As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Libertarianism = committing a naturalistic fallacy?

245

Posts

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Really?

    This is Leonard Peikoff. "Leonard S. Peikoff (born October 15, 1933)[1] is an American Objectivist philosopher. He is a former professor of philosophy and a former radio talk show host. He is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute and the legal heir to Ayn Rand's estate.[2]"

    See what he has to say following 9/11.

    He's not a libertarian - he's an Objectivist. They're a bit more loopy. Conventional non-crazy libertarianism is pretty much:

    - In general, governments are not as good as smaller organisations at doing any given thing
    - negative liberties are more important than positive liberties (or positive liberty is a meaningless concept, there are different positions on this)
    - you should be guaranteed a very significant percentage of the proceeds of your work
    - organisation should be bottom-up rather than top-down

    Those are all things that aren't necessarily insane, and you can have a meaningful debate with somebody who believes those things.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Well again, they want to minimize government, because... why? Because it is an artificial construct that is necessarily in opposition to freedom, which--though it isn't advocated as such--is natural?

    Okay... here's some ideas that many who claim the title of libertarianism invoke to justify their position:
    • Harm and non-coercion principles. Classical liberals who believe that restrictions on what consenting individuals can agree to are wrong, in of itself; tax comes into play when we formalize taxable transactions as agreements between consenting individuals. And, of course, forcing individuals to do things against their will is held to be wrong.
      .
    • Classical economic libertarianism: we formalize point 1 above mathematically, and find (via the first fundamental welfare theorem) that if we permit all mutually-beneficial trades to complete, the resulting welfare equilibrium is Pareto optimal at a societal level, meaning that no one individual can be made better off without making another worse off (this is actually a non-trivial result). Pareto optimality becomes the end to be desired.
      .
    • Hayekian-flavored economic libertarianism: we accept that the first fundamental welfare theorem doesn't actually apply in reality; however we assert that government is unable to identify optimal equilibria any better than unrestricted markets can for assorted reasons (information failures, public choice failures, etc.)

    I think someone already mentioned Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. And all of these have numerous variations, of course. Few of these seem to invoke naturalist reasoning at any point.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't have enough fingers to type how far above my head that post was ronya. What does that mean in dumb people words?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    That's the problem with modern politics, you can't have a good high-level discussion without some asshole mining the transcript for choice quotes. If he was legitimately saying "I support equal rights but I do not think the law as it was framed was constitutional" then that's a fine thing for a scholar to say. If he was saying "heh heh heh I 'support' equal rights, but really let's toss the Negroes back in the cotton fields" then that's another thing.

    And knowing who Ron Paul has associated with, I'm wouldn't be surprised if his son was in the second group. But that's how it should be presented, not just OMG RAND PAUL HATES CIVIL RIGHTS

    I don't know. I think when you take a political position like "lobbiests should be banned from Washington because the deficit is a big problem" which infringes on the first amendment, but then you later say the civil rights act wasn't a good idea because it infringes on the first amendment, it raises the question of why you feel the deficit is a bigger problem than segregation.

    Speaker on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Malkor wrote: »
    I don't have enough fingers to type how far above my head that post was ronya. What does that mean in dumb people words?

    I'll try to translate and ronya can correct me where I goof since he is far better at this than I am.
    • Harm and non-coercion principles. This one is pretty straightforward. The belief that consenting individuals can do what they want. Government attempts to curtail this are simply morally wrong. Making individuals do things through coercion is also wrong.
    • Classical economic libertarianism. Uses maths and some economic theory to state that people who are making economic transactions voluntarily will maximize goodness (aggregate welfare). Basically a person won't trade item A for item B unless he values B more than A. Conversely, the person being traded with must value A more than B or else he wouldn't trade. So both individuals are made better off.
    • Hayekian. Hayek was a sweet-ass economist, even if he wasn't as straight pimping as Keynes. He believed that the mathematical models from above didn't really play out when applied to the real world. However he thought that even if markets didn't really acheive optimality, government action was worse.

