzy and fallacious.

Of course, liberalism itself is an ideology, and therefore of subjective value.  I think Elrond said it best in "As long as one depends on political labels one remains subject to control and manipulation".


All politics and philosophy is subjective, but of course some may appear more subjective than others depending on your POV. :))

Later

DonS

#52 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:21 AM

I find it interesting Marc that you're disillusionment with Libertarianism has cause you to move more towards the center politically. I'm curious, what is your take on so called "upwinger" politics? Do you not view it as a valid option? Is it not complete enough as a political philosophy, etc?

#53 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 21 March 2005 - 12:24 PM

I think that in nowadays we've put way too much pendency on the governments! to such an extent we cannot imagine ourselves without it.

I believe the government job is to lead us wisely (direct only), keep on order and keep us safe!

I didn't quite understand what's the Libertarianism thing so I didn't vote... [huh]

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#54 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 21 March 2005 - 06:38 PM

most parents would willingly enroll their children in as many educational programs as they possibly can.


This is one of the main reasons I believe that public education is unnecessary and that a private system is preferable.

And what, pray tell, is your solution to this authoritarian problem?

compulsary education is indicative of this phenomenon, but it can in no way be mistaken as its cause.


I don't have a solution, and I don't believe anybody does, because I think its an unanswerable question. Since politics is subjective the best we can do is group together with people of similar values and live the way we see best. Libertarian policy aims at allowing people to do this.

What system is currently in operation that is working better? 


None that I know of, the best countries to live in that I'm aware of are democracies. Perhaps there are smaller scale communities that have been successful with other ideologies, unfortunately there is little opportunity for such attempts, non-violent secession is not permitted (in practice) by any major state that I'm aware of.

Does democracy have its problems?  Absolutely, its an imperfect social system -- just like every system of human construction.  The question is whether it is better than the alternatives.


My point is, there is no absolute answer to this question. However, liberalism gives people more freedom to choose their own path.

I agree that all values are relative, but I also think that it is impossible for a society not to maintain some kind of moral frame work.


Certainly. And I think most people in the world could agree on some basic principles. And only a very minimal state would be necessary to enforce such principles. Eventually it would be ideal to discard the state entirely, in my opinion, but I agree, that would not be pragmatic currently!

#55 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 21 March 2005 - 07:14 PM

Osiris

This is one of the main reasons I believe that public education is unnecessary and that a private system is preferable.


A private system? What happens to children from the lower socio-economics brackets whose parents can't afford to enroll them in this private system?

I don't have a solution, and I don't believe anybody does, because I think its an unanswerable question.


I differ slightly. I don't claim to have the solution, but I do think I have a solution...possibly :) IOW, its okay to offer up proposals for consideration.


Since politics is subjective the best we can do is group together with people of similar values and live the way we see best.  Libertarian policy aims at allowing people to do this.


I agree (in principle) with the notions of personal freedom and voluntary contractual agreements that Libertarianism espouses. My main area of continued reservation concerning Libertarianism is that it does not address the issue of equal opportunity. It does not do this, I would contend, because many of the solutions to this problem conflict with the idea that societies should only have voluntary contracts.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think we share some areas of common agreement -- and since we both agree that political values are arbitrary, I believe we can both agree to disagree (amicably) on any possible areas of contention between the two of us.

Best
DonS

grammar edit

Edited by DonSpanton, 22 March 2005 - 04:04 AM.


#56 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 23 March 2005 - 08:15 PM

Hey Chip,

I was well aware when I was typing these two concepts that they were a contradiction in terms (or at least rather difficult to reconcile). [glasses]

But at the same time I can't help but noting that I agree with both of them in priniciple. Hence, my dissatisfaction with all current political systems. You're right, there probably isn't a political system that would cater to both of these ideas, but does that mean that the ideas are deficient, or the systems?

#57 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 24 March 2005 - 01:18 AM

I apologize for the length of this post. However, I take the issue of public vs private education very seriously since I've been forced to endure 17 years of public education and am not finished yet. Not only has it been a monumental waste of time that has impeded my efforts to educated myself (this term marks the 7th time that I've been taught how the lac operon works), but it has required me to be judged by standards that I consider completely irrelevant to my talents and abilities.
While I agree that everybody should have an opportunity for at least a minimal education, a child cannot be blamed for having been born to a given socio-economic class, I consider the ideal of "equal opportunity" to be extremely anti-human. Private education does not garantee that everybody will receive an ideal education, but public education is no less of an ideal. In light of the inherent flaws of public education, and the coercion necessary to implement it, I don't find it to be a defensible option except perhaps to provide a minimal fallback for children who's parents are absolutely unable or unwilling to provide anything else.

