letting people identify with the programs they rely on is sufficient, they'll receive attacks on it as an attack on themselves
I find this overly optimistic.
You have the old Craig T. Nelson problem ("I was on food stamps and nobody helped me") also known as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Lots of people don't see their benefits as originating in Washington.
And you have the Social Security problem ("I only rely on Social Security because I was forced to! If I was allowed to put that money into private stocks, I wouldn't have to rely on the government!")
The latter argument appears a lot in pop Libertarian thought. "Welfare comes from taxes and taxes kill jobs! If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and there would be more jobs!" or, alternatively, "If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and people would give to charity more, and we wouldn't need welfare!"
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.
letting people identify with the programs they rely on is sufficient, they'll receive attacks on it as an attack on themselves
I find this overly optimistic.
You have the old Craig T. Nelson problem ("I was on food stamps and nobody helped me") also known as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Lots of people don't see their benefits as originating in Washington.
And you have the Social Security problem ("I only rely on Social Security because I was forced to! If I was allowed to put that money into private stocks, I wouldn't have to rely on the government!")
The latter argument appears a lot in pop Libertarian thought. "Welfare comes from taxes and taxes kill jobs! If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and there would be more jobs!" or, alternatively, "If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and people would give to charity more, and we wouldn't need welfare!"
I'm aware, but the latter is demographically unimportant since the era of Eisenhower
most people are innumerate. Most people know whether they have paid for something, and whether they're getting something in return; they are very bad at assessing whether those two numbers line up
so it is the former, and only the former, which matters here
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of think it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
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.
As an American libertarian, this whole thing is pretty bizarre to me. I don't really see much in the government anywhere that represents my views. At best there's some social rhetoric from the Democrats and some tax rhetoric from the Republicans that sometimes come close, but then the actions never match it anyway. From where I'm sitting, both parties are helplessly corporatist and some combination of in line with each other or divided by which corporation / industry they happen to represent the most. And the Libertarian Party is basically nutter-house.
I mean you'd probably have to be a straight-up Soviet-style Communist to have less representation and political power than somebody with my views nowadays. So coming after people like me seems... confused? I don't even have anyone to vote for.
I'm guessing this is probably more of an attack on the corporatists who use inappropriate laissez-faire arguments as excuses for their decidedly competition-unfriendly policies.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
Libertarians do have the convenient fallback that their ideas are so hideously impractical that we'll never truly see it in action, so we don't have empirical evidence it doesn't work.
Eh. A lot of them were in place back in the Before Time. Apparently the people back then thought they were so horrible that they implemented the Big Government and preferred it. So it's probably on par with the anti-vaxxers who aren't old enough to remember how awful it was.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
Not really. It's similar to the difference between how Raymond and Stallman view open source.
Raymond takes the view that open source is inherently the better development model, and as such closed models cannot compete as they will always produce inferior software. In comparison, Stallman has noted that closed software can be better than open source software at doing the task it was designed to do, but should be rejected outright anyway as it limits the "freedom" of the user.
They're both cranks, of course, but there's a difference in their arguments.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
I think Libertarianism is a logical position before you have life experiences and perhaps haven't developed enough empathy yet. But the first time you or a friend of family member has gotten sick and can't work or when you leave a sheltered family life and are exposed to the meanness of the world, I think cutting off your empathy and sticking to "rugged individualism" is a mistake.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
They're different positions in theory.
In practice, they're exactly the same position.
It's basically the difference between white supremacists who say "We think whites are better than black people" and the white supremacists who say "This isn't about racist, we're only hear to celebrate white culture."
Yeah, in theory, the latter position sounds a lot better, especially if you assume that the latter is arguing in good faith. In practice, they're all the same group.
As an American libertarian, this whole thing is pretty bizarre to me. I don't really see much in the government anywhere that represents my views. At best there's some social rhetoric from the Democrats and some tax rhetoric from the Republicans that sometimes come close, but then the actions never match it anyway. From where I'm sitting, both parties are helplessly corporatist and some combination of in line with each other or divided by which corporation / industry they happen to represent the most. And the Libertarian Party is basically nutter-house.
I mean you'd probably have to be a straight-up Soviet-style Communist to have less representation and political power than somebody with my views nowadays. So coming after people like me seems... confused? I don't even have anyone to vote for.
I'm guessing this is probably more of an attack on the corporatists who use inappropriate laissez-faire arguments as excuses for their decidedly competition-unfriendly policies.
well, laissez-faire is wholly unfriendly to competition, so naturally people opposed to competition would be in favor of it
I think Libertarianism is a logical position before you have life experiences and perhaps haven't developed enough empathy yet. But the first time you or a friend of family member has gotten sick and can't work or when you leave a sheltered family life and are exposed to the meanness of the world, I think cutting off your empathy and sticking to "rugged individualism" is a mistake.
It also kind of requires a pretty naive view of what lengths people will go to to make a profit or avoid taking responsibility for misdeeds
And of course assuming consumers have perfect information and act rationally, EG: if they put lead in the baby formula nobody will buy it; assuming the consumers will all understand the product contains lead, the corporation will be honest that it has lead in it, that if it is discovered it did that the correct blame will be placed and consumers will find this information out, and that consumers realize how bad lead is for their babies and have enough money where they don't have to chose between formula with lead in it and a dead baby
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
They're different positions in theory.
In practice, they're exactly the same position.
It's basically the difference between white supremacists who say "We think whites are better than black people" and the white supremacists who say "This isn't about racist, we're only hear to celebrate white culture."