    Saammiel on
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    A pair of really good works on American libertarianism are

    -The Liberal Tradition in America by Hartz, who argues that the reason that Marxism hasn't taken hold in America is that Marxism is that Marxism is an egalitarian antidote to the intensely anti-egalitarian philosophy of feudalism. America never really went through feudalism, so we never really developed an antidote to that. Because of this, while pretty much every other major democracy in the world has an equivalent to a Social Democratic party, we do not. It's pretty simplistic because it was written in the 50's when Marxism was still a very monolithic concept, so he presents liberalism as a similar monolith. It's also a history, so it's a pretty easy intro

    -Democracy's Discontent, by Sandel. He says that America's lack of any antidote to liberalism (IE, anyone can do what they want so long as it isn't violating someone elses rights) has left us in pretty bad shape to deal with the modern world, in which people in fact have very little agency and independence. He goes even farther into what 'liberalism' means, giving us two major lines of liberalism.

    Republicanism, arising out of Plato's want to create a good society, and the later philosophical arguments about what the good society is.
    Liberalism, which says that people should have their own choice over what they think 'good' is, and public arguments about what the good is are pointless at best, attempts at conversion at worst.

    If we are a republican society, then it's useful to have all of our citizens well versed in philosophy so that we can move further towards the good society. If we are a liberal society, then teaching all of our citizens philosophy is weakening people's own wishes to learn what they want, and it is too close to indoctrination for some liberals.

    Ironically, in the modern political clime, the Republicans are more liberal, while the Democrats are more republican.

    I see Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" as the quintessential work of Libertarianism.

    For Nozick it's all about the Right to Property.

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    That's the problem with modern politics, you can't have a good high-level discussion without some asshole mining the transcript for choice quotes. If he was legitimately saying "I support equal rights but I do not think the law as it was framed was constitutional" then that's a fine thing for a scholar to say. If he was saying "heh heh heh I 'support' equal rights, but really let's toss the Negroes back in the cotton fields" then that's another thing.

    And knowing who Ron Paul has associated with, I'm wouldn't be surprised if his son was in the second group. But that's how it should be presented, not just OMG RAND PAUL HATES CIVIL RIGHTS

    I don't know. I think when you take a political position like "lobbiests should be banned from Washington because the deficit is a big problem" which infringes on the first amendment, but then you later say the civil rights act wasn't a good idea because it infringes on the first amendment, it raises the question of why you feel the deficit is a bigger problem than segregation.

    If he was making a principled argument regarding noninterference in small business, as Aegis quoted above, it was extraordinarily clumsy.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • EggyToastEggyToast Jersey CityRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    - In general, governments are not as good as smaller organisations at doing any given thing

    This sounds like it should apply towards businesses as well. A small organization is typically more nimble and adaptable than a large one.

    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    But still, if small government organizations are better, shouldn't small businesses be equally better? So libertarians should be for caps on capitalism -- which would be anti-libertarian as it would limit someone's liberty to grow their business as they choose.
    - you should be guaranteed a very significant percentage of the proceeds of your work

    How do you define the price for work? And does everyone work in a vacuum? If I invent a widget and sell it for $100, you could argue I should get $100. But if I own a company and hire people to make widgets, that I sell for $100... THEY are making the widget. Shouldn't they get the $100? By being a CEO and distributing wealth among employees arbitrarily, am I not essentially performing the role of a tyrannical government?

    EggyToast on
    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    EggyToast wrote: »
    - In general, governments are not as good as smaller organisations at doing any given thing

    This sounds like it should apply towards businesses as well. A small organization is typically more nimble and adaptable than a large one.

    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    But still, if small government organizations are better, shouldn't small businesses be equally better? So libertarians should be for caps on capitalism -- which would be anti-libertarian as it would limit someone's liberty to grow their business as they choose.
    - you should be guaranteed a very significant percentage of the proceeds of your work

    How do you define the price for work? And does everyone work in a vacuum? If I invent a widget and sell it for $100, you could argue I should get $100. But if I own a company and hire people to make widgets, that I sell for $100... THEY are making the widget. Shouldn't they get the $100? By being a CEO and distributing wealth among employees arbitrarily, am I not essentially performing the role of a tyrannical government?

