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

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

#111

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:52 PM UTC

msluyter wrote: post #105

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…

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 comm…

Libertarians do not oppose this stuff, they merely want to consider other approaches. I think pollution can be dealt with purely from a property rights framework, not a greater good framework.

Again, this is a low priority issue, and the thing to look out for is when planners try to use the 'greater good of all' to give handouts to special interests, as has been overwhelmingly the case with eminent domain lawsuits around the country.

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

#112

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:55 PM UTC

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…

You seem to be getting caught up in the most extreme version of libertarianism.

Consider this: If more big problems were solved in various ways at the state level, there would be COMPETITION and government might be BIGGER in some areas and SMALLER in others.

My guess is that in many cases it would be smaller if there were more competition between regulatory ideas/approaches, but this is probably not going to be the case in every area.

Libertarians don't believe in small government at all cost, only that government should be put under competitive pressure so that it's as minimal and efficient as possible, and so that there are not perverse incentives and special interest entrenchment created.

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

#113

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 9:59 PM UTC

johngunderman wrote: post #7

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…

When it comes to it, I think Libertarianism goes hand in hand with a sort of weighing principle. It only works as long as the actions taken do not infringe on any other individual's rights. Of course, this is impossible to always follow (rights will always conflict), so in steps the weighing principle to encourage people to act towards the perceived greater good of society. The real question that libertarianism bring…

Libertarians generally tend toward a property rights framework to handle things like this, as opposed to a "greater good" framework.

In other words, if you put toxic waste on your property, that's fine UNLESS it leaks onto someone else's property. So there is no need to open the discussion of how pollution impacts the greater good, because polluters just can't harm the neighbours' good!

The perverse incentive for planners to identify the "greater good" is the same as the way priests and religious leaders do so -- and they are likely to shake their finger just as judgementally.

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

#114

Post by grandalf » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 10:01 PM UTC

mindviews wrote: post #107

Shimrod wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 situation…

I don't think you offer any evidence to support your point.

I'd argue the opposite, that a big, opaque regulatory state is the perfect environment for corruption.

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

#115

Post by ced » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 10:02 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.

Cooperation only happens when you iterate every time in a one-on-one fashion with the same players over and over again. For example: the relationship with your local grocer, who has a reputation to build. But it is the wrong metaphor for most real issues in social policy. Pollution is a tragedy of the commons problem.

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

#116

Post by davidmathers » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 10:45 PM UTC

"Zed's argument was essentially this"

grandalf, I think you missed one of Zed's main points. Here's a more entertaining, less rambling, version from Belle Waring:

http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_...

In the real world there are large, extemely powerful, centralized power structures. And they don't plan to go away, only to become more powerful. If your libertarian politics doesn't include an actual plan to diminish the power of these centralized social organizations that want to control people's lives then it's not politics, it's fantasy.

The 'A' is not really 'B' the way I define 'B' in my fantasy world argument is used by idealists of every stripe. Ask any Marxist about the Soviet Union.

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

#117

Post by drinian » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 11:01 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #110

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 liquid…

I have serious trouble believing that "the market" would have led to Citi keeping larger amounts of reserve capital around. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was the banks pressuring the government to let them hold less in reserve.

I am registered Libertarian, as I believe in marketizing problems whenever possible; however, the markets must be set up correctly to be truly free, and only the government can do that.

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

#118

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 11:07 PM UTC

psykotic wrote: post #101

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say that and I really don't know how much of the NHS is being paid for by NI contributions.

The point is that in the UK you pay according to your actual profit wheras in other european countries you pay a lot starting on the day you register your business.

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

#119

Post by cchooper » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 11:18 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #110

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 liquid…

Regulation sets a minimum reserve, not a maximum one.

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

#120

Post by jamesbritt » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 11:44 PM UTC

msluyter wrote: post #105

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…

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 comm…

Counterpoint to "Tragedy of the Commons":

http://links.org.au/node/595