Yeah, in theory, the latter position sounds a lot better, especially if you assume that the latter is arguing in good faith. In practice, they're all the same group.
Oh sure, they both end up libertarians but it changes the way you argue with them.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
They're different positions in theory.
In practice, they're exactly the same position.
It's basically the difference between white supremacists who say "We think whites are better than black people" and the white supremacists who say "This isn't about racist, we're only hear to celebrate white culture."
Yeah, in theory, the latter position sounds a lot better, especially if you assume that the latter is arguing in good faith. In practice, they're all the same group.
Oh sure, they both end up libertarians but it changes the way you argue with them.
In theory, yes. Not in practice.
The problem is that the former position always defaults to the latter with a little nudging.
For instance, look at the health care debate. The libertarian argument is that privatized health care is inherently better than public health care. The problem is, they have no idea what "better" means. If you look at things like consumer bankruptcy rate, life expectancy, percentage of healthcare to gdp, etc., none of those things qualify as "better." Instead, they'll rely on bullshit measures like "waiting times on MRIs for completely optional procedures."
Yes, they may claim that they support private industry because private industry is more efficient. But it's really the other way around.
They're not arguing from a rational position. They're arguing from an emotional position.
If you want an example why the distinction is bullshit, look at bitcoins.
Objectively, there is absolutely no reason why you would ever use a bitcoin over US dollars if you're not doing something incredibly illegal (as in, "traffic kiddie porn" illegal, not "buy some weed" illegal.). Yet bitcoin enthusiasts will swear up and down that it's the currency of the future and that it's vastly superior to the US dollar.
Because they're not arguing on empirical fact. They're not arguing from experience. They're arguing because their ideology tells them that bitcoins must be superior, and so they're relying entirely on confirmation bias. Trying to correct them with facts and figures won't change that, because they already have access to that information and they choose to ignore it.
In the absence of empirical data and experience, there's a tendency to create incredibly outlandish hypothetical scenarios.
For instance, I heard one bitcoin enthusiast explain that bitcoins were superior because: "Imagine a company in Germany that wants to sell research articles on micropayments (fractions of pennies), but they don't accept US currency for some reason and block access from US IPs. I can log in from a proxy and pay in bitcoins."
The situation is complete bullshit off course. A company that sells an incredibly niche product will never survive on fractions of pennies, and a company that blocks access to US IPs will probably block payments in bitcoins just to be safe. But we're supposed to imagine that a company shares all these contradictory properties anyway, because it's the only legitimate purpose they can think of where a bitcoin would trump the dollar.
Another example includes the superiority of the gold standard. The argument always boils down to, "Suppose I bury $100 in my backyard for 100 years." What does this scenario have anything to do with economics? Absolutely nothing. But it's the only scenario they can think of where gold might look more appealing than US dollars.
This is a group that will say things like, "The two party system is completely corrupt, no elected official can be trusted, vote Ron Paul!" It doesn't matter that Ron Paul is also a republican. Their cognitive dissonance is rather astounding.
In the end, you will never convince them at the factual level, because they're not basing their opinions on facts. They're basing their facts on their opinions.
Actual libertarians have no political power or influence whatsoever.
Alan Greenspan was America's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. There's also the Koch brothers, who are some the wealthiest people in the country. Milton Friedman was a libertarian.
Alan Greenspan was a Republican Lackey. And is also not in office. The Koch Brothers hold no political offices and seem to have had zero success in getting members of the Libertarian party elected. As they were strong Romney supporters, I don't think you can even count them as libertarians at all. Milton Friedman is dead, and was a Republican. Lots of people are essentially Republican but try to masquerade as libertarians, as I pointed out.
I don't think you can counter a claim that "libertarians have no political power" by pointing out that libertarians exist/used to exist and some of them even have money! There are no influential parties of libertarian politicians and no libertarian policies being instituted. Both parties are more or less relentlessly hostile to libertarian ideas.
I mean you'd probably have to be a straight-up Soviet-style Communist to have less representation and political power than somebody with my views nowadays.
No, I think even avowed socialists have more political power and representation than Libertarians. Bernie Sanders is a US Senator.
Meanwhile, the Libertarians..
The party has no current representation in the House of Representatives or the Senate and controls no governorships or other state-wide elected positions. At the state legislature level, the party controls no seats in any upper house or lower house.
They're not arguing from a rational position. They're arguing from an emotional position.
This is true of almost anyone. Most people don't reason themselves into positions. They arrive at positions (via tribal identity?) and then use reason as a tool to for ex-post-facto rationalization. Vanishingly few people start from a clean slate, look at all the evidence, and then arrive at a conclusion. It seems the human brain is far more likely to work backwards. We arrive at a conclusion (from instinct or something else) then look for evidence to support that conclusion, while disregarding other evidence. You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into - and almost no one reasons themselves into a position. People will quite happily hold all kinds of mutually exclusive and self-contradictory beliefs. Most people are able to see these flaws in others who disagree with them, but not themselves.
Yes, this is not a great situation, but it is incredibly widespread, which is why I'm not too sanguine on humanity's future. I feel like our brain hasn't kept up with our technology and for most people is not well equipped to handle the increasingly complex world in which we live. (See the various views that democracy is inherently flawed)
There is a tiny tiny tiny insignificantly small portion of the population, primarily fairly well off and intelligent and educated, that has fun arguing about all these abstract concepts and constructing coherent theoretical systems of government and economic models and can actually be reasoned from one position to another. I think this group is greatly over represented on Penny Arcade, which is one of the things that makes this place great, but not everyone is like that. For what it's worth, I've found a higher portion of small l libertarians fall into this camp than do bog standard republicans or democrats.
