Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#41

Post by tome »

cx01 wrote: post #38
tome wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. My point is that once the situation I described has been arrived at, there's no hope for Libland. Therefore, I presume, Libertarianism has a way to prevent the situation arising in the first place. What is it?

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support their own industry.

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#42

Post by cx01 »

mdasen wrote: post #5

So, I lean libertarian on many things. However, the problem I see with libertarianism is that it posits that people aren't that effected by those around them. Gay sex is fine because it's a personal decision - yeah, I totally agree. Taking on billions in risky loans that cause economic collapse is fine because it's a personal decision - I really disagree. I hate the idea of paternalism and as someone involved in the…

"Investing in risky stocks that destabilize the economy creating a panic that loses millions of jobs and causes enough chaos in my personal life: that's ok"

How can investing in stocks destabilize the economy? If I invest my money in stocks that aren't worth it, then I will lose my money but noone else. If my investment temporarily causes stocks to rise, and people therefore buy (hoping it goes higher), then it's obviously their fault and they too will lose their money. But if you don't invest in stocks, how can you be affected? The only way for this to happen is when government intervenes and takes money from taxpayers to bailout organizations that took too big risks.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#43

Post by seano »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #24
martythemaniak wrote: post #18

As an engineer and an ex-libertarian that managed to (thankfully) outgrow it, I have to say that what you describe isn't actually libertarianism as practised and understood by libertarians at large, but your own personal interpretation of it. Is is actually somewhat close to my current views and I would never call myself a libertarian, nor would libertarians call me one of them. You seem to believe in a weak central…

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated. The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc.…

Standing charge in the UK? Not sure where you get that idea - treatment with the National Health Service is free.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#44

Post by cx01 »

tome wrote: post #41
cx01 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support their own industry.

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#45

Post by tome »

gaius wrote: post #39
tome wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone in Libland be interested in the motives of its neighbour? Foreign policy and intelligence is normally the realm of a government. Who performs that role in Libland, and what is their incentive to do so?

Err, the government does. Perhaps you ought to go to Wikipedia and look up the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy?

Foreign policy is not mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Libertarianism.

How does a Libertarian system decide which roles (like researching the intentions of foreign states, and defending against them) a government should play, and which (like presumably researching the weather, and defending against natural disasters) it shouldn't?

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#46

Post by pelle »

tome wrote: post #27
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated. The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc.…

> This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per month) Do you have a reference for the "standing charge" in the UK? I've never heard of it.

I believe he's referring to National Insurance. But as far as I remember NI is the government pension scheme and not related to health insurance.

I can't remember if I had to show my NI card when going to the doctor when I was at university there.

Later on when I was working I normally paid for my own private doctors, due to my experience with the horrible NHS system during my student days.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#47

Post by parenthesis »

tome wrote: post #27
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated. The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc.…

> This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per month) Do you have a reference for the "standing charge" in the UK? I've never heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance#Class_2 ?

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#48

Post by tome »

cx01 wrote: post #44
tome wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.

My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing.

If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#49

Post by gravitycop »

cx01 wrote: post #42
mdasen wrote: post #5

So, I lean libertarian on many things. However, the problem I see with libertarianism is that it posits that people aren't that effected by those around them. Gay sex is fine because it's a personal decision - yeah, I totally agree. Taking on billions in risky loans that cause economic collapse is fine because it's a personal decision - I really disagree. I hate the idea of paternalism and as someone involved in the…

"Investing in risky stocks that destabilize the economy creating a panic that loses millions of jobs and causes enough chaos in my personal life: that's ok" How can investing in stocks destabilize the economy? If I invest my money in stocks that aren't worth it, then I will lose my money but noone else. If my investment temporarily causes stocks to rise, and people therefore buy (hoping it goes higher), then it's obv…

How can investing in stocks destabilize the economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_bubble#Positive_feedback

-

But if you don't invest in stocks, how can you be affected?

Market shocks affect the entire economy (through expanding and contracting credit, etc.). If one does a cannonball into a pool, how can it affect anyone else in the pool?

http://images.google.com/images?q=pool+cannonball

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#50

Post by gaius »

tome wrote: post #41
cx01 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support their own industry.

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

And it's not in the government's interests to do it either, if it would cost votes.
Post reply on HN