"Savagery is uniformity. The principle distinctions are sex, age, and strength. Savages...think alike or not at all, and converse therefore in monosyllables. There is scarcely any variety, only a horde of men, women and children. The next higher stage, which is called barbarism, is marked by increased variety of functions. There is some division of labor, some interchange of thought, beter leadership, more intellectual and aesthetic cultivation. The hghest stage, which is called civilization, shows the greatest degree of specialization... The rudimentary societies are characterized by the likenesss of equality; the developed societies are marked by the unlikeness of inequality or variety."

- George Harris, Inequality and Progress

"In those places where private schools are allowed, they must all meet standards of instruction imposed by the government. Yet the injustice of imposing any standards of instruction should be clear. Some children are duller and should be instructed at a slower pace; the bright children require a rapid pace to develop their faculties. Furthermore, many children are very apt in one subject and very dull in another. They should certainly be permitted to develop themselves in their best subjects and drop the poor ones. Whatever the standards that the government imposes for instruction, injustice is done to all...

If the State enforces certain "standards" on the private schools, a far worse crime against the children is committed. For if the parents' selection of instruction is completely free and unhampered by State coercion they, knowing and loving the child best, will be able to select the best type of instruction that they can afford... If they can select any type of private school, they will select that type which is best suited for their child. The advantages of unlimited development of private schools is that there will tend to be developed on the free market a different type of school for each type of demand... But if the state decrees that there may be no schools which do not, for example, teach arithmetic, it would mean that those children who may be bright in other subjects but have little or no aptitude for arithmetic will have to be sujected to needless suffereing. The State's imposi9tion of uniform standards does grave violation to the diversity of human tastes and abilities.

Furthermore - and this is a most important consideration - for each person to be "educated," to develop his faculties to the fullest, he needs freedom for this development. But the State! The State's very being rests on violence, on compulsion. As a matter of fact, the very feature that distinguishes the State from other individuals and groups is that the State has the only (legal) power to use violence."

- Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory

"For it is in the nature of any governmental bureaucracy to live by a set of rules, and to impose those rules in a uniform and heavy-handed manner. If it did not do so, and the bureaucrat were to decide individual cases ad hoc, he would then be accused, and properly so, of not treating each taxpayer and citizen in an equal and uniform manner. He would be accused of discrimination and of fostering special privilege. Further­more, it is administratively more convenient for the bureaucrat to estab­lish uniform rules throughout his jurisdiction. In contrast to the private, profit-making business, the government bureaucrat is neither interested in efficiency nor in serving his customers to the best of his ability. Having no need to make profits and sheltered from the possibility of suffering losses, the bureaucrat can and does disregard the desires and demands of his consumer-customers. His major interest is in "not making waves," and this he accomplishes by even-handedly applying a uniform set of rules, regardless of how inapplicable they may be in any given case.

The public school bureaucrat, for his part, is faced with a host of crucial and controversial decisions in deciding on the pattern of formal schooling in his area. He must decide: Should schooling be—traditional or progressive? free enterprise or socialistic? competitive or egalitarian? liberal arts or vocational? segregated or integrated? sex education or not? religious or secular? or various shades between these poles. The point is that whatever he decides, and even if he decides according to the wishes of the majority of the public, there will always be a substantial number of parents and children who will be totally deprived of the kind of education they desire.

In recent years, the public school forces have promulgated the doctrine that "Every child has a right to an education," and therefore that the taxpayers should be coerced into granting that right. But this concept totally misconstrues the concept of "right." A "right," philosophically, must be something embedded in the nature of man and reality, something that can be preserved and maintained at any time and in any age.

Furthermore the entire concept of a "right to education" should al­ways be placed in the context that formal schooling is only a small fraction of any person's education in life. If every child really has a "right" to education, then why not a "right" to reading newspapers and magazines, and then why should not the government tax everyone to provide free public magazines for everyone who wishes to obtain them."

- Rothbard, Libertarian Manifesto

"So by making the school system public rather than private, teachers and administrators also insulate themselves from the wishes of students and parents—the ultimate consumers of education. This insulation from market forces solidifies the power of the elite group of educationists for years to come. The suppliers, not the demanders, choose the curricula, the textbooks, decide the certification process for teachers, etc. They run the whole show, and only have bureaucrats to please rather than consumers. Not only are bureaucrats easier to please since they don’t spend their own money, but if the politician/bureaucrat needs information to placate angry demanders, to whom do they turn? The educationists, in the positions of power, have all of the “relevant” information.