    This is all kinds of backwards.

    There's no reason to think a small business would be any better than a large one. Sometimes there is economy of scale, which gives advantages to larger firms. Sometimes being big makes you clumsy. The point is business is more efficient than government. Doesn't matter what size the business is.

    Businesses have to make business decisions to keep profits high, and if they act inefficiently they go out of business. Governments don't do this, they have no profit motivation to do better and are never worried about going out of business. Also business operates in a competitive environment where Government doesn't.

    So business is always trying to meet the needs of their customers/clients. If they don't, a competitor will, so business is always trying to be as loyal as possible to their clients who are keeping profits high. Part of that loyalty, paradoxically, is to keep prices low because customers want that.

    Loklar on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    EggyToast wrote: »
    - In general, governments are not as good as smaller organisations at doing any given thing

    This sounds like it should apply towards businesses as well. A small organization is typically more nimble and adaptable than a large one.

    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    But still, if small government organizations are better, shouldn't small businesses be equally better? So libertarians should be for caps on capitalism -- which would be anti-libertarian as it would limit someone's liberty to grow their business as they choose.
    - you should be guaranteed a very significant percentage of the proceeds of your work

    How do you define the price for work? And does everyone work in a vacuum? If I invent a widget and sell it for $100, you could argue I should get $100. But if I own a company and hire people to make widgets, that I sell for $100... THEY are making the widget. Shouldn't they get the $100? By being a CEO and distributing wealth among employees arbitrarily, am I not essentially performing the role of a tyrannical government?

    This is all kinds of backwards.

    There's no reason to think a small business would be any better than a large one. Sometimes there is economy of scale, which gives advantages to larger firms. Sometimes being big makes you clumsy. The point is business is more efficient than government. Doesn't matter what size the business is.

    Businesses have to make business decisions to keep profits high, and if they act inefficiently they go out of business. Governments don't do this, they have no profit motivation to do better and are never worried about going out of business. Also business operates in a competitive environment where Government doesn't.

    So business is always trying to meet the needs of their customers/clients. If they don't, a competitor will, so business is always trying to be as loyal as possible to their clients who are keeping profits high. Part of that loyalty, paradoxically, is to keep prices low because customers want that.

    Caveat; political capture.

    mrt144 on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I mean, there's "Libertarianism", big L, which is basically anarcho-capitalism.

    There's "libertarianism", little l, which is just a general feeling that people should be allowed to do what they want if they don't hurt other people.

    And then there's the many flavours in between with varying degrees of capitalism tied in. It's not really as monolithic as one might think.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    Loklar on
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Just like the title asks. Is libertarianism, and I understand that it's a squishy, general term with a lot of variance among actual libertarians, resting, fundamentally, on a big naturalistic fallacy? To err on the side of--indeed, to generally advocate--no government (the state of nature)?

    This may be more appropriate for D&D, but I thought I'd vet this idea here, just in case I made a dumb definitional or logical error.

    This is a problem that I have run into from time to time...what exactly do you think the "naturalistic fallacy" is? Because philosophically it has nothing to do with nature. The naturalistic fallacy is deriving an ought from an is. Basing things on what is natural isn't a fallacy. So, I think the answer to your question is no.

    Also, Saggio's list is not nearly complete enough. There have been numerous writers in the 20th century who have dealt with questions of justice (not legal, but rather what constitutes a just form of government) in response to Rawls. People like Alisdair MacIntyre, Micheal Sandel, Habermas, Nozick. I just finished a seminar class on modern theories of justice. Nozick is a liberal (in fact, a huge libertarian), but the rest aren't.

    Can you tell that I'm into classical political philosophy more than anything? Although I <3 MacIntyre.

