What Makes People Become Libertarians?

Post Reply New Topic

Uh, no, ruveyn hasn't even acknowledged the existence of suble coercion. Like many inspired by anti-political right-libertarians, he's basing his beliefs on a hermetically sealed, overly-axiomized account of the world that neglects important details. A basic "humans are bad, but robotically respond to incentives in simplistic ways" mentality seems to motivate his worldview.

I don't think "social engineering" is necessarily a clear-cut line, but such a distinction is possible and is common in libertarian thought. I also think libertarians can diverge in where this line begins and ends. The general agreement though is that an active government displaces the possibility of action by other groups and is disruptive to the market process.


Most laws? I have my doubts on "most laws". Now, I agree with you that laws don't just magically come out of a box. However, this doesn't mean that the reasons are good. Libertarians, by their political description, would almost certainly disagree. Most libertarians will say that really when you look at the situation, the better thing to do would be to allow private-actors to try to work this out in some way, shape, or form.

Even further, libertarianism isn't a meta-rule, it's a view on rules... so the point on democracy isn't relevant. Libertarianism isn't about democracy, and one can be a libertarian and promote non-voting systems such as monarchy, kritarchy, radical capitalism, etc. Libertarians can allow the meta-rule of democracy, but often it isn't promoted above an individual's rights, and the actual workings of the system.


Ok, but you can't deny that the two different institutions work different, have different amounts of power, can create different sorts of changes, etc, and that a differential on the usage of those two institutions can exist. After all, governments do have institutional flaws that impact them in a manner very different than business.

And you insinuated that I backed off after you said you grew up in rough area(s) of Winnipeg, when in fact I haven't strayed an inch from where I stand. The reason I asked is cuz a lot of middle class people tend to ignore the role subcultural paradigms play in perpetuating a cycle of poverty. They seem to have the underlying assumption that the poor share their subcultural paradigms which have values that are critical to succeeding in education (self-restraint, foresight, emotional control) when in fact the culture of poverty is detrimental and maladaptive to education. They think pouring enough money into poverty will fix it, and that's what lead be to believe that perhaps you haven't grown up around it.

And plus, I wasn't even talking about marshall when I was talking about class warfare. I was speaking generally.

I really dunno why you're on my nuts so hard about a topic that's like a year old. Are you so petty and desperate to prove to yourself that you somehow made me back off that you have nothing better to think about all day? That's just sad.

I don't think the line needs to be clear-cut. I just think it helps to define positions in terms of policy matters when debating instead of broad-brushing.


Or some believe it is okay that some lowly individuals may be screwed over without legal recourse as that is the price to pay for the prosperity that comes with unfettered free-enterprise. It's mighty hard for private actors to work things out on their own when there's a massive imbalance in political leverage between the parties at stake. In practice it doesn't just seem to be a debate over the means to an end as there often is also a fundamental disagreement over what ends are and are not acceptible. In practice libertarians seem to be more tolerant of large power imbalances and social darwinism as a rule. That's where you tend to run into a brick wall of fundamental disagreement between progressives and free-market advocates.


Agreed. However, I think democracy is still necessary to prevent government corruption no matter how strong constitutional protections on individual rights can be made to be. I think most libertarians would agree with me on that point.


Probably the biggest flaw that impacts the potential efficiency of government is democracy itself. Business tends to be more efficient and flexible than government because business tends to operate in a top-down command structure.

Because your stance on me was shot out the window. Like many Rightwingers and right-libertarians, you tend to denigrate social democrats and left-liberals as "latte leftists" or "people who know nothing about poverty". Anytime when reality smashes that preception is a time to celebrate.

It really depends on the libertarian. A lot of the populist ones hate welfare measures. A lot of the libertarian intellectuals are really not as concerned on the opposition to welfare, I mean, Milton Friedman offered a reformulation of welfare.