Alan Greenspan was a Republican Lackey. And is also not in office. The Koch Brothers hold no political offices and seem to have had zero success in getting members of the Libertarian party elected. As they were strong Romney supporters, I don't think you can even count them as libertarians at all. Milton Friedman is dead, and was a Republican. Lots of people are essentially Republican but try to masquerade as libertarians, as I pointed out.
For the most part, Greenspan and Friedman ascribed to Libertarian minarchist-capitalist ideals more closely associated with the current Libertarian party than with the Republican party.
If you're willing to call Bernie Sanders a socialist even though he's not a member of a formal Socialist party because he ascribes to socialist ideals, then it's fair to call Greenspan and Friedman Libertarians even though they weren't members of a formal Libertarian party because they ascribed to Libertarian ideals.
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.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
Not really. It's similar to the difference between how Raymond and Stallman view open source.
Raymond takes the view that open source is inherently the better development model, and as such closed models cannot compete as they will always produce inferior software. In comparison, Stallman has noted that closed software can be better than open source software at doing the task it was designed to do, but should be rejected outright anyway as it limits the "freedom" of the user.
They're both cranks, of course, but there's a difference in their arguments.
The deontological 'liberty uber alles' position is probably best exemplified by Robert Nozick, who went to great lengths to avoid sloppy utilitarian arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In Nozick's "Utopia" it doesn't matter whether a hard line of liberty benefits the public good or not, because it's the right thing to do.
(After all, Nozick is the guy who came up with the Utility Monster.)
I would argue, though, that the pull of utilitarianism is strong; most layfolk aren't Nozick (or Richard Stallman, for that matter). If you ask, "why liberty?" you often land on a naive utilitarianism. "Liberty is better because it results in better outcomes." If you can show - whether through argument, or through emotional appeal - that you can achieve better outcomes by mixing your free market with some regulation and some social welfare, most non-philosophers will soften their deontology in service of a utilitarian good.
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.
I call Bernie Sanders a socialist because he describes himself as one. It would also be fair to also call Greenspan and Milton Friedman libertarians because they described themselves as such, but we must also consider the fact that they also described themselves as Republicans and were in the Republican Party, and there's a well known trend of Republicans trying to flee their atrocious image rebranding themselves as 'Libertarians'. Even if we grant that they were bona-fide Libertarians, I don't think the Libertarian party is libertarian so much as either crazy, or Republicans masquerading under another name. Either way, they have no real power at all. Mind you, not that the socialists do either, but at least you get a senator! libertarians don't even have that.
I also don't think it's necessarily fair to call someone a libertarian based on having certain libertarian views, when those views are actually also Republican views. Particularly when said individual is a republican, votes republican, supports republicans, etc.
Basically when I hear someone say "I'm a libertarian Republican" what I really hear them say is "I'm a Republican, but please don't hate me".
Of course, when the libertarians are so small in number and politically insignificant, it makes it really hard to get a good idea on what they *really* stand for so the 'no true scotsman' fallacy can be deployed with reckless abandon. (Which is part of what makes arguing with libertarians challenging) That said, I don't consider Greenspan to have been a libertarian. Ron Paul was always going after him, and is the most libertarian politician out there. If they are both libertarian then I'm not sure the term has any meaning. Milton Friedman you could argue is more genuinely libertarian.
Even if you chalk up all of those examples as bona fide true blood libertarians, that doesn't translate to any political power today. I don't regard the Libertarian party as either much of a threat or all that truly libertarian, and if you are a real libertarian, there's no one out there to vote for really and no one representing your viewpoint.
Alan Greenspan was a Republican Lackey. And is also not in office.
He was in office until 2006. I thought that fucker was never going to leave. The ideology of the person who had his position had enormous power, he wasn't a dog catcher.
The Koch Brothers hold no political offices and seem to have had zero success in getting members of the Libertarian party elected. As they were strong Romney supporters, I don't think you can even count them as libertarians at all.
The Koch brothers don't need to hold political offices on their own to influence politics. It'd be beneath them. That's what they hire lackeys for. They don't need to put people from the Libertarian Party in power to influence politics, they're ok by doing that for Republicans - which will get them similar results. They also are involved in the Kato Institute and Heritage Foundation. As you said they supported Romney, and that's a major player in the political arena when he was running for president.
Milton Friedman is dead, and was a Republican.
Friedman was an influential libertarian. Libertarians can be Republicans. So what if he died? He's still a popular figure to economics and when he was alive had the ear of many influential people in government and the financial sector.
Lots of people are essentially Republican but try to masquerade as libertarians, as I pointed out.
Being a Republican doesn't mean they can't be libertarian.
I don't think you can counter a claim that "libertarians have no political power" by pointing out that libertarians exist/used to exist and some of them even have money! There are no influential parties of libertarian politicians and no libertarian policies being instituted. Both parties are more or less relentlessly hostile to libertarian ideas.
Libertarians have two political parties to vote for. The Libertarian Party and the GOP. Money equals political power, and the Koch brothers are extremely wealthy and extremely interested in politics.
Money does not equal political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
If you think the GOP is a libertarian party, you simply don't have any conception of what the term means.
The Libertarian party itself is such a shambolic collection of nutcases they can't even get on the ballot at all in many states. Nevermind the fact they haven't won a senate or house seat anywhere, at any time, or are ever likely to do so.
