Why are you a libertarian?

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

If that's the question, then most probably not. But again, I can't tell you what I'm going to have to face in the future.

Can you make up your mind, shane? is there or os there not an efficiency differential that will cause you to forego some measure of freedom in order to improve efficiency through the government intervention?

Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian.

that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come. In fact, she was the one who popularized the "non-initiation of force" principle.

 

[RandFan]

that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come. In fact, she was the one who popularized the "non-initiation of force" principle.

That was my perception. Ayn had allot to do with me moderating my conservative position and becoming more "libertarian". Somehow I get the feeling that my claiming to be "libertarian" grates on Shanek. I'm sorry, I truly wish there were another title to fit my beliefs. Mostly I'm Socially liberal and fiscally conservative with a belief that some degree of government regulation is good but I would rather have less than more.

If anyone can suggest a better label I will use it. Ok, I won't use any derogatory ones.

 

[shanek]

Can you make up your mind, shane?

Come on, Victor—the question you just posed was the opposite of the one I said!

is there or os there not an efficiency differential that will cause you to forego some measure of freedom in order to improve efficiency through the government intervention?

See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.

that's news to me. She wasn't a member of the LP, but ideologically, she was as libertarian as they come.

Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.

 

[shanek]

That was my perception. Ayn had allot to do with me moderating my conservative position and becoming more "libertarian". Somehow I get the feeling that my claiming to be "libertarian" grates on Shanek.

It doesn't; not at all. Only when you advocate something at odds with Libertarianism.

 

[Cain]

Well, a member of the crowd certainly has the right to shoot the madman. But they don't have a right to use the man's gun without permission. So, you're really talking about two different things. Saying they have a right to shoot him does not give them carte blanche to take whatever gun they wish to do it.[/quote]

Shanek, believe it or not, this implies that you follow the natural rights crowd.

I described in my case how they complemented each other. You have done NOTHING to refute that.

First, you have to understand the differences between natural rights and utilitarianism. As Victor stated, the former is a priori, while the latter is empirical. Second, given the nature of utilitarianism (as an *empirical* philosophy), it can be used to justify all kinds of political-social-economic systems. A utilitarian can be anarchist, socialist, communist, national socialist, fascist, laissez-faire, or welfare statist.

In the case of Nozick, who says we have certain rights that no one may take away under any circumstances, the effects of my hypothetical minimum wage law do not interest him. He views it as a violation to free contract, and therefore immoral. A utilitarian libertarian, however, would say, "Hmmm... let me examine the evidence. Ah, yes, you're right, that minimum wage law maximizes utility, therefore we ought to stick by it (free contract be damned)."

A natural rights libertarian doesn't have to read the newspaper or scrutinize the evidence because she views everything in terms of (her conception of) liberty.

So in the case with the mad man, a natural rights person would say that you cannot steal the gun from a third party because it violates his ownership of property. A utilitarian, under these circumstances, construes the question in terms of happiness. She allows that rights promote happiness, but perhaps a minor violation of this sort (in one particular instance), will serve the greater good.

Utiltarianism is often derided by natural rights theorists (especially Randians) as "collectivist" -- and I don't disagree with the description (their pejorative subtext notwithstanding).

Then refute my description of how I came to be both at the same time. Until you do that, there's really nothing more to say. [/B]

No you're confused for all of the reasons above. You need to distinguish between philosophical foundations and the beliefs that initially compelled you toward libertarianism.

Imagine a communist who wants to achieve her vision of equality. She views equality as the over-riding principle (and nationalization as a means to that end). But, at the same time, she believes that this equality will also result in the greatest good for the greatest number. Everyone will be happy living an idyllic Marxist paradise. She thinks nationalization will cause the economy to boom, producing all kinds of wonderful goods and services, culminating in the "greatest good for the greatest number." That is to say, she believes perfect equality maximizes utility; and any system designed to maximize utility will also involve perfect equality.

Now suppose I confront this person on the JREF forums. I say, wait a second, which principle is more important? Suppose equality does not result in maximum happiness...

If she's like you, she can't grasp that concept. "Why wouldn't it?!" she shrieks. "I've believed in both equality and utilitarianism for years!" Oh, but suppose that with a little, tiny bit of inequality, you could increase production, thus increasing happiness.

"That's impossible!"

