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

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

#101

Post by psykotic » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 7:24 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #60

tome wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes as I said in the other post, the self employed pay class 2 and class 4 NI contributions: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nic/background-nic.htm The rates are here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm If you earn below 5715 per year you only pay class 2 NI contributions, which is 2.4 pounds per week. [edit] I forgot to mention that you can apply to be exempted from class 2 NI altogether. I didn't do that because 2.4 pound…

My understanding is that income tax as well as NIC contributions go towards funding the NHS. Anyone is eligible for NHS treatment, even foreigners, so it seems inaccurate to say that your contribution to the NIC is what pays for your health care.

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

#102

Post by psykotic » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 7:29 PM UTC

llimllib wrote: post #4

darjen wrote: post #2

I'd recommend reading some Murray Rothbard before anything by Milton Friedman or Rand. It's even free online here: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Rand is not a libertarian.

And arguably neither is Rothbard, who is much closer in his view on ethics to Rand than to von Mises.

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

#103

Post by natmaster » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 7:45 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #96

natmaster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism is all about distributing power, instead of consolidating in. This results in less violations of individual liberty (you don't have governments stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, or corporations polluting the land the poorer live on, or large media conglomerates effectively brainwashing people into submission). This results in mostly and increase in prosperity for the poorer folks, while th…

I admire the desired outcome (and that of Shimrod in a different reply), but I'm skeptical because of the history of inequality that capitalism has manifested, which has only increased with the liberalisation of markets. It may be possible to successfully argue, as you and Shimrod do, that inequality is, in significant part, because of rather than in spite of the government. I'd rather like to see such an argument. A…

Please show me this capitalist country so I can move there.

It is true, Libertarianism does not focus on decreasing inequality - at least not in the sense of absolute privilege, because it is a meritocracy - Libertarianism does, however, focus on decreasing inequality of opportunity. If you decide to slack off like the cricket during the summer - your fault. But you learn, that maybe next time you should work, instead of getting bailed out and then noone has incentive to ever do any real work. This is why communism failed. The truth is, that if you want people to not go hungry, and live prosperously, the only way to do that is to craft the game, such that the Nash equilibrium is beneficial, rather than harmful. And yes, there are some people incapable of taking care of themselves - they might be handicapped, or get in a car accident - however, in a society of prosperity and freedom, people will have enough extra, and not be afraid of everyone trying to steal what they have, that charity will increase. So, first, you decrease the poor population to a size that is pretty much as small as theoretically possible, and then those people are taken care of by the abundance of all others. I mean, if you had $1million dollars, and you didn't have the government trying to take it all the time, would you really pass up helping out those in need? The reality is, that there will always be poor people, and history has shown that socialism certainly does not solve that problem (the more socialist countries have more poor people). If you claim the US is a capitalist system, well it might be compared to some other countries, but then again, we are more prosperous compared to those countries as well.

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

#104

Post by homme » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 8:13 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #45

gaius wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Moreover, how does it morally confiscate wealth to finance programs from those inhabitants that don't want to pay for said activities?

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

#105

Post by msluyter » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 8:54 PM UTC

metaguri wrote: post #25

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…

Thank you for this. I think that the field of game theory, and as the most simplistic example, the prisoner's dilemma, shows that libertarianism, as defined by the idea that individuals acting in their own self-interest will create the greatest common benefit, is flawed. Specifically, this will limit the benefit of each individual as well as the aggregate. Individuals acting in their own self-interests categorically…

To your example I would add the "Tragedy of the Commons":

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

The tragedy of the commons demonstrates that with certain shared resources, when everyone freely pursues their rational self interest not only is utility not maximized, sometimes the result is catastrophic.

Libertarian solutions to the tragedy of the commons usually involve attempted parcelization and privatization of existing commons, and while that's practical in certain cases, in many others -- fishing grounds, air quality, global warming, etc... -- it is not.

