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

Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 231 posts

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#51

Post by mbetter »

snitko wrote: post #47
timr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" I'm trying not to violate rule #1 of the internet ("never argue with an internet libertarian"), but you're making a classic Nerd Error: if you have to say the words "you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" , you've already lost the war. Politics are not about log…

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

> why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian?

Every time I argue with a libertarian, it's an endless series of "No True Scotsman" arguments.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#52

Post by timr »

snitko wrote: post #47
timr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" I'm trying not to violate rule #1 of the internet ("never argue with an internet libertarian"), but you're making a classic Nerd Error: if you have to say the words "you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" , you've already lost the war. Politics are not about log…

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

(...let's be clear that I'm not calling libertarians pigs. The point is that you can't change a dedicated person's mind via argument, and neither I nor Shaw found the effort enjoyable or productive.)

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#53

Post by snitko »

ericHosick wrote: post #50
snitko wrote: post #33

What makes me sad is that a lot of people, even here, discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says. In comments to this post "thesagan" wrote that some of his ideas are "batshit crazy" as if his ideology is composed of many different unrelated parts. Not true, Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking…

Most people seem to have good intentions but good intentions don't always lead to good results. The intentions of laws with compulsory fees (taxation) and compulsory who marries who are based on good intentions (in the minds of those who create them). In both cases, these good intentions are based on theft of basic rights. But, in the long term, how can you make society better off when your core beliefs are based on…

Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it cannot be a good solution. It is inconceivable how people hate monopolies when it comes to things like smartphones, airlines or even shoes, but when it comes to their own protection the monopoly is taken for granted.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#54

Post by snitko »

timr wrote: post #52
snitko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw (...let's be clear that I'm not calling libertarians pigs. The point is that you can't change a dedicated person's mind via argument, and neither I nor Shaw found the effort enjoyable or productive.)

Ok, sure. Let's not argue then. I have a question though (and it's not intended to spark an argument), I'm just curious to know, how and why do you think people become libertarians?

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#55

Post by cpeterso »

astrodust wrote: post #35
smokeyj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone hates him. He's too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservatives.

Don't confuse "Libertarian" with "liberal".

Don't confuse classical liberalism with American liberalism.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#56

Post by w1ntermute »

timr wrote: post #41
snitko wrote: post #33

What makes me sad is that a lot of people, even here, discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says. In comments to this post "thesagan" wrote that some of his ideas are "batshit crazy" as if his ideology is composed of many different unrelated parts. Not true, Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking…

"Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" I'm trying not to violate rule #1 of the internet ("never argue with an internet libertarian"), but you're making a classic Nerd Error: if you have to say the words "you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" , you've already lost the war. Politics are not about log…

Yeah, the problem is that "study it out" is not a valid response, in practical terms, to someone saying your political ideas are stupid. Most people will never bother. Being able to understand this and be "flexible" (read: inconsistent) is what makes a person a good politician.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#57

Post by dstorrs »

snitko wrote: post #38
astrodust wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions. I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too eas…

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind:

- City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, that the equipment is clean, etc. In a libertarian world (at least, certain versions of one) this practice would not exist. Now think what happens when a Monsanto executive realizes that paying the occasional legal suit is cheaper than keeping their packing plants clean and disease-free.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#58

Post by scarmig »

snitko wrote: post #47
timr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" I'm trying not to violate rule #1 of the internet ("never argue with an internet libertarian"), but you're making a classic Nerd Error: if you have to say the words "you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework" , you've already lost the war. Politics are not about log…

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument.

There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers of violence in a given geographic area, or a monopoly? Both can be Pareto-efficient, so that provides no guidance.

Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value. Competing suppliers, however, have no such incentive: if one cultivates a client, there's no reason for the others not to swoop in and extract the surplus. It's a race to the economic bottom. If economic well-being and surplus are good, then having a competitive market in violence is bad.

Okay, so we have a monopoly supplier of violence. What then, though? How do we structure it internally? Well, the way it arises will be the way it's structured, regardless of what we might like in an imaginary world. And that will be some group of agents who have to negotiate contracts with each other and with the customers who are exchanging labor in exchange for violence.

What remains is squeezing out the information and liquidity gaps that make every market inefficient. People should have a clear set of rules that they can assume will be okay with the monopoly violence supplier: then they will not miscalculate when they do something thinking it will not cause violent reprisals. That's what we call rule of law.

That says nothing about what the contract is, though: it may be "everyone pays a flat fee," it may be commission based, it may be commission based on a sliding scale. Who should decide that? Well, you ultimately don't want internal factions to splinter off to compete with the original monopoly (after all, we like the monopoly! At least at the margins.) So you've got to set up an corporate structure where no large enough group of customers feel that they could have a better deal with another supplier in the market. Everyone needs equal input.

We've tended to solve that problem with majority vote.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#59

Post by ericHosick »

snitko wrote: post #53
ericHosick wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people seem to have good intentions but good intentions don't always lead to good results. The intentions of laws with compulsory fees (taxation) and compulsory who marries who are based on good intentions (in the minds of those who create them). In both cases, these good intentions are based on theft of basic rights. But, in the long term, how can you make society better off when your core beliefs are based on…

Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it canno…

Non-aggression is not no-aggression. To summarize, using my understanding, is that it is unlawful to "aggress" someone until they "aggress" you. Many cultures are based on this concept.

NAP allows for "retaliatory violence" (had aggression but as pointed out below is not the correct usage of the word aggression).

One of the difficulties, as you point out, comes when people don't realize that they are aggressing others. An example being when they attempt to limit who can get married to who (whom?).

Again, there are good intentions behind such aggression (limit the right to use marijuana to protect children) but the results of aggression seem to always lead to more aggression (creation of an illegal drug black market leading to instability in Mexico).

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#60

Post by snitko »

dstorrs wrote: post #57
snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind: - City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, t…

When you tackle a certain problem and try to apply a libertarian framework to it, odds are you have to check if it's an implicit monopoly that you're dealing with and go from there.

In your particular example you're dealing with a city government monopoly for health inspection. It's not free and is paid by citizens in the form of taxes. If there was no government and citizens believed it is in their interest to have such an inspection, surely you'd have at least one, but possibly two or more competing with each other and financed by consumers voluntarily. When you have a government, what you have is a monopoly which is, apart from all other evils of monopoly, much more vulnerable to corruption. If a government official is bribed and it is revealed, he may go to jail, but the agency itself stays in business. Which means it has almost no incentive whatsoever to prevent corruption among its employees.

Finally, government doesn't really ask people if they need such an inspection after all and if yes, how thorough the inspectors should be: maybe businesses in this town are exceptionally honest, or maybe, on the other hand, they are exceptionally sloppy. So what you have with a government in place is a monopoly which business operations are based not on the actual demand for its services, but rather on some metrics that government officials came up with, which may or may not be useful.

Post reply on HN