No, just suppose... Imagine, if you can, a society that compromises equality for happiness....

"But if they're compromising equality, then they won't be happy."

No, that's an empirical claim. Just suppose that's false: are you still in favor of equality even if it means there are other systems that could better achieve maximum happiness?

And any remotely sane person would see the distinction and choose one (or neither, abandoning their belief system altogether).

A communist chooses:

I believe in utilitarianism, which just happens to instantiate a socio-economic system of perfect equality.

I believe in perfect equality, which, as a consequence, achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

[shanek]

Shanek, believe it or not, this implies that you follow the natural rights crowd.

Whatever. I've gotten to the point where I really don't care one way or the other. I've always hated it when people tried to categorize diverse groups anyway...and in my experience, few groups are as diverse as Libertarians.

You're pushing me into NR, Victor's pushing me into utilitarianism. I'm starting to take this as a confirmation that I am actually both and the whole thing really is a false dichotomy.

So in the case with the mad man, a natural rights person would say that you cannot steal the gun from a third party because it violates his ownership of property.

Just to clarify: I wouldn't really judge or blame the person who did take the gun; but it was, after all, an action the consequences of which he will have to be held responsible for. It would simply be a case that, in his mind, whatever punishments might be levied on him would be well worth the price of saving innocent lives. And I can respect that.

Now suppose I confront this person on the JREF forums. I say, wait a second, which principle is more important? Suppose equality does not result in maximum happiness...

If she's like you, she can't grasp that concept.

That's a mischaracterization. I do NOT react that way when someone makes such a claim; I ask for evidence. And I've said several times that I really and honestly don't know which way I'd go if I were faced with a compelling enough conundrum.

 

[Cain]

Whatever. I've gotten to the point where I really don't care one way or the other. I've always hated it when people tried to categorize diverse groups anyway...and in my experience, few groups are as diverse as Libertarians.

Yep, I'd agree with the latest statement, however, as subgroups go, the distinction makes sense.

You're pushing me into NR, Victor's pushing me into utilitarianism. I'm starting to take this as a confirmation that I am actually both and the whole thing really is a false dichotomy.

No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent. One cannot say, for example, that he believes in natural rights on the topics of taxation and and anti-minimum wage laws, but sides with utilitarianism and maximum efficiency when it comes to natural monopolies or certain government regulations.

Just to clarify: I wouldn't really judge or blame the person who did take the gun; but it was, after all, an action the consequences of which he will have to be held responsible for. It would simply be a case that, in his mind, whatever punishments might be levied on him would be well worth the price of saving innocent lives. And I can respect that.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.

It's essentially the same case here with one person seizing property by force in order to realize the greater good.

That's a mischaracterization. I do NOT react that way when someone makes such a claim; I ask for evidence. And I've said several times that I really and honestly don't know which way I'd go if I were faced with a compelling enough conundrum. [/B]

Holy-chirst-sweet-jesus-mother-of-god! If you insist on judging each policy based on the evidence, then you're a utilitarian.

EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism. Any philosophically inclined person who has ever discussed the existence of God for a fair amount of time has always done the "Okay, assuming God exists, why is there..." Philosophers have been doing this since before Socrates...

 

[Libertarian]

No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.


EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism.

INCONSISTENT?!!!????!???!??
You want inconsistent, look at ANY OTHER political philosophy. Libertarianism might not be a panacea, but it is the most consistent political philosophy that's being proposed today.

Now then, when you begin talking of well-meaning bureaucrats taking money from rich old people to give to hungry kids, you are starting to leave the lofty realm of philosophy and entering the nuts and bolts of economics, including that well known buggaboo, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. For example, I imagine there are libertarians who are secretly glad that the U.S. went over and toppled an evil despot in Iraq, but were nevertheless against the war because they know that this could be a major step in the U.S proving that "power corrupts" on an international, macro scale as well as a domestic, governing scale.