From what I see, a major disagreement comes in on the intervention in economic processes. There is some disagreement on whether certain ends are acceptable or not, but that depends on the libertarian, as the utilitarians are on a more similar page, while the natural rights people are not, and the natural rights people tend to be more populist and have less of an idea what they are talking about. (Natural rights conceptions kind of tend to fall apart in my view, so I ignore them more often) Libertarians are very anti-intervention, and as such, they typically don't see most ends as failing to justify the means. Libertarians are more accepting of economic inequality(I'd separate that from power imbalance though, as libertarians see government as the most dangerous power out there, and the one to be curtailed)

I mean, just to make this clear... I don't really care to defend the populists and tea-party people, but libertarianism is likely a bigger-tend ideology than expressed, as most of the intellectual giants and heroes in it avoid a lot of the problems the populists show.


Most would. Some question that.


Well, businesses are also smaller. They can be efficient and flexible, and if they begin to fail, often they can do so without too much upheaval. There are such exceptions. However, smallness is a real strength in that it allows a more natural flow of change. (Note: Not saying government is this entirely unnatural entity, but a governmental change doesn't work like a cultural change, but rather governmental changes are changes in the rules of the game.) And yes, democracy is a flaw, but I am not sure it is the only or biggest one. I mean, the problems with democracy itself will likely focus on voters.

No I haven't changed my stance on you at all, and the fact that you're hellbent on trying to prove that is really pathetic. You really need to go find something better to keep you occupied if you think this is really worth celebrating or obsessing over.

You're still on the same old "Throw money at poverty and it'll pack up and leave" and/or "Education will cure all of poverty's ills!" typical of middle class liberals and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that throwing money and books at em will not automatically give em the impulse control they need to be fiscally responsible. This is a paradigm we're talking about, and there's no simple way to address something that not only has considerable inertia, but affects how one sees the world.

I can respect Milton Friedman on the grounds that he was a scientifically minded person. I agree that his brand of libertarianism focused more on means as opposed to ends and attempted to defend free-markets on objective grounds. Of course he gets a lot muck thrown at him from progressives, particularly for his dealings with Pinochet. There's also the fact that some in the financial industry did pervert his ideas in order to defend some questionable practices. I don't think the criticisms are entirely fair. He supported the Republican party back when they were less onto the right-wing populist idiot bandwagon.


I am actually fairly agnostic on the whole concept of centralized economic regulation. I'm a little skeptical of both Keynesian and monetarist theories. I would not say that FDR's New Deal was effective in it's entirety. It was a mixed bag of both good measures and flawed measures. IMO politicians take too much credit and also get too much blame when it comes to the economy.

Also, I don't attack economic inequality as an evil in and of itself. I merely support a basic welfare state that attempts to maintain a bare minimum living standard so people aren't begging on the streets, dying from preventable diseases, etc... where those who can't work due to disability or age don't have to worry about being kicked out onto the streets and where the poor and sick aren't crushed with medical bankruptcy that is completely outside of their control. The US has a lot to be desired in that regard.

However, I don't beleive in the notion that the rich should be taxed in order to promote class equality. I don't support class equality as an economic end to be persued by government. I just question the ability to fund what I would consider a humane level of basic welfare without the wealthy paying a higher tax burdon than others. That's really my biggest beef with American libertarians.


Agreed.


My view is the constitution and courts are there to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority while democracy is there to protect everyone from the tyranny and corruption of the elite minority (whether that's government or corporate power).


I think government tends to have inertia and inefficiency because feuding factions and interests don't always come up with the most pragmatic solutions. Bad laws and policies stay on the books for an inordinate amount of time when nobody can agree on how to fix them.

I entirely agree on the politician aspect. I can understand the skepticism as well. I mean, very few theories have shown themselves to be that powerful anyway. Most macroeconomic theories have lived long-past their efficacy in policy making.


I can understand that. I don't think that Bill Gates having a lot of money really impacts the control I have in my life. In any case, I don't think that the real issue should be basic welfare policies. I mean, it often will end up going that direction because of invective on "welfare queens", but honestly, that's mostly against bad welfare policies, not against the idea of someone down on their luck due to the variability in life.

