"They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities."
First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.
If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.
Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life).
There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.
Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
FWIW, I'm very much a libertarian and spend a lot of time with other libertarians, and I don't know a single one who would contend that
"ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals".
What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property.
I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life)
Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.
I agree. A "libertarian world" is nothing like a utopia, and that's the point. It's a world left up to the people, not to a group of political elite. Critics might argue that this further separates the haves from the have-nots. That could happen, but when compared to the haves/have-nots in other systems, I'll gladly choose one based on maximizing individual freedom.
Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible.
A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.
For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases.
Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will.
That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like.
The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself.
My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion:
"The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."
Right, I wouldn't expect the law not to be influenced by people. I don't think any of this is a new way of thinking, though. We have the right to trial by jury because of this, which sure isn't perfect, but there is no way for a perfect world.
I'm not saying that there aren't valid points brought up by Libertarians, just that most of the theories are not feasible in the real world. Education, for instance, if there is no state-sponsored alternative (it is an alternative, we have private and home schooling in every state as far as I know), the people who have to work for a living often do not educate their children (my wife has an aunt who cannot read or write because her parents worked and she was put to work at an early age, so that's what has always happened in history). Yes, that's their choice, but not always the choice of the children, and uneducated masses are not likely to be able to live and make rational decisions in a society.
The law is imperfect, but throughout history civilization has been in a struggle to reduce oppression. Based on history I can't really see how removing laws would do anything but allow some 'bad actors' to acquire more power for oppression.
Anyways, based on the ability reason about things, maybe you aren't a libertarian, maybe you're a liberal and just don't know it ;)
Thanks for being civil, though, I don't mind having to read a bit (although that was just too many pages for me), and I've surely picked up some bit of knowledge.
> A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.
So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?
Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.
Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:
> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.
I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.
All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.
I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.
The problem with this theory is that it assumes a couple of things:
1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange).
2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances.
But there is a singularity where it all breaks down:
The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I kill you 60 seconds afterward, what value does it have?
One's life cannot be underwritten by currency because currency is finite. Therefore the market as defined as an exchange of value underwritten by currency is inadequate for any exchange where one's continued life is a factor.
If people are willing to accept an increased risk of dying for a dollar value, that means they don't value their life infinitely. If they did, no amount of money would be worth an overall increased chance of dying.
What is a good approximation for infinity value for an 18 y.o. with a high school diploma?
If they were perfectly rational, it would be the present value of all expected future earnings.
Such a calculation would make taking a job as an oil platform underwater welder make sense.
Trouble is, it is only a convenient approximation. It can expand to fit any circumstance.
So if you own, say, a trading company worth $10 billion and you hire someone (or some entity) to be in charge of protecting your life, the substrate on which all of that value rests for you, you've just handed them a check for $9 billion plus the present value of all of your expected future earnings and asked them to keep good care of it.
How do you think a perfectly rational actor would respond?
It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist.
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles.
The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
No. Anarchism is against hierarchy, libertarians are against government. Libertarians are usually proprietarians (called "anarcho-capitalists" sometimes), people who think that properly-extended property relations/rights can solve every governance problem.
Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense.
Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position.
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
They would need empathy to do that, or at least a basic understanding of human nature. That's pretty unlikely, given that they seem to lack the hardware for that.
> Someone who has known him for more than a decade said, “He’s very cerebral, and I’m not sure how much value he places on the more intimate human emotions. I’ve never seen him express them. It’s certainly not the most developed aspect of his personality.” The friend added, “There are some irreconcilable elements that remain unreconciled in him”—a reference to Thiel’s being both Christian and gay, two facts that get no mention in his public utterances and are barely acknowledged in his private conversations. Though he is known for his competitiveness, he has an equally pronounced aversion to conflict. As chief executive of PayPal, which counted its users with a “world domination index,” Thiel avoided the personal friction that comes with managing people by delegating those responsibilities. Similarly, he hired from a small pool of like-minded friends, because “figuring out how well people work together would have been really difficult.”
> Thiel liked to quote Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.”
You are mistaking what he is saying. People say things like "France's gold", but France doesn't have gold. Only the individuals who also identify themselves as French, or are determined to be French by law, do.