    Anyway, LoserforHire is pretty much right on the money and all the other posts that try to draw distinctions between "liberals" and "libertarians" are generally unhelpful and only really speak to one use of the word liberal. On the issue of the naturalistic fallacy, I stand by my original statement that it may be the case that some libertarians/liberals commit the naturalistic fallacy, but only if they take a particular view with respect to the state of nature and liberty.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Yeah, it's what makes Marx complete rubbish 90% of the time.

    Let me respond to your ad hominem with my own ad hominem.

    You're an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. If you take the view that economics is the primary determinant in things such as justice, politics, and social relations, then you are endorsing Marxist views.

    If you believe in historical progress over time deriving from ever greater technological sophistication and economic development, then you are endorsing Marxist views.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    jothki on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I should note that most of the people who self-identify as liberals or left-wing or progressive here in the forum have already accepted the main tenets of neoliberal economic ideology; neoliberalism's victory has been so great that the extent of it seems to have been forgotten. Liberalism moved rightward while libertarianism moved leftward.

    Liberals like Galbraith used to say: well look we have national-level monopolies like AT&T and Standard Oil and General Motors on one hand, and huge national labor unions on the other; this is the new postwar reality, markets are a genuine fiction and government should be prepared to wade into the fight to sort it out. Big business, big labor, big government. As late as 1971 the US government under Nixon could impose price controls on the entire economy and be applauded by the policy establishment for doing so. Nowadays we gawk at the US government under Obama possibly somewhat violating the business sovereignty of the auto industry.

    And on the other hand we had libertarians who refused to accept that the New Deal wasn't going away, that social security was here to stay, that progressive taxation might have a point, that externalities were a valid economic concept, that the notion of public goods had any empirical reality. Nowadays libertarians can say that they'll buy the concept of national defense as a public good under a minimal state, but the concept of a "public good" was only laid down in 1954. And it took another twenty, thirty years for it to sink in. Libertarianism nowadays is much further to the left than it used to be.

    So if it seems today that liberalism and libertarianism seem similar in certain respects, they probably are. They keep stealing each other's concepts and adapting it. Externalities and public goods are due to Paul Samuelson, a solidly liberal thinker. And, of course, few liberals today would advocate government setting prices on a regular basis.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    im not sure if im cutting through the bullshit here or if im going on a tangent, but i think libertarians dont really give a shit about large government at all.

    i think they just want everyone to earn and pay their own way.

    the problem being, some people cant earn or pay their own way. i know it's not pc to say that, but it's the truth. so what do we as a society do? either the government absolutely has to take from those who can earn and pay for others (the rich) or the government allows those who cannot earn and pay their own way (the poor) to die.

    i dont think many libertarians really give a damn about the size of government at all. it's just a way of controlling the dialogue so that it doesnt sound like "survival of the fittest" for people. cause if they couched their actual position in those terms, we would all dismiss them for crazy fucks.

    Ketherial on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't know if Libertarians refused to accept externatilities as much as they had a HIGHLY idealized and totally unrealistic premise as to how torts could provide resolution to externalities. I

    mrt144 on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    Why we have a massive deficit 101.
    edit: And obviously they do, otherwise any program no matter how wasteful or pointless could be ended.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I don't know if Libertarians refused to accept externatilities as much as they had a HIGHLY idealized and totally unrealistic premise as to how torts could provide resolution to externalities. I

    As I recall, it went like this: first denial that externalities were a coherent concept.

    Then denial that any externalities existed in empirically significant quantities.

    Then concessions that externalities existed, but assertion the tort law could take care of it.

    Then concession that tort law was insufficient, but assertion that Coasean bargaining could take care of it.

    Then concession that Coasean bargaining was probably also unequal to the task, but denial that government could do better. And that's where we stand today.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    It doesn't have to be equal benefit. Some people are going to benefit more from Civil Defense than others. Someone who's 90 and dying, gets less use out of defending the country than a newborn. A stock broker with lots of contracts gets more use out of a fair court system than someone else. The point is that everyone benefits from Civil Defense, and policing.