Oh, and it IS very, very difficult to think of "efficient government interference." Milton Friedman has used the example of the Interstate system to show that there can be viable public works projects. But I think he errs here, and ignores not only unintended consequences (note the deteriorating neighborhoods the interstates run through), but an argument he himself has utilized (pun intended), i.e. yes, we can see that, arguably, the Interstate system is "efficient," but what would have happened if it hadn't been built? If you don't have a crystal ball, you don't know. Would the demand for transportation have caused private rail to satisfy it? Instead of 40,000 annual deaths due to car crashes, would the country now be laced with PRIVATE trains?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.

if you truly don't know, then you don't even know what it is your beliefs are really based on; you then certainly have no legitimate ground on which to claim that you are both NR and empirical, since you don't know. Had you known what your beliefs are based on (and no, they cannot be both NR and empirical), you would have been able to say whether there is a sufficiently great efficiency differential which would justify an abridgement of liberty.

"I will know it when I see it" is not a solid ground to build a social or political philosophy on. It might fly with out congress, but it doesn't work when discussing philosophy.

Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.

Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian". However, while she arrives at conclusions different from LP, her principles are as libertarian as they come: individual liberty, non-initiation of force, government only existing to protect legitimate laissez-faire trading, etc.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.

I had done that a long time ago, Shane -- that, and many others; and as best as I can tell, she and her worshippers are very libertarian (but not necessarily Libertarian).

Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Libertarian

INCONSISTENT?!!!????!???!??
You want inconsistent, look at ANY OTHER political philosophy. Libertarianism might not be a panacea, but it is the most consistent political philosophy that's being proposed today.

it's merely the simplest. Simplicity certainly facilitates consistency, but that's not exactly a great goal when you look at the big picture. As Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler -- and libertarianism, IMO, is in the "simpler" category.

Besides, the allegged inconsistency lies not in libertarian position in general, but in philosophical justification that various specific individuals use to justify their acceptance of libertarian ideology.

 

[Soubrette]

This thread is fascinating

Libertarian I do not believe that Cain is saying that libertarianism is inconsistent (yet ). I think both he and Victor are merely saying that Shane's reasons for following libertarianism are logically inconsistent.

As an aside, and to everyone in general, if you follow libertarianism because you absolutely believe that in all situations it is economically the best for people then does this make you by default a utilitarian libertarian? I'm wondering this because someone saying this would seems to be saying that economic results are at the forefront of being a libertarian - and it's good that lack of government intervention achieves this.

So, as I'm reading it, some libertarians with that stance will then say that even if you show me evidence of government intervention being efficient then I must assume that a libertarian policy would have been better. Conversely if a libertarian policy is shown to be poor then I can only assume that government intervention would have made that situation worse.

If that is the case then it it will useless to discuss the situation with someone who takes that stance as they have set themselves up with an unfalsifiable position. Well - useless in the sense of discussing politics but fascinating in seeing how people's minds work

Sou

 

[a_unique_person]

Come on, Victor—the question you just posed was the opposite of the one I said!



See if you can get this answer into your head: I....DON'T....KNOW!!! If there is, it's pretty huge.



Hardly. She and her movement is against the separation of powers, in favor of "preemptive" war, interventionism, restricting freedom of the press, and other completely un-libertarian ideas.

If you want to learn all that, you can try navigating their horribly designed website at www.aynrand.org.

There is a big difference between what she said she stood for, what she acted like she stood for, and what the current web site claims she stood for.

If we are to take the kindest interpretation of her ideas, she was a libertarian.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian". However, while she arrives at conclusions different from LP, her principles are as libertarian as they come: individual liberty, non-initiation of force, government only existing to protect legitimate laissez-faire trading, etc.

Where the hell did you get the idea that that last thing was particularly libertarian?

Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

Don't assume the writings of any of those authors you like to refer to do so either.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
it's merely the simplest.

If it's not also the most consistent, perhaps you can cite one that is more so?

Simplicity certainly facilitates consistency, but that's not exactly a great goal when you look at the big picture.

Kinda depends on whose "big picture" you're talking about. It's not compatible with the "big picture" of authoritarians, that's for damn sure. But there is nothing about the consistency of libertarianism that should interfere with anyone else's "big picture".

As Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler -- and libertarianism, IMO, is in the "simpler" category.

That might have something to do with your support for the ability of the majority to bully the minority in order to achieve its goals. Yeah, I know, you don't call it that. I think the words you like to use are "implicit social contract".

Besides, the allegged inconsistency lies not in libertarian position in general, but in philosophical justification that various specific individuals use to justify their acceptance of libertarian ideology.

Nice and vague. Sounds like something Huben would say.