One thing I will admit though is that libertarians are more skeptical on the matter of the deserving poor, but I think that this can go a bit far.


I can really understand where you are coming from then, as to me this wasn't the big deal to the major libertarian economic thinkers. I mean, Friedman and Hayek both were alright with minimal welfare policies to make sure that those on the very bottom were maintained. Populists have blown-up the idea though, even though the bigger outlays are military spending and social security(the latter not necessarily being disbursed to the "deserving poor" so to speak)


I can understand that. That might even be the view of the founders.(not that I'd give a rats arse) My own opinion is that democracy is simply an additional factor to make the government responsive to real failures, however, I think that the courts and constitution should play the bigger role. The reason being that they provide the stability in society needed for the rest of us to work out our problems. Courts themselves, I think should be more active in terms of making sure that basic contracts and legal understandings are interpreted in the manner that helps us all out the most. In this, I'm more of a living constitution guy.


Well... it's also an incentive issue, I think. Often the impetus is in taking actions, and as such, bad laws will stay on the books longer simply because they aren't of interest. I mean, unless a law is horrifying, it is more useful to draft the "We love children act". Even further, it's partially psychology.

I can see how the feuding factions can provide problems. Some of these are part of the libertarian critique of government.

In any case, I think that human psychology is probably not that great in working out this kind of system. Part of this is simply because I think a bias towards legislation will exist simply because human beings want action, and judge by action, even when inaction may be the best course of action. I know in my own life, I'd rather be doing something about a situation rather than sit on it.

Okay, you went from "Master_Pedant is a latte leftist with no knowledge of the depraved mindset of the poor" to "Master_Pedant's internalized middle class values to such an extent that he can't understand the fatalism of the poor", two stances which are somewhat similar but slightly different.

Regardless, I don't share you're rigid distinction between "culture" and "governmental action" nor do I think piecemeal social engineering is doomed to fail. While I'd generally favour policies that encourage the blending of middle class, working class, working poor, and unemployed poor in single neighborhoods (someone Toronto used to be renown for), in the long run public works programs do enourage optimism among the hereditary poor.

And, no, I don't think there's enough effective demand out there to employee all the low-income "undesirables" even if they're all educated and technically trained in relevant skills. That's why I support using government as an Employer of Last Resort.

I didn't say you internalized middle class values, but you are failing to address the fact that values among the generational poor are maladaptive to succeeding in education.

Depraved mindset? Way to sensationalize. Show me where exactly I said a lack of impulse control is evil. I pointed out that it's detrimental to succeeding in education, I didn't make any moral judgment of it. Anyways I've already clarified my position, but if you still can't get over it then I feel sorry for you. It must be suck having to feel so desperate to prove you "won" to the point where you wanna celebrate it. If I backed someone off, it wouldn't really be such a big deal to me especially since this is an online forum where I don't even know anyone here.

That's a small factor to long term optimism, but I think the distrust in the system common among generations of the poor is mostly a result of being unaware of the unwritten rules of the upper classes. So that's a good place to start.

Libertarians, at least according to Haidt's research, look like open-minded autistics.

I would guess people getting sick and tired of a bunch of asses in government telling them how to live their lives.

Privilege mislead them into believing the absurd fantasy that they had no help at life. So they feel that no one should receive help at life.

I got into libertarianism because I believe in personal and economic freedom. Democrats and Republicans will protect some of your rights, but not others.

I realized that freedom means respecting things I don't agree with, as long as they aren't hurting others. For example, legalized weed. I don't smoke weed, but I don't think it should be banned.

I also believe in a community of individuals, not a commune.

Lastly, I want to say I am not one of the anarchist libertarians who believe in ending all government, or removing everything. Government has a role in society.

To answer the subject line question, Obama's presidency has resulted in me moving very far into libertarian territory. I used to support the Patriot Act and mass government surveillance but that is no longer the case. I used to think marijuana should be illegal but I no longer think that. There are some other views I have changed too. However, I still support sensible and humane government welfare programs, but only as a backup where private charity does not do the job.