    The role of police is to preserve order. If one neighbourhood doesn't have enough cops to do that, then the government isn't doing it's job. It doesn't matter that the poor neighbourhood requires 3X as much resources to keep the place safe as a rich neighbourhood. What matters is that the laws are enforced and people feel safe.

    Someone else might have a different interpretation. So this is just what I think.

    Loklar on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    i dont think he meant receives from the government in cash. all of us receive a lot from the government in value, which as far as i know, does not lead to a deficit.

    Ketherial on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    Exhibit A of neoliberal ideology: government never, ever generates surplus welfare.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    im not sure if im cutting through the bullshit here or if im going on a tangent, but i think libertarians dont really give a shit about large government at all.

    i think they just want everyone to earn and pay their own way.

    the problem being, some people cant earn or pay their own way. i know it's not pc to say that, but it's the truth. so what do we as a society do? either the government absolutely has to take from those who can earn and pay for others (the rich) or the government allows those who cannot earn and pay their own way (the poor) to die.

    i dont think many libertarians really give a damn about the size of government at all. it's just a way of controlling the dialogue so that it doesnt sound like "survival of the fittest" for people. cause if they couched their actual position in those terms, we would all dismiss them for crazy fucks.

    I solidly put myself in the camp of a libertarian and I totally detest of large government from the perspective of incetivized inefficiency. The larger and more complex the government is the less efficiency can be achieved in terms of the tax payer getting bang for their buck. Health care providers suffers from this same problem of mutlilevel bureaucracy that incentivizes ineffcient outcomes for patients. I'd argue that bieng a libertarian is in a large part about being anti bureaucratic as much as possible.

    The economies of scale that government can provide are diminished by the large bureaucratic apparatus that is present at the Federal government level. Farm subsidies are a key example here.

    I'd also argue that the problem with government isn't just large or small dichotomies but hard or soft dichotomies. How strongly does the FDA enforce regulations or courts rule in favor of the better funded claimants? The Libertarian problem is that the influence of power and corruption isn't given enough credence of being a real problem even in an ideal libertarian society. Sure it exists in those "less ideal societies" but that's just narcissism on the part of libertarians.

    mrt144 on
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I've met very few Libertarians or Objectivists who actually fit the social progressive mold that their philosophy would dictate, so I've basically written off both movements as hollow stumping points for horrible selfish fascists.

    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    Atomika on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    I don't see why a libertarian would be inherently opposed to pro-life movements.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    But then that raises the question about large and significant works. Small organizations wouldn't beget the Interstate Highway System. And you need very big businesses for global finance or even global logistics like UPS or FedEx. I realize you're raising this as a generality rather than a point, but if a system ignores the larger problems that it may perceive as exceptions, well, who's going to handle the exceptions?

    Well, as far as I know most libertarians make practical exceptions for police force, army, basic infrastructure stuff. It varies from person to person.

    Libertarians feel it is the government's role to enforce contracts, prevent harm to people and prevent theft. So there is some disagreement on some specifics. Copyright issues is an issue where libertarians split. Same with abortion (is a law preventing abortion an unnecessary infringement on a person's rights? Or is abortion itself harm to a living thing?)

    As far as I can tell, Libertarians feel that the government should only spend tax money on things that are good for everyone. Things like Defense, Police, Pandemic Planning, Courts. If instead you're taking money from one group to give to another, then they don't like that.

    So Libertarians would be against spending tax money on Farm subsidies or GM pensions or Rebates for homeowners, because those are all groups that some of the tax-payers would not be part of.

    The problem with that reasoning is that anything that serves the common good can be broken down to the point where a single group largely benefits. Take police patrols in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't that a socialistic distribution of benefits from the wealthy, who are required to pay for the patrols while not benefitting from them? Likewise, aren't police patrols in wealthier neighborhoods a regressive means of benefitting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are expected to cover the costs without recieving any benefits?

    Obviously, the two combine to present a service that ideally benefits everyone equally. However, once you accept that imbalanced services can be combined to form balanced services, where can you set the limit for combining services? As long as every group recieves more from the government than they pay in taxes, do they have any right to complain about any particular service, since that service combines with others to result in one (the entire government) that serves their general benefit?