(Or Cain )

 

[shanek]

No, that's because your answers have been inconsistent. One cannot say, for example, that he believes in natural rights on the topics of taxation and and anti-minimum wage laws, but sides with utilitarianism and maximum efficiency when it comes to natural monopolies or certain government regulations.

You don't think there's any room at all for examining the utilitarian aspects of the policy as a means of verifying whether or not the principle is sound? You make the principle sound like a religion.

What about the well-meaning bureaucrat that redistributes money from rich old-people to hungry kids in the inner city? Natural rights theorists believe such a bureaucrat is trampling on the liberty of others, regardless of the nobility of their goals.[

And I would agree. It's not his money. If he wants to call them up and convince them to donate, that's one thing. But it's not justified to steal from someone no matter what amount of good you're going to do with the money.

It's essentially the same case here with one person seizing property by force in order to realize the greater good.

No, because in your other hypothetical, the person is taking the gun solely for the purpose of stopping the madman, and so presumably would return it afterwards.

If he doesn't return the gun, then that of course becomes a different story.

Holy-chirst-sweet-jesus-mother-of-god! If you insist on judging each policy based on the evidence, then you're a utilitarian.

Whereas, above you put me in NR. So you don't even know!

EDIT: oh, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine the possibility of an efficient government interference inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism.

It's not. But I can't imagine any that's efficient enough to warrant violating the rights of the people.

 

[shanek]

if you truly don't know, then you don't even know what it is your beliefs are really based on;

It just hit me. I get it. I know what you and Cain are doing.

You're trying to shoehorn principled Libertarians into a very narrow category. Cain's previous post, and now yours, make it absolutely crystal clear that you don't think there's any room for a principled person to remain open-minded.

Given the history of you both in Libertarain-based discussions, it sounds like projection to me.

Those are un-Libertarian ideas; which is why I said that she was a small-l 'libertarian".

Theyre not only un-Libertarian, they're un-libertarian. She herself denied being a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

Don't assume that your party's ideology comprises the definitive position on libertarianism.

I never did that. You're putting words in my mouth again.

 

[shanek]

it's merely the simplest.

You wouldn't say that if you'd ever been involved in a debate among Libertarians. The Libertarian groups I participate in, as well as real debates like in our recent state party convention, are fierce debates that put the ones here to shame.

 

[heath]

It's not. But I can't imagine any that's efficient enough to warrant violating the rights of the people.

Um. Can you imagine pink flying fairies and how you might react if one popped up on your shoulder? Of course you can. You don't need to formulate a reason/cause just start with the supplied premise and examine how you would react to it. You are showing a remarkable inflexibility in your thinking Shane.

IF such an impossible thing DID happen, what would you do?

It's a litmus for where you belief in Libertarianism comes from.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You're trying to shoehorn principled Libertarians into a very narrow category.

No, we are trying to show that the 'principled' libertarians who aren't basing their principles on empirical data and examination of reality, are indeed close-minded. The real question is how you derive your principles -- are they empirical and realistic, or rigid and dogmatic?

You simply seem to have a problem with admitting that dogmatism is dogmatism, and that empirical principles ought to be open to revision in light of new facts and discoveries. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too -- to be dogmatic, but without the ideological stigma associated with being recognized as such. I hope this appearance is deceiving.

Theyre not only un-Libertarian, they're un-libertarian. She herself denied being a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

I recall her rant against being placed as a libertarian, and if my memory serves me right, she was speaking against being classified as L-Libertarian; she was denying a specific political allegiance being inherent in objectivism. She wasn't denying being a l-libertarian.

I never did that.

Well, your previous post certainly sounded like you were assuming that because Rand's ideology doesn't match LP's ideology, she cannot be considered a l-libertarian. Why else would you disqualify her as l-libertarian just because she was at odds with some L-Libertarian positions?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You wouldn't say that if you'd ever been involved in a debate among Libertarians.

Why not? Just because there are fierce debates, doesn't mean that libertarianism is not simple. I seem to even recall a related joke...

In fact, in libertarian evangelizing, simplicity and neat axiomatization seem to be key selling points for libertarianism. As you said yourself, every moral problem comes down to one question -- who initiated force?

fierce debates that put the ones here to shame.

Ah, but do they call each other lying weasels and faith-blinded fools?