A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by llimllib » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:00 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #16

llimllib wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most libertarians I know today aren't so keen on things like pigovian taxes to correct differences between marginal social cost and marginal private cost. Which is weird! I've never understood why libertarians seem to discount external costs so deeply. I think there is a breed of libertarian that values them sanely, but that it's the less rabid sort that tends not to rant on the internet. I'd include Friedman and M…

> I've never understood why libertarians seem to discount external costs Most libertarians are aware that the Government meddles heavily in the economy, and everything bad about the economy that's blamed on capitalism wasn't a fair test b/c it wasn't actually laissez faire capitalism that was tested. There is no good reason to expect external cost problem to be worse under a genuinely free market than they are now. S…

> And anyway, what do you expect libertarians to say about it? Either one can say that Government is the answer, or isn't.

Ah, we've pinpointed the nonsense! I'll leave you with some words from Milton Friedman on the New Deal:

> The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery … providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support. (…) Because it was a very exceptional circumstance. We'd gotten into an extraordinarily difficult situation, unprecedented in the nation's history. You had millions of people out of work. Something had to be done; it was intolerable. And it was a case in which, unlike most cases, the short run deserved to dominate.

With the point being, sometimes government is necessary and sometimes it's not. It's not an all-or-nothing endeavour.

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

#72

Post by cx01 » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:02 PM UTC

gravitycop wrote: post #69

cx01 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will keep reserves big enough, so that they last long enough to rebuild their national food industry. Or as I said earlier they might continue buying domestic products in order to keep that industry alive. Even if most people neglect the risk, there will probably be individuals who keep operating food industries (even at a loss) in hope that in the resulting war they might make huge profits.

People will keep reserves big enough How big are your food reserves that you have on hand right now? One year? Two years? Ten years? http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg You don't tell your neighbors about it, do you? They might say, "Oh, I don't need to store any food. I'll just go over to cx01's house and eat his food." What would your neighbors think if you told them in advance that they couldn't…

My arguments should be understood in the context of tome's posts, not regarding my current situation.

Personally I don't keep reserves because there's no risk of war (at least I think so). If there was war and I had reserves, then libertarian ethics would allow me to defend my reserves (with force).

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

#73

Post by gravitycop » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:10 PM UTC

cx01 wrote: post #72

gravitycop wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will keep reserves big enough How big are your food reserves that you have on hand right now? One year? Two years? Ten years? http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg You don't tell your neighbors about it, do you? They might say, "Oh, I don't need to store any food. I'll just go over to cx01's house and eat his food." What would your neighbors think if you told them in advance that they couldn't…

My arguments should be understood in the context of tome's posts, not regarding my current situation. Personally I don't keep reserves because there's no risk of war (at least I think so). If there was war and I had reserves, then libertarian ethics would allow me to defend my reserves (with force).

The context of Tome's posts is that the war risk is secret. Why would another nation think that it had a good chance of successfully invading a nation that was prepared for such an invasion? Did Germany decide to invade France because the former figured the latter new well in advance of, and was well prepared for, the invasion plans?

The nation that does not prepare for war, is at risk for war. If you personally do not have any food stored, and you and I live in the same nation, it puts me personally at risk of war.

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

#74

Post by cx01 » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:12 PM UTC

gravitycop wrote: post #73

cx01 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My arguments should be understood in the context of tome's posts, not regarding my current situation. Personally I don't keep reserves because there's no risk of war (at least I think so). If there was war and I had reserves, then libertarian ethics would allow me to defend my reserves (with force).

The context of Tome's posts is that the war risk is secret. Why would another nation think that it had a good chance of successfully invading a nation that was prepared for such an invasion? Did Germany decide to invade France because the former figured the latter new well in advance of, and was well prepared for, the invasion plans? The nation that does not prepare for war, is at risk for war. If you personally do n…

If war risk is secret then a government won't help and that's what we're debating about.

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

#75

Post by gaius » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:12 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #67

gaius wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians act in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term. That's one of the key differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists. A Libertarian might stand up and say, look, our neighbours our hostile, I really think we ought to stockpile food, and if people are convinced (because it's true) then they'll do it. But the government will not say "w…

And how do Libertarians ensure that those they share a state with act "in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term" in the particular cases where that may be non-rational?

They can't. That's the flaw. You basically have to start again with a bunch of Libertarians who raise their kids Libertarian (this is the easy bit) without it descending into a cult (this is the hard part).

The problem with retrofitting it is unless you already have the no-coercion culture and infrastructure in place, too many people acting in their personal short-term self-interest find coercion easier. Which doesn't mean mugging people in the street; it's as mild as "my vote for your handouts of their money".

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

#76

Post by veritaze » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:38 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #58

cx01 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can e…

If Libland did not have the capacity to generate Food, I would think Liblanders would have unique and unusual ways of being resourceful with Food and its storage, knowing full well that they are dependent on Xia for it. Canning, freeze-drying and other methods of preservation would probably be innovated to an extreme in this massively unrealistic metaphorical Libland.

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

#77

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:40 PM UTC

veritaze wrote: post #76

tome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can e…

If Libland did not have the capacity to generate Food, I would think Liblanders would have unique and unusual ways of being resourceful with Food and its storage, knowing full well that they are dependent on Xia for it. Canning, freeze-drying and other methods of preservation would probably be innovated to an extreme in this massively unrealistic metaphorical Libland.

What's the incentive for them to innovate that?

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

#78

Post by veritaze » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:48 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #77

veritaze wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Libland did not have the capacity to generate Food, I would think Liblanders would have unique and unusual ways of being resourceful with Food and its storage, knowing full well that they are dependent on Xia for it. Canning, freeze-drying and other methods of preservation would probably be innovated to an extreme in this massively unrealistic metaphorical Libland.

What's the incentive for them to innovate that?

Survival.

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

#79

Post by smydsmyd » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:50 PM UTC

Just because you lack the ability to understand economics, systemic effects, human nature, sociology, business, doesn't mean you opinion on a "simpler" system is really valid.

People side with libertarianism because it sounds good, but haven't reasoned through the side effects. If you thought for just 15 minutes on what people would under libertarianism would do, you'd realize it just won't work.

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

#80

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 3:53 PM UTC

veritaze wrote: post #78

tome wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the incentive for them to innovate that?

Survival.

As a collective, yes. But what's the incentive for any one individual to attempt to innovate, especially given the high chance of his attempt failing? He might as well just wait for someone else to innovate.

Indeed everyone else will wait for someone else. Prisoner's Dilemma. Oops.