And what of the bureaucrat—what does he get out of this system? Public education, with the added feature of compulsion, reduces the cost to politicians of making wealth transfers. The cost of making transfers is diminished by reducing the opposition to transfers. If politicians can reduce the cost of transferring wealth by reducing the opposition to them, then they can continue to authorize transfers to interested parties for a price.

Public education reduces opposition to wealth transfers by teaching students that redistribution, public works, and democracy are the American way. War and crisis increases the size of government. Public education tells us we need government all the time. Public education introduces the mantras of democracy to the young. Democracy keeps the two major parties in power, keeps their spoils flowing in, and tells us that intervention is okay because the majority voted for it."

- Barry Dean Simpson, http://www.mises.org/story/1679

Edited by osiris, 24 March 2005 - 03:57 PM.


#58 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 24 March 2005 - 05:10 AM

Marc

Don,
No one ever told me what 'upwinger politics' is supposed to mean.  As far as I can tell it's just a label for some hoped for new kind of politics which is as yet unknown.  So it's pretty meaningless.


*Chuckle* As I thought. [sfty]

#59 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 24 March 2005 - 05:40 AM

I consider the ideal of "equal opportunity" to be extremely anti-human


And again, as I've said before, I believe we have different political ideals. No biggie, we can still join together to conquer the blight of involuntary death. [thumb]

One point that I would like to emphasize, and which I think is often overlooked, is the subtle interplay of forces that we find in modern mixed economies. Osiris, you argue that the *value of democracy* is perpetuated within the public school apparatus -- and I agree with you. But the value of capitalism is also pervasive in the US.

There's a type of commercial that they always broadcast on the air waves around here for citizens who are bad at math -- "NY lotto, hey, you never know". I call this the "It can happen to you" mentality, and unlike in Europe, in the United States it is quite popular. And it doesn't just apply to the lottery, but also to all walks of life. It is often the case that Americans support policies that directly contradict their vested interests (economic, social). In the US regular people don't resent rich people, they want to be them. This is the capitalist mentality.

So there is a diametric push and pull between opposing forces vying for control of the body politic. Democracy tends to homogenize. Capitalism tends to stratify. If either one begins to *win out* it initiates counter forces that pull things back in the other direction. This tension between opposing forces is probably the greatest strength of mixed economies. No, its not perfect, but some kind of fluctuating balance may be the best we can do. This is alsoo why I find Marc's move to the center so intriguing.

#60 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 24 March 2005 - 05:37 PM

So there is a diametric push and pull between opposing forces vying for control of the body politic.


I agree that this functions in many aspects of politics. Prohibition was successfully rolled back (although we still have a ridiculous war on drugs to carry on the tradition). However, I don't see any evidence for balance in the growth of big government (In fact, I think the efficiency of the process in general decreases as the size of the political unit increases). For the beaurocrats everything seems to be a question of how can we legislate this and can we get away with legislating this, not should we legislate this, or should we reduce this legislation (http://www.hometowna...05/03_21-16/OPN). The results are ridiculous situations like this http://www.reason.co...um/030405.shtml where the government has clearly overstepped any logical bounds. The problem can also be considered from a financial standpoint (http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2715):

Posted Image

Correcting for growth of GDP reveals the same trend:

• In 1900 the federal government consumed less than 5 percent of total output.
• In 1950 the federal government consumed roughly 15 percent of total output.
• In 1992 the federal government consumed almost 25 percent of total output.

Where is the balance, I don't see any negative feedback here? Or do you think the founding principles of the United States were that far from the balance that it is still looking for it? The beaurocrats have certainly forgotten about the constitution. I think the situation may be due to a different phenomenon:

"Why is the American public not rising up in protest? The answer seems to be that the growth of government has been sufficiently gradual over the past 50 to 100 years that most Americans today probably believe that this is the way government in America ought to act and has always acted."
(also from http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2715)

This tension between opposing forces is probably the greatest strength of mixed economies.  No, its not perfect, but some kind of fluctuating balance may be the best we can do.  This is alsoo why I find Marc's move to the center so intriguing.


Perhaps we have freedom of the press and improving freedom from racism, but why can't we also have freedom from subjectively imposed government standards on education? Maybe the negative feedback model just needs more libertarians to recalibrate it. I like the idea of negative feedback, I'm just trying to play my part to make it work [thumb] .




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users