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

161–170 of 181 posts

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

#161

Post by sfg »

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…

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line"

Massive French government fortification program designed to protect their borders with Germany and Italy.

France knew perfectly well that the Germans were a clear and present danger. They just could not do anything about it - despite having that great protector: government military.

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

#162

Post by sfg »

gaius wrote: post #98
tome wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hypothesis is extreme and doesn't necessarily correspond with the real world, but proposing it and modifying it as others come up with criticisms is one pedagogical tool I would like to apply in this situation. To answer your points: * yes, Libland could buy Food from alternative sources. To extend the discussion I would need to adjust my hypothesis. * no, the other states would not come to Libland's aid. If they…

But the other states don't matter! If Libertarian country A is in trouble (from an aggressor, not of its own doing) and free citizens from Libertarian country B want to get involved, they are free to do so. It's none of B's government's business! It would not even occur to a Libertarian that he or she might require the government's permission . Tho' given that the Libertarian value is long-term freedom, it's unlikely…

Indeed, people do go abroad(independently of government decree) to fight for causes they believe in. Just look at the Spanish civil war.

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

#163

Post by gravitycop »

grandalf wrote: post #159
cchooper wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This was your original point. Let's stay on track. Your claim that regulators decide how big Citibank's reserves should be is false. They set a minimum, not a maximum. You then tried to draw an analogy between speeding and regulation,…

I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. Do you ever drive in an area with ice on the roads? I recommend that you observe the phenomenon before you dismiss it. I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. Reserve requirements are a good example of this effect. Industry lobbyists try very hard to have the limit decreased while benefiting…

regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks.

We have a name for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. Another way of stating this is that individuals will behave less cautiously in situations where they feel "safer" or more protected.

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

#164

Post by grandalf »

gravitycop wrote: post #163
grandalf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. Do you ever drive in an area with ice on the roads? I recommend that you observe the phenomenon before you dismiss it. I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. Reserve requirements are a good example of this effect. Industry lobbyists try very hard to have the limit decreased while benefiting…

regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. We have a name for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. Anoth…

Thanks for the link. I thought I'd invented it :)

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

#165

Post by ohxten »

russell wrote: post #106
ajmoir wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One option is charity. Keep in mind that the government pulls in $1.2 trillion from personal income taxes per year (ironically enough, that's the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package).

Anyway, in a libertarian USA, most if not all of that $1.2 trillion would stay in the hands of the people; that fact, along with a few other libertarian ideals, would mean a more prosperous people.

A more prosperous people, with the knowledge that the government no longer provides inefficient health care to others with their hard-earned money means... you guessed it. Also, a libertarian USA would mean cheaper /everything/ (including health care) because of the Austrian economic, free-market principles.

I truly believe it. I've got some excellent ideas based around for-profit charities. Imagine famous, fancy restaraunts situated in the big cities. The bottom floor sells wonderful food to the celebrities and rich folks. The rest of the building houses and feeds homeless people. Of course, it doesn't even have to be a fancy restaraunt, and it doesn't have to house homeless people.

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

#166

Post by ohxten »

lallysingh wrote: post #90

This brings up my key critiques of libertarianism. First, libertarians seem to enjoy attacking other political parties specific positions while taking only a rhetorical one themselves. This feeds into #2: Second, until the libertarian party actually puts together a platform, they aren't a real party. The reason's simple: first, nobody can tell what they're really voting for in terms of deltas to the legal codebase, a…

Ron Paul, IMO, has shown there doesn't need to be a separate party. Ron Paul is a libertarian in many ways and yet he's been a Republican congressman since 1976, save for the few years in between that he went back to practicing OBGYN.

He actually ran for President as a Republican in 2008.

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

#167

Post by ohxten »

netcan wrote: post #128

I think it is important to look at what I see as the two main sides of 'libertarianism'. -The Moral Argument- Libertarianism is about rights & opposing coercion. Other people & by extension governments should stay out of other people's business. Don't tell me where to work or what to do. Don't tell me to wear a seatbelt. Mostly that works fine -The Economic Argument- There is the second argument that (when it being c…

> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state.

I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the /federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is arguably an inefficient system caused by bad government policies.

I'm a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. If it ain't in the Constitution, it's for the states to decide. If the people of a state want welfare, they'll vote someone in who will give it to them; whoever opposes can move to another state. 50 different implementation possibilities for everything. That's freedom.

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

#168

Post by ohxten »

davidmathers wrote: post #116

"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…

> 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 plan is simple: education. Libertarianism is so unconventional you'll be lucky to hear the media bring it up once or twice a year. Ron Paul (probably not a "pure" libertarian, but pretty close) is starting to change this with his huge grassroots following.

I'd venture to say 98% of Americans have never heard of libertarianism, and if they have, they simply dismissed the ideas as illogical, without actually researching the ideas. This needs to change.

The people ultimately decide who gets into Congress and who gets elected President. Once the people are educated and accept the ideas of libertarianism, it's cake.

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

#169

Post by ohxten »

baddox wrote: post #83

As someone who generally considers myself libertarian, yet admittedly doesn't fully understand all the philosophies and intricacies of it yet, I enjoyed this read. I have a question about your marijuana comment: can you point me to a good read about a consistent libertarian drug policy? I'm certainly for legalizing marijuana simply because alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous, but for more dangerous drugs it's…

There is a real-world example against prohibition of narcotics, and that is prohibition of alcohol. It did not work. Billions are spent on the War on Drugs, and yet it's clear that it's easier than ever to get drugs on the street. Posession of marijuana is the number one most committed crime.

The point you made at the end is essentially the argument for why legalization of drugs will solve a lot of problems. Competition will bring in ligitimate sellers (as in the alcohol industry) and get rid of all of the crime that comes from the local dealers who "own" street corners.

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

#170

Post by gravitycop »

ohxten wrote: post #165
russell wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One option is charity. Keep in mind that the government pulls in $1.2 trillion from personal income taxes per year (ironically enough, that's the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package). Anyway, in a libertarian USA, most if not all of that $1.2 trillion would stay in the hands of the people; that fact, along with a few other libertarian ideals, would mean a more prosperous people. A more prosperous people, with t…

in a libertarian USA, most if not all of that $1.2 trillion would stay in the hands of the people

Including $11 billion that would otherwise have been spent on tax collection.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/treasury.html

Post reply on HN