I guess I'm just confused at the whole premise of going after the libertarians. Sure, some libertarians are republicans, but they a danger because of the Republican party, which actually has political power, as opposed to the Libertarian party, which has none. Attacking libertarians just doesn't make any sense.
The problem is, that parts of the libertarian agenda have become public policy, to the detriment of society as a whole and the benifit of the wealthy.
Deregulation of any industry, whether it be telecomunications, power generation, or banking, fits much better in the Liberterian ideology than it does in either the Reblican or Democratic ideologies.
Libertarians recognize that they would be a minority party, so they register as Republican so they can have their voice heard in the legislative process. After all, just because Bank of America doesn't have a salaried employee in congress doesn't mean that they don't have a huge influence in the legislative process.
Money does not equal political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure.
Bill Gates isn't as invested in politics like the Koch Brothers are. Had he chosen to do so then he would be.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
The Tea Party has gotten a few members in high profile political positions and changed the narrative for years. It wasn't to long ago you couldn't watch a news channel without the Tea Party being mentioned or championed by a delusional idiot. That's power. They also almost won a presidency with Romney.
If you think the GOP is a libertarian party, you simply don't have any conception of what the term means.
It isn't. It does have members that Libertarians and have powerful donors that call the shots who are. They're an ideology bloc in the GOP you shouldn't ignore.
Money does not equal political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
If you think the GOP is a libertarian party, you simply don't have any conception of what the term means.
The Libertarian party itself is such a shambolic collection of nutcases they can't even get on the ballot at all in many states. Nevermind the fact they haven't won a senate or house seat anywhere, at any time, or are ever likely to do so.
I guess I'm just confused at the whole premise of going after the libertarians. Sure, some libertarians are republicans, but they a danger because of the Republican party, which actually has political power, as opposed to the Libertarian party, which has none. Attacking libertarians just doesn't make any sense.
Money does equate to political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure by choice. And if you think about it, he's spent alot of his money and time supporting various charities that in turn support the poor. So really, he's taken a very libertarian approach by not getting involved in the government at all with his activism.
Mind you, I don't think Bill Gates is a libertarian, just that he's using a portion of their ideology.
Bill Gates is a very politically powerful figure. He just chooses his issues carefully. He's been throwing his money and his weight behind education reform and immigration reform.
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.
Money can be converted into political power. It doesn't have to be, and even when you try, you aren't always successful. See the Colorado gun recalls, where Bloomberg's anti-gun groups massively outspent the opposition and still lost.
That said, I think it's not even entirely accurate to say that just getting the guy you voted for into office means you have political power. Our history is full of groups working their asses off for some guy or other who turns around and utterly ignores them. Their issues are ignored, their concerns unheard. (the anti war left seems to be somewhat in this boat lately, and immigration activists have often been in this boat). They don't have any real political power despite having spent a lot of money and actually seeing their candidates of choice elected!
Anyway, even if, as it appears, we are using very different definitions of political power, I think you'd have to agree that whatever measure of political power we use, the Libertarians have less of it than just about anyone else. This makes an anti-libertarian offensive seem to me to be both rather incoherent (the libertarian platform is primarily a negative one and it's hard to out-negative a negative) and unnecessary.
Money does not equal political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
If you think the GOP is a libertarian party, you simply don't have any conception of what the term means.
The Libertarian party itself is such a shambolic collection of nutcases they can't even get on the ballot at all in many states. Nevermind the fact they haven't won a senate or house seat anywhere, at any time, or are ever likely to do so.
I guess I'm just confused at the whole premise of going after the libertarians. Sure, some libertarians are republicans, but they a danger because of the Republican party, which actually has political power, as opposed to the Libertarian party, which has none. Attacking libertarians just doesn't make any sense.
Gates is an incredibly powerful political figure, especially in areas where he exerts influence, such as education. And the Kochs are only politically unsuccessful if you solely look at the 2012 federal elections - open your scope to the state level, and you'll find that they have been wildly successful. Money is power, and those who know how to wield both effectively do so by finding weak points.
Furthermore, there's a long standing tradition of libertarians who actually want power to choose to work under the Republican banner.
It's clear we disagree on what it means to be powerful politically. I don't think Gates is a politically powerful figure at all.
I also have argued that just electing the people you want is not a sign of political power nor necessarily even a success if they go on to not represent your interests. This happens all the time. It sounds like you disagree on this point also.
Sure, there are Libertarians working for the Republican party, but the policies they advocate are ones that the Republican party also supports. If those are the policies you are interested in combating, it would make more sense, I would think, to identify and attack them as Republican policies than as Libertarian ones.
If you are worried about libertarian policies in areas where libertarians and republicans differ (which are many) I don't see the need as the libertarians have no power to get those policies passed.
Money does not equal political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
They've locked the House of Representatives for the Republicans for the next ten years.
It's clear we disagree on what it means to be powerful politically. I don't think Gates is a politically powerful figure at all.
I also have argued that just electing the people you want is not a sign of political power nor necessarily even a success if they go on to not represent your interests. This happens all the time. It sounds like you disagree on this point also.
Sure, there are Libertarians working for the Republican party, but the policies they advocate are ones that the Republican party also supports. If those are the policies you are interested in combating, it would make more sense, I would think, to identify and attack them as Republican policies than as Libertarian ones.
If you are worried about libertarian policies in areas where libertarians and republicans differ (which are many) I don't see the need as the libertarians have no power to get those policies passed.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not however entitled to your own facts.
Bill Gates is one of the most powerful people in the world, Your opinion does not change that at all. His focus on AIDS prevention in the third world has been massively influential.