    It doesn't have to be equal benefit. Some people are going to benefit more from Civil Defense than others. Someone who's 90 and dying, gets less use out of defending the country than a newborn. A stock broker with lots of contracts gets more use out of a fair court system than someone else. The point is that everyone benefits from Civil Defense, and policing.

    The role of police is to preserve order. If one neighbourhood doesn't have enough cops to do that, then the government isn't doing it's job. It doesn't matter that the poor neighbourhood requires 3X as much resources to keep the place safe as a rich neighbourhood. What matters is that the laws are enforced and people feel safe.

    Someone else might have a different interpretation. So this is just what I think.

    And this is why progressive taxes are fair in my opinion.

    mrt144 on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I've met very few Libertarians or Objectivists who actually fit the social progressive mold that their philosophy would dictate, so I've basically written off both movements as hollow stumping points for horrible selfish fascists.

    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    The Cato guys might fit your description.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    Exhibit A of neoliberal ideology: government never, ever generates surplus welfare.

    well, his point probably stands in a heavily conditioned and generalized way.

    it's government's role to create an environment where value can be most efficiently created. only in rare instances has government actually truly created value. even though i use the word "rare" i understand that government creates tons of actual value through research and development, etc. but compared to the millions, probably billions of instances every hour where private companies create value, rare is still probably the right word.

    Ketherial on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    I don't see why a libertarian would be inherently opposed to pro-life movements.

    Because someone who is pro-choice wants to pigeon-hole libertarians.

    mrt144 on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    i dont think he meant receives from the government in cash. all of us receive a lot from the government in value, which as far as i know, does not lead to a deficit.

    This makes my head hurt...

    If I spend 10 dollars in taxes and get 15 dollars back in services how is my society not going to end up in a deficit? We're going to have to borrow 5 dollars, or tax someone else who gets less services. Edit: Or force someone to give up 5 dollars worth of value for nothing (in other words: force a cop to work but not pay him).

    Add to the fact that some of the things my 10 dollars (+5 someone else had to pay) paid for a cops to bust hookers and pot-smokers, shit I don't care about and wouldn't waste my money/energy on. But I'm forced to pay for it because it's a tax.

    Loklar on
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    I don't see why a libertarian would be inherently opposed to pro-life movements.

    Because they're an example of unfounded morality arguments dictating personal freedoms, that's why.

    Atomika on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be equal benefit. Some people are going to benefit more from Civil Defense than others. Someone who's 90 and dying, gets less use out of defending the country than a newborn. A stock broker with lots of contracts gets more use out of a fair court system than someone else. The point is that everyone benefits from Civil Defense, and policing.

    The role of police is to preserve order. If one neighbourhood doesn't have enough cops to do that, then the government isn't doing it's job. It doesn't matter that the poor neighbourhood requires 3X as much resources to keep the place safe as a rich neighbourhood. What matters is that the laws are enforced and people feel safe.

    Someone else might have a different interpretation. So this is just what I think.

    And this is why progressive taxes are fair in my opinion.

    AFAIK most Libertarians are for a consumption tax, and zero income tax. Which is a progressive tax. If you consume more stuff, you pay more tax.

    Loklar on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    i dont think he meant receives from the government in cash. all of us receive a lot from the government in value, which as far as i know, does not lead to a deficit.

    This makes my head hurt...

    If I spend 10 dollars in taxes and get 15 dollars back in services how is my society not going to end up in a deficit? We're going to have to borrow 5 dollars, or tax someone else who gets less services.

    Add to the fact that some of the things my 10 dollars (+5 someone else had to pay) paid for a cops to bust hookers and pot-smokers, shit I don't care about and wouldn't waste my money/energy on. But I'm forced to pay for it because it's a tax.

    Well ignoring how things actually are funded at a municipal level...

    mrt144 on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Why we have a massive deficit 101.

    i dont think he meant receives from the government in cash. all of us receive a lot from the government in value, which as far as i know, does not lead to a deficit.

