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

11–20 of 181 posts

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

#11

Post by llimllib »

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…

> 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 Megan McArdle in this group.

I don't agree about valuing happiness instead of freedom, though. It's shouldn't be the government's job to worry about how happy you are, it should be government's job to make sure you're free to pursue happiness should you so choose.

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

#12

Post by llimllib »

greendestiny wrote: post #6

Actually in most cases libertarianism is simply the position of arguing that the Government is causing whatever problem happens to be being discussed at the time. Unfortunately the idea of libertarianism isn't against regulation is a bit of a fantasy, because no matter what, someone can and will take the more extreme position against regulation and this person will be seen as more libertarian. I think ideologies are…

> Actually in most cases libertarianism is simply the position of arguing that the Government is causing whatever problem happens to be being discussed at the time

s/libertarianism/internet "libertarianism"

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

#13

Post by ckinnan »

johngunderman wrote: post #10
greendestiny wrote: post #6

Actually in most cases libertarianism is simply the position of arguing that the Government is causing whatever problem happens to be being discussed at the time. Unfortunately the idea of libertarianism isn't against regulation is a bit of a fantasy, because no matter what, someone can and will take the more extreme position against regulation and this person will be seen as more libertarian. I think ideologies are…

which is exactly why no ideology should be taken to an extreme. You end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

On the whole, the Founding Fathers were extremists for liberty. They were quite radical, by the standard of their day and certainly by today's standards.

Extreme liberty == Articles of Confederation (the first failed U.S. government, wasn't strong enough) versus extreme national socialism == 10s of millions dead.

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

#14

Post by anthonyrubin »

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…

You need to break these problems down further.

Let's take Citibank.

The government is involved in changing behavior right from the inception of a corporation. It is called limited liability. We as a society accept this as we believe it encourages people to take more risks. It used to be that a corporate charter could be revoked if it were decided that the company was somehow harmful to the public. I am unaware of the last time this has actually occurred.

The government also encouraged risky behavior through GSEs (Freddie and Fannie). There was an implication that the government would take care of things when they went bad.

I personally believe that all of these problems are exacerbated by large public companies. Other than the possibility of having to find another job there is generally little risk in performing poorly or even maliciously at an individual level. Those at the top likely make enough money to survive a lifetime if they were fired tomorrow.

Now let's shift to the issue of energy.

Every drop of fuel you put in your vehicle is subsidized by the government. We spend trillions of dollars to fight wars in order to secure energy resources. These costs are externalized through taxes and it is thus feasible to drive vehicles which are not fuel efficient.

I have only scratched the surface on these two issues. I'm not advocating abolishing all regulation and government institutions. I do wish for more discussion which considers the effects that the government has on society. As the original poster alluded to, good intentions are not enough.

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

#16

Post by xenophanes »

llimllib wrote: post #11
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…

> 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. So libertarians needn't say much about the issue.

And anyway, what do you expect libertarians to say about it? Either one can say that Government is the answer, or isn't. Libertarians are exactly the people who have knowledge about why Government is bad at solving problems, so they are the last people you'd expect to want the Government trying to solve this one.

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

#18

Post by martythemaniak »

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 government and strong state governments that try new approaches and get shit done. This is nice, except most libertarians believe in weak governments in all levels of government. No, not a government that works as well, not an efficient government, but a minimal government.

As an example, take the health care debate. Compared to some european countries with good healthcare systems, the US spends substantially more (~15% vs ~9% of GDP) covers substantially fewer people (the millions without coverage) and the overall health of the population is poorer. By nearly all objective measures, a good public system is much better than an all-private system and yet, we know this is not compatible with libertarian ideology - you will have to search far and wide to find a libertarian group that supports a public healthcare system.

Like I mentioned above, the libertarian ideology is one of minimal government, which is sometimes, but not always the best type of government. This is why libertarianism relies on simplistic catch-allisms (government=bad, regulation=bad, private-good) and parodies of reality like Atlas Shrugged and other Ayn Rand fiction-pseudo-philosophy writings and not your idealistic "engineering and scientific assessment of reality" idea.

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

#19

Post by ellyagg »

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…

Your discussion of health care systems is simplistic. For example, the US system has a track record of innovation and there are very good reasons that some non-US populations have higher average health that are completely unrelated to health care.

While I'm not a libertarian, libertarians don't encourage small government just to hear themselves speak. If one doesn't err on the side of limiting government, you tend to get one useless bailout bill after another as people with power, but not much more brains than yourself, frantically fling money around trying to solve problems they don't really understand. Unfortunately, it's not play money.

Post reply on HN