In addition, getting people elected is a massive sign of power. Its the cornerstone of democracy and the reason we talk about the Republican party instead of the Federalist party. One of those entities can get people elected to public office, the other can not. Likewise the Koch Brothers support can mean the difference between victory and defeat for a congressman. If he turns around and fails to represent their interests, then they can just pick a new candidate next time around. Something that has a distinct chilling effect on candidates. That's power made manifest.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
But Republicans are generally fairly hostile to supposedly libertarian positions (abortion, drugs, war, bailouts, defense spending, etc).
Fixed.
None of those positions actually effect the vast majority of libertarians. Even drugs, because the vast majority of drug users (especially affluent white male users) will never get busted.
The last three are only important to them because of tax cuts. Which the republicans will give them anyway, because "LOL, laffer curve."
But Republicans are generally fairly hostile to supposedly libertarian positions (abortion, drugs, war, bailouts, defense spending, etc).
Fixed.
None of those positions actually effect the vast majority of libertarians. Even drugs, because the vast majority of drug users (especially affluent white male users) will never get busted.
The last three are only important to them because of tax cuts. Which the republicans will give them anyway, because "LOL, laffer curve."
That's the big Libertarian bamboozle right there. Libertarian voters will say they're for social liberties, but will vote for whoever promises to lower their taxes. (Never mind that the only taxes that get lowered aren't in those voters' income brackets.)
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.
Alan Greenspan was a Republican Lackey. And is also not in office.
He was in office until 2006. I thought that fucker was never going to leave. The ideology of the person who had his position had enormous power, he wasn't a dog catcher.
actually Greenspan basically used his chairmanship to grandstand a lot
in terms of what actually mattered from his position, namely monetary policy, the Greenspan fed basically followed the Taylor rule religiously. Given that Taylor is a close personal friend of Greenspan, this is not surprising. It does mean that a robot could have done about as good a job as Greenspan did
It's clear we disagree on what it means to be powerful politically. I don't think Gates is a politically powerful figure at all.
I also have argued that just electing the people you want is not a sign of political power nor necessarily even a success if they go on to not represent your interests. This happens all the time. It sounds like you disagree on this point also.
Sure, there are Libertarians working for the Republican party, but the policies they advocate are ones that the Republican party also supports. If those are the policies you are interested in combating, it would make more sense, I would think, to identify and attack them as Republican policies than as Libertarian ones.
If you are worried about libertarian policies in areas where libertarians and republicans differ (which are many) I don't see the need as the libertarians have no power to get those policies passed.
Hedgie's First Rule of Politics: Politics is not about getting people elected. Politics is about getting the policies you want enacted.
Hedgie's Second Rule of Politics: You disregard the First Rule at your own peril.
Gates is a politically powerful figure because he pushes the policies he wants to be enacted, and is very effective in doing so. The fact that he doesn't get all that involved in electoral politics doesn't change that (in fact, it's to his advantage in several ways to not get involved.) Libertarians have had a lot of success in getting their positions as planks in the Republican platform. To limit your view of political power solely to electoral politics is to wear a dangerous set of blinders.
I think you would have better luck emphasizing the government-funded origins of popular programs
would work with people who argued (honestly) that government programs were inefficient, wasteful and didn't bring anything to the table etc.
That's not the argument most Libertarians make. They argue that even if a government program would be more effective/efficient, it still is worse than a private solution. Its not an economic paradigm, its a political paradigm. Its based on the axiom that anything the government does reduces "liberty" and as such is a negative.
Um, I kind of thing it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
It just works as an easy fallback position.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
They're different positions in theory.
In practice, they're exactly the same position.
It's basically the difference between white supremacists who say "We think whites are better than black people" and the white supremacists who say "This isn't about racist, we're only hear to celebrate white culture."
Yeah, in theory, the latter position sounds a lot better, especially if you assume that the latter is arguing in good faith. In practice, they're all the same group.
Oh sure, they both end up libertarians but it changes the way you argue with them.
In theory, yes. Not in practice.
The problem is that the former position always defaults to the latter with a little nudging.
For instance, look at the health care debate. The libertarian argument is that privatized health care is inherently better than public health care. The problem is, they have no idea what "better" means. If you look at things like consumer bankruptcy rate, life expectancy, percentage of healthcare to gdp, etc., none of those things qualify as "better." Instead, they'll rely on bullshit measures like "waiting times on MRIs for completely optional procedures."
Yes, they may claim that they support private industry because private industry is more efficient. But it's really the other way around.
They're not arguing from a rational position. They're arguing from an emotional position.
Which is why, as I said, the actually position in the end is purely axiomatic. And it's an axiom based in an emotional and cultural position.
Libertarianism extends from the idea that government is inherently bad and everything else involved is post justification.
Posts
I find this overly optimistic.
You have the old Craig T. Nelson problem ("I was on food stamps and nobody helped me") also known as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Lots of people don't see their benefits as originating in Washington.
And you have the Social Security problem ("I only rely on Social Security because I was forced to! If I was allowed to put that money into private stocks, I wouldn't have to rely on the government!")
The latter argument appears a lot in pop Libertarian thought. "Welfare comes from taxes and taxes kill jobs! If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and there would be more jobs!" or, alternatively, "If we eliminated welfare, we could lower taxes, and people would give to charity more, and we wouldn't need welfare!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm aware, but the latter is demographically unimportant since the era of Eisenhower
most people are innumerate. Most people know whether they have paid for something, and whether they're getting something in return; they are very bad at assessing whether those two numbers line up
so it is the former, and only the former, which matters here
Um, I kind of think it's both. At least, I've seen both forms of the argument, with one or the other taking primacy depending on the context.