This is what happens whenever I debate "libertarians". I mention overarching tendencies, only to get replies about fine logic minutiae. I'm guessing obsession with details, and blindness to the big picture is also a trait of Ayn Rand fans.
yeah-- those damn details... always an annoying part of any argument. Also, I like how you imply that you can't both understand the "big picture" and care about the details. To me, it seems like the only way to understand anything. If you aren't conversant with the details of what you think, do you really understand what you're talking about?
Perhaps an important detail, then: Thatcher's quote was actually "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
... as if families, themselves, weren't each a kind of small society.
Indeed. I'd even argue that France doesn't actually exist. People exist. The Earth exists. Objects exist. But "France" is just a concept and a set of traditions that a (rather large) number of people choose to talk about and believe in. But it has no independent existance. You cannot see France from space. If everyone's minds were wiped tonight and then we woke up tomorrow and got out of bed it would be as if France didn't exist. Beds would still exist. Food would still exist, our bodies, buildings, vehicles, etc.
Also the idea that only nation states are sovereign could be argued to be a combination of a benign constructive social conceit AND also a cognitive tool designed by elites to control the masses. Both of these things can be true at the same time. I'm not arguing that anarchy is a good thing. But something like it IS the natural state of affairs, physically speaking. And the only reason people tend to prefer something other than anarchy is when they see the relative benefits. But the alternatives to anarchy (families, tribes, cities, nations) are things we choose to do, we choose to engage in, and choose to go along with. Just as millions and perhaps billions of people choose to go along with the idea that France exists and is a sovereign entity. But let's never forget this is only true to the extent that enough (of the right) people want it to be true. And that can change.
The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue
Very few, if any, libertarians believe that "the world is comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors." Some consequentialist libertarians whose arguments for the libertarian position are rooted in economics might almost argue that, but deontological libertarians hold to libertarian principles because they believe that the initiation of force or fraud is simply immoral.
And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
> And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
But you don't see the good things done by government? And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government? See, this is the flaw I think a lot of mono-ideological folks have: the cherry picking of which good things to weigh most and/or which bad things to ignore. I personally resonate with a lot of libertarian positions. But I also resonate with a lot of socialist positions, and government-is-good positions. (I think) I'm pragmatic. I'd almost not trust someone who isn't pragmatic.
But you don't see the good things done by government?
Yes, and there's an important point about that... being opposed to "government" does not necessarily mean being opposed to all communal / collective action. It's just that governments are unique institutions in that they reserve for themselves a virtual monopoly on the use of force, and most of what they do is not optional. I believe that most of the good part of what comes from government as we know it today can be achieved through people choosing, voluntarily, to work together. The difference would be that the various communes and collectives that libertarians talk about, would not be able to mandate participation at the point of a gun barrel.
And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government?
I see certain individuals and/or businesses causing harm even in the face of government as we know it today. I'm not convinced that the situation would be considerably worse under a libertarian model, and - more to the point - I believe that freedom is it's own end, and justifies whatever negative consequences arise from it.
I guess it's hard to explain to anybody who isn't a libertarian, but people like us feel the whole "live free or die" thing, and just absolutely recoil at being denied the freedom to live without the constant interjection of coercive force / aggression into our lives. It's probably partly genetic or something...
Conservatives want more government when it comes to the military, the drug war, opposing abortion, restricting civil liberties (everything the ACLU does), "tough on crime" laws, immigration, Israel...
The day a believer in government realizes that he's voting in an elaborate charade where the Coke and Pepsi parties both deliver pretty much identical taxing, spending, and war making, and the ones who win every election are the politicians and government employees is the day the get a clue.
The true believers from all of the political philosophies are disappointed with the two party system, not just libertarians. I've heard similar Coke and Pepsi thoughts from socialists, environmentalists, anarchists, christian right, Tea Partiers, Ron Paul'ites, Ralph Nader'ites, etc.
The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy.
PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
> PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
I see this pattern in actual experience:
"PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with [crime-ridden, lack-of-self-control-prone] areas vs [peaceful, quiet, classy] areas in the same state."
First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.
If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.