    This makes my head hurt...

    If I spend 10 dollars in taxes and get 15 dollars back in services how is my society not going to end up in a deficit? We're going to have to borrow 5 dollars, or tax someone else who gets less services.

    Add to the fact that some of the things my 10 dollars (+5 someone else had to pay) paid for a cops to bust hookers and pot-smokers, shit I don't care about and wouldn't waste my money/energy on. But I'm forced to pay for it because it's a tax.

    You get services that you would be willing to pay $15 for, but only pay $10 via tax. The government generates $5 worth of welfare.

    And this is because liberals once thought that government should do things, not just act as a redistributional mechanism. But I digress.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    A Libertarian should, by tenet of dogma, be inherently opposed to pro-life movements, homophobia, and religion in general. This, well more often than not, is not the case.

    I don't see why a libertarian would be inherently opposed to pro-life movements.

    Because they're an example of unfounded morality arguments dictating personal freedoms, that's why.

    If you accept the argument that life begins at conception, it's perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

    enc0re on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    AFAIK most Libertarians are for a consumption tax, and zero income tax. Which is a progressive tax. If you consume more stuff, you pay more tax.

    Consumption taxes are regressive, not progressive. Lower-income groups spend a higher proportion of their income.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be equal benefit. Some people are going to benefit more from Civil Defense than others. Someone who's 90 and dying, gets less use out of defending the country than a newborn. A stock broker with lots of contracts gets more use out of a fair court system than someone else. The point is that everyone benefits from Civil Defense, and policing.

    The role of police is to preserve order. If one neighbourhood doesn't have enough cops to do that, then the government isn't doing it's job. It doesn't matter that the poor neighbourhood requires 3X as much resources to keep the place safe as a rich neighbourhood. What matters is that the laws are enforced and people feel safe.

    Someone else might have a different interpretation. So this is just what I think.

    And this is why progressive taxes are fair in my opinion.

    AFAIK most Libertarians are for a consumption tax, and zero income tax. Which is a progressive tax. If you consume more stuff, you pay more tax.

    Which raises the question of whether rich people really consume that much more than poor people...something that we could go around about for hours.

    mrt144 on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    im not sure if im cutting through the bullshit here or if im going on a tangent, but i think libertarians dont really give a shit about large government at all.

    i think they just want everyone to earn and pay their own way.

    the problem being, some people cant earn or pay their own way. i know it's not pc to say that, but it's the truth. so what do we as a society do? either the government absolutely has to take from those who can earn and pay for others (the rich) or the government allows those who cannot earn and pay their own way (the poor) to die.

    i dont think many libertarians really give a damn about the size of government at all. it's just a way of controlling the dialogue so that it doesnt sound like "survival of the fittest" for people. cause if they couched their actual position in those terms, we would all dismiss them for crazy fucks.

    I solidly put myself in the camp of a libertarian and I totally detest of large government from the perspective of incetivized inefficiency. The larger and more complex the government is the less efficiency can be achieved in terms of the tax payer getting bang for their buck. Health care providers suffers from this same problem of mutlilevel bureaucracy that incentivizes ineffcient outcomes for patients. I'd argue that bieng a libertarian is in a large part about being anti bureaucratic as much as possible.

    The economies of scale that government can provide are diminished by the large bureaucratic apparatus that is present at the Federal government level. Farm subsidies are a key example here.

    I'd also argue that the problem with government isn't just large or small dichotomies but hard or soft dichotomies. How strongly does the FDA enforce regulations or courts rule in favor of the better funded claimants? The Libertarian problem is that the influence of power and corruption isn't given enough credence of being a real problem even in an ideal libertarian society. Sure it exists in those "less ideal societies" but that's just narcissism on the part of libertarians.

    just wondering, do you think inefficiency is the necessary result of a large government? or do you believe that a large government can be efficient and that ours just isnt?

    because we have companies that are enormous and in effect larger than some governments. yet they can run relatively efficiently, can't they?

    Ketherial on
Sign In or Register to comment.