Examples: Reason magazine on the Post Office.
Or Mises.org on public schools
"Private companies are more efficient... oh and by the way liberty" or "Taxation is an affront to liberty... and oh by the way private companies are more efficient" are the left and right hooks of Libertarian arguments. Either, or both, can appear in a text.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean you'd probably have to be a straight-up Soviet-style Communist to have less representation and political power than somebody with my views nowadays. So coming after people like me seems... confused? I don't even have anyone to vote for.
I'm guessing this is probably more of an attack on the corporatists who use inappropriate laissez-faire arguments as excuses for their decidedly competition-unfriendly policies.
"Even if the government is better, you would have more freedom without it."
Same as the idea that all government data that doesn't agree with their beliefs are artificial and privatization that doesn't work is because the government screwed it up.
It's not the fallback so much as it's the actual position.
Libertarians, in my experience, start from the axiom that "less government is better". Everything else is derived from this idea.
If I remember correctly, American libertarians broadly fall into two categories (with overlap of course). People who think that less government always works better and people who think that less government is inherently better no matter the actual consequences.
Those are the same thing.
They are actually quite different.
To say that the government is bad at doing things is falsifiable. We could do like the op and give facts and figures and, assuming good faith, reach a conclusion.
The other is a personnel belief. You can't disprove that someone doesn't want the government to do anything. If they think that a society free from government interference is an end itself you can show as many studies as you want and never touch their position.
To use a personal example, I think that representative government is inherently better than a dictatorship. You could prove to me that a dictatorship would have better results in every conceivable way and I would still be against it.
Not really. It's similar to the difference between how Raymond and Stallman view open source.
Raymond takes the view that open source is inherently the better development model, and as such closed models cannot compete as they will always produce inferior software. In comparison, Stallman has noted that closed software can be better than open source software at doing the task it was designed to do, but should be rejected outright anyway as it limits the "freedom" of the user.
They're both cranks, of course, but there's a difference in their arguments.
I think Libertarianism is a logical position before you have life experiences and perhaps haven't developed enough empathy yet. But the first time you or a friend of family member has gotten sick and can't work or when you leave a sheltered family life and are exposed to the meanness of the world, I think cutting off your empathy and sticking to "rugged individualism" is a mistake.
They're different positions in theory.
In practice, they're exactly the same position.
It's basically the difference between white supremacists who say "We think whites are better than black people" and the white supremacists who say "This isn't about racist, we're only hear to celebrate white culture."
Yeah, in theory, the latter position sounds a lot better, especially if you assume that the latter is arguing in good faith. In practice, they're all the same group.
well, laissez-faire is wholly unfriendly to competition, so naturally people opposed to competition would be in favor of it
It also kind of requires a pretty naive view of what lengths people will go to to make a profit or avoid taking responsibility for misdeeds
And of course assuming consumers have perfect information and act rationally, EG: if they put lead in the baby formula nobody will buy it; assuming the consumers will all understand the product contains lead, the corporation will be honest that it has lead in it, that if it is discovered it did that the correct blame will be placed and consumers will find this information out, and that consumers realize how bad lead is for their babies and have enough money where they don't have to chose between formula with lead in it and a dead baby
In theory, yes. Not in practice.
The problem is that the former position always defaults to the latter with a little nudging.
For instance, look at the health care debate. The libertarian argument is that privatized health care is inherently better than public health care. The problem is, they have no idea what "better" means. If you look at things like consumer bankruptcy rate, life expectancy, percentage of healthcare to gdp, etc., none of those things qualify as "better." Instead, they'll rely on bullshit measures like "waiting times on MRIs for completely optional procedures."
Yes, they may claim that they support private industry because private industry is more efficient. But it's really the other way around.
They're not arguing from a rational position. They're arguing from an emotional position.
Objectively, there is absolutely no reason why you would ever use a bitcoin over US dollars if you're not doing something incredibly illegal (as in, "traffic kiddie porn" illegal, not "buy some weed" illegal.). Yet bitcoin enthusiasts will swear up and down that it's the currency of the future and that it's vastly superior to the US dollar.
Because they're not arguing on empirical fact. They're not arguing from experience. They're arguing because their ideology tells them that bitcoins must be superior, and so they're relying entirely on confirmation bias. Trying to correct them with facts and figures won't change that, because they already have access to that information and they choose to ignore it.
In the absence of empirical data and experience, there's a tendency to create incredibly outlandish hypothetical scenarios.
For instance, I heard one bitcoin enthusiast explain that bitcoins were superior because: "Imagine a company in Germany that wants to sell research articles on micropayments (fractions of pennies), but they don't accept US currency for some reason and block access from US IPs. I can log in from a proxy and pay in bitcoins."
The situation is complete bullshit off course. A company that sells an incredibly niche product will never survive on fractions of pennies, and a company that blocks access to US IPs will probably block payments in bitcoins just to be safe. But we're supposed to imagine that a company shares all these contradictory properties anyway, because it's the only legitimate purpose they can think of where a bitcoin would trump the dollar.
Another example includes the superiority of the gold standard. The argument always boils down to, "Suppose I bury $100 in my backyard for 100 years." What does this scenario have anything to do with economics? Absolutely nothing. But it's the only scenario they can think of where gold might look more appealing than US dollars.