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

#106

Post by russell » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:25 PM UTC

ajmoir wrote: post #26

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…

How much time did you spend in Europe to get the idea that the health care systems are good? Having lived there for 25+ years and now 10+ in the US I can discern no difference. Both systems are broken with a capital F. I consider myself a libertarian so I would love to see a simple health care option e.g. provides low level emergency care, low level preventative measures. So you get a busted bone set, colds/infection…

Thank you ajmoir. So what do I do? I have diabetes and a couple of heart attacks in my history. I can't get health insurance now or under your system. If I have another my choices are die, go bankrupt, or live in poverty for the rest of my life. Thanks a bunch.

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

#107

Post by mindviews » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:37 PM UTC

Shimrod wrote: post #85

metaguri wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this. I think that the field of game theory, and as the most simplistic example, the prisoner's dilemma, shows that libertarianism, as defined by the idea that individuals acting in their own self-interest will create the greatest common benefit, is flawed. Specifically, this will limit the benefit of each individual as well as the aggregate. Individuals acting in their own self-interests categorically…

Society is more akin to an iterated prisoner's dilemma: the same game, but played lots of times. In that situation, the ideal strategy is actually to cooperate.

This is a more important point that I think most people realize. The classic "flaw" in Libertarian thinking (both among self-described Libertarians and those who criticize it) is neglecting higher-order effects. The prisoner's dilemma is a perfect example of this. The game played once is very different from the game played repeatedly. You'll find the same sort of differences in numerous other game-theoretic situations.

Unfortunately, most supporters of Libertarian policies only get to the first-order implementation and then stop and are rightly criticized for the limitations and flaws that result. All of the complexities of higher-order effects are neglected, but those are the parts that actually make the theory workable in the real world.

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

#108

Post by russell » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:39 PM UTC

So what is the libertarian position on monopolies, oligarchies, and antitrust? What do libertarians do when individual corporations have so much power that they distort the market? What do they do when the corporate self interest is contrary to society's interest?

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

#109

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:42 PM UTC

metaguri wrote: post #25

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…

Thank you for this. I think that the field of game theory, and as the most simplistic example, the prisoner's dilemma, shows that libertarianism, as defined by the idea that individuals acting in their own self-interest will create the greatest common benefit, is flawed. Specifically, this will limit the benefit of each individual as well as the aggregate. Individuals acting in their own self-interests categorically…

When you cross the street at a traffic light, do you look at the color of the light and immediately propel yourself into the intersection? Or do you take a few seconds to glance from left to right to make sure that there isn't a vehicle careening toward you?

My guess is that you double check the government when it comes to your personal safety. So why should anyone believe automatically that just because the SEC exists, any investment bank will be a safe bet and act in precisely the way it ought to?

Any firm is prone to conflicts of interest, fraud, deception, lack of transparency, etc. Investment banks are no different.

It's a reality of life that sometimes people/groups will try to defraud/deceive others. Self-interest (being symmetric) offers a backstop against this, UNLESS regulation gets in the way.

The analogy I'd use is this? SEC regulations on iBanks were as effective as a paper seatbelt. In other words, not effective at all. What did the SEC spend last year doing while the financial meltdown was brewing? It shut down prosper.com!

You may think that it's optimal to declare that everyone should put on a paper seatbelt and that when things get bad just do a bailout, but libertarians would prefer to let people make decisions based on facts the whole time.

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

#110

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:50 PM UTC

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…

I think the meat of your comment is in the story about how Citibank's failure makes it harder for you to find a job.

First, note that if it weren't for regulators deciding on the amount of reserve capital Citibank was required to hold, the market would probably have demanded that it hold much more. For a long time iBanks have been benefiting from the Fed's power to bail them out. Unlike banks, whose asymmetric liquidity is due to customer deposits, iBanks are risk-taking businesses who are just trying to make people rich. If Yahoo can fail, why not Citibank?

So you were actually a temporary beneficiary of SEC and Fed policies that led to the over-leveraging of Citibank's capital and your previous ease at finding a job. Your major life decisions were perhaps influenced by this false sense of reality.

On to your thoughts on happiness: Would people be happier if they weren't allowed to eat junk food? What about if they weren't allowed to drop out of college? What about if they believed in a specific version of the Christian God? What if they wore an American flag arm band at all times in public?

It's highly subjective what makes people happiest. I personally don't want anyone telling me what will make me happiest.