This is a group that will say things like, "The two party system is completely corrupt, no elected official can be trusted, vote Ron Paul!" It doesn't matter that Ron Paul is also a republican. Their cognitive dissonance is rather astounding.
In the end, you will never convince them at the factual level, because they're not basing their opinions on facts. They're basing their facts on their opinions.
Alan Greenspan was a Republican Lackey. And is also not in office. The Koch Brothers hold no political offices and seem to have had zero success in getting members of the Libertarian party elected. As they were strong Romney supporters, I don't think you can even count them as libertarians at all. Milton Friedman is dead, and was a Republican. Lots of people are essentially Republican but try to masquerade as libertarians, as I pointed out.
I don't think you can counter a claim that "libertarians have no political power" by pointing out that libertarians exist/used to exist and some of them even have money! There are no influential parties of libertarian politicians and no libertarian policies being instituted. Both parties are more or less relentlessly hostile to libertarian ideas.
No, I think even avowed socialists have more political power and representation than Libertarians. Bernie Sanders is a US Senator.
Meanwhile, the Libertarians..
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
This is true of almost anyone. Most people don't reason themselves into positions. They arrive at positions (via tribal identity?) and then use reason as a tool to for ex-post-facto rationalization. Vanishingly few people start from a clean slate, look at all the evidence, and then arrive at a conclusion. It seems the human brain is far more likely to work backwards. We arrive at a conclusion (from instinct or something else) then look for evidence to support that conclusion, while disregarding other evidence. You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into - and almost no one reasons themselves into a position. People will quite happily hold all kinds of mutually exclusive and self-contradictory beliefs. Most people are able to see these flaws in others who disagree with them, but not themselves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/most-depressing-brain-fin_b_3932273.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Yes, this is not a great situation, but it is incredibly widespread, which is why I'm not too sanguine on humanity's future. I feel like our brain hasn't kept up with our technology and for most people is not well equipped to handle the increasingly complex world in which we live. (See the various views that democracy is inherently flawed)
There is a tiny tiny tiny insignificantly small portion of the population, primarily fairly well off and intelligent and educated, that has fun arguing about all these abstract concepts and constructing coherent theoretical systems of government and economic models and can actually be reasoned from one position to another. I think this group is greatly over represented on Penny Arcade, which is one of the things that makes this place great, but not everyone is like that. For what it's worth, I've found a higher portion of small l libertarians fall into this camp than do bog standard republicans or democrats.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
For the most part, Greenspan and Friedman ascribed to Libertarian minarchist-capitalist ideals more closely associated with the current Libertarian party than with the Republican party.
If you're willing to call Bernie Sanders a socialist even though he's not a member of a formal Socialist party because he ascribes to socialist ideals, then it's fair to call Greenspan and Friedman Libertarians even though they weren't members of a formal Libertarian party because they ascribed to Libertarian ideals.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The deontological 'liberty uber alles' position is probably best exemplified by Robert Nozick, who went to great lengths to avoid sloppy utilitarian arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In Nozick's "Utopia" it doesn't matter whether a hard line of liberty benefits the public good or not, because it's the right thing to do.
(After all, Nozick is the guy who came up with the Utility Monster.)
I would argue, though, that the pull of utilitarianism is strong; most layfolk aren't Nozick (or Richard Stallman, for that matter). If you ask, "why liberty?" you often land on a naive utilitarianism. "Liberty is better because it results in better outcomes." If you can show - whether through argument, or through emotional appeal - that you can achieve better outcomes by mixing your free market with some regulation and some social welfare, most non-philosophers will soften their deontology in service of a utilitarian good.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I also don't think it's necessarily fair to call someone a libertarian based on having certain libertarian views, when those views are actually also Republican views. Particularly when said individual is a republican, votes republican, supports republicans, etc.
Basically when I hear someone say "I'm a libertarian Republican" what I really hear them say is "I'm a Republican, but please don't hate me".
Of course, when the libertarians are so small in number and politically insignificant, it makes it really hard to get a good idea on what they *really* stand for so the 'no true scotsman' fallacy can be deployed with reckless abandon. (Which is part of what makes arguing with libertarians challenging) That said, I don't consider Greenspan to have been a libertarian. Ron Paul was always going after him, and is the most libertarian politician out there. If they are both libertarian then I'm not sure the term has any meaning. Milton Friedman you could argue is more genuinely libertarian.
Even if you chalk up all of those examples as bona fide true blood libertarians, that doesn't translate to any political power today. I don't regard the Libertarian party as either much of a threat or all that truly libertarian, and if you are a real libertarian, there's no one out there to vote for really and no one representing your viewpoint.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
He was in office until 2006. I thought that fucker was never going to leave. The ideology of the person who had his position had enormous power, he wasn't a dog catcher.
The Koch brothers don't need to hold political offices on their own to influence politics. It'd be beneath them. That's what they hire lackeys for. They don't need to put people from the Libertarian Party in power to influence politics, they're ok by doing that for Republicans - which will get them similar results. They also are involved in the Kato Institute and Heritage Foundation. As you said they supported Romney, and that's a major player in the political arena when he was running for president.
Friedman was an influential libertarian. Libertarians can be Republicans. So what if he died? He's still a popular figure to economics and when he was alive had the ear of many influential people in government and the financial sector.
Being a Republican doesn't mean they can't be libertarian.
Libertarians have two political parties to vote for. The Libertarian Party and the GOP. Money equals political power, and the Koch brothers are extremely wealthy and extremely interested in politics.
Money has the possibility of being converted to political power, but the Koch brothers record is extremely poor (they have supported the Tea Party and what exactly have they accomplished?)
If you think the GOP is a libertarian party, you simply don't have any conception of what the term means.
The Libertarian party itself is such a shambolic collection of nutcases they can't even get on the ballot at all in many states. Nevermind the fact they haven't won a senate or house seat anywhere, at any time, or are ever likely to do so.
I guess I'm just confused at the whole premise of going after the libertarians. Sure, some libertarians are republicans, but they a danger because of the Republican party, which actually has political power, as opposed to the Libertarian party, which has none. Attacking libertarians just doesn't make any sense.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Deregulation of any industry, whether it be telecomunications, power generation, or banking, fits much better in the Liberterian ideology than it does in either the Reblican or Democratic ideologies.
Libertarians recognize that they would be a minority party, so they register as Republican so they can have their voice heard in the legislative process. After all, just because Bank of America doesn't have a salaried employee in congress doesn't mean that they don't have a huge influence in the legislative process.
Bill Gates isn't as invested in politics like the Koch Brothers are. Had he chosen to do so then he would be.
The Tea Party has gotten a few members in high profile political positions and changed the narrative for years. It wasn't to long ago you couldn't watch a news channel without the Tea Party being mentioned or championed by a delusional idiot. That's power. They also almost won a presidency with Romney.
It isn't. It does have members that Libertarians and have powerful donors that call the shots who are. They're an ideology bloc in the GOP you shouldn't ignore.
Money does equate to political power. Bill Gates is not a politically powerful figure by choice. And if you think about it, he's spent alot of his money and time supporting various charities that in turn support the poor. So really, he's taken a very libertarian approach by not getting involved in the government at all with his activism.
Mind you, I don't think Bill Gates is a libertarian, just that he's using a portion of their ideology.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That said, I think it's not even entirely accurate to say that just getting the guy you voted for into office means you have political power. Our history is full of groups working their asses off for some guy or other who turns around and utterly ignores them. Their issues are ignored, their concerns unheard. (the anti war left seems to be somewhat in this boat lately, and immigration activists have often been in this boat). They don't have any real political power despite having spent a lot of money and actually seeing their candidates of choice elected!
Anyway, even if, as it appears, we are using very different definitions of political power, I think you'd have to agree that whatever measure of political power we use, the Libertarians have less of it than just about anyone else. This makes an anti-libertarian offensive seem to me to be both rather incoherent (the libertarian platform is primarily a negative one and it's hard to out-negative a negative) and unnecessary.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Gates is an incredibly powerful political figure, especially in areas where he exerts influence, such as education. And the Kochs are only politically unsuccessful if you solely look at the 2012 federal elections - open your scope to the state level, and you'll find that they have been wildly successful. Money is power, and those who know how to wield both effectively do so by finding weak points.
Furthermore, there's a long standing tradition of libertarians who actually want power to choose to work under the Republican banner.
I also have argued that just electing the people you want is not a sign of political power nor necessarily even a success if they go on to not represent your interests. This happens all the time. It sounds like you disagree on this point also.
Sure, there are Libertarians working for the Republican party, but the policies they advocate are ones that the Republican party also supports. If those are the policies you are interested in combating, it would make more sense, I would think, to identify and attack them as Republican policies than as Libertarian ones.
If you are worried about libertarian policies in areas where libertarians and republicans differ (which are many) I don't see the need as the libertarians have no power to get those policies passed.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
They've locked the House of Representatives for the Republicans for the next ten years.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not however entitled to your own facts.
Bill Gates is one of the most powerful people in the world, Your opinion does not change that at all. His focus on AIDS prevention in the third world has been massively influential.
In addition, getting people elected is a massive sign of power. Its the cornerstone of democracy and the reason we talk about the Republican party instead of the Federalist party. One of those entities can get people elected to public office, the other can not. Likewise the Koch Brothers support can mean the difference between victory and defeat for a congressman. If he turns around and fails to represent their interests, then they can just pick a new candidate next time around. Something that has a distinct chilling effect on candidates. That's power made manifest.
Fixed.
None of those positions actually effect the vast majority of libertarians. Even drugs, because the vast majority of drug users (especially affluent white male users) will never get busted.
The last three are only important to them because of tax cuts. Which the republicans will give them anyway, because "LOL, laffer curve."
That's the big Libertarian bamboozle right there. Libertarian voters will say they're for social liberties, but will vote for whoever promises to lower their taxes. (Never mind that the only taxes that get lowered aren't in those voters' income brackets.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
actually Greenspan basically used his chairmanship to grandstand a lot
in terms of what actually mattered from his position, namely monetary policy, the Greenspan fed basically followed the Taylor rule religiously. Given that Taylor is a close personal friend of Greenspan, this is not surprising. It does mean that a robot could have done about as good a job as Greenspan did
Hedgie's First Rule of Politics: Politics is not about getting people elected. Politics is about getting the policies you want enacted.
Hedgie's Second Rule of Politics: You disregard the First Rule at your own peril.
Gates is a politically powerful figure because he pushes the policies he wants to be enacted, and is very effective in doing so. The fact that he doesn't get all that involved in electoral politics doesn't change that (in fact, it's to his advantage in several ways to not get involved.) Libertarians have had a lot of success in getting their positions as planks in the Republican platform. To limit your view of political power solely to electoral politics is to wear a dangerous set of blinders.
Which is why, as I said, the actually position in the end is purely axiomatic. And it's an axiom based in an emotional and cultural position.
Libertarianism extends from the idea that government is inherently bad and everything else involved is post justification.