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

81–90 of 181 posts

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

#81

Post by dgabriel »

ckinnan wrote: post #8

Social Security taxes are actually a rather large 12.4% of income. (this includes the employer contribution, which is economically part of a worker's compensation.) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html Worker "contributions" also are immediately spent on unrelated programs (the trust fund is given special government IOUs that are valueless) leaving an unfunded liability in the trillions of dollars. On a cas…

Boomers have already started retiring. The first wave became eligible in 2007. Perhaps you mean the peak?

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

#82

Post by veritaze »

tome wrote: post #80
veritaze wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survival.

As a collective, yes. But what's the incentive for any one individual to attempt to innovate, especially given the high chance of his attempt failing? He might as well just wait for someone else to innovate. Indeed everyone else will wait for someone else. Prisoner's Dilemma. Oops.

If that individual has progeny to nurture and protect, I would think that individual would take measures to innovate methods to do so, including grouping together with other individuals with common goals. Even if he or she didn't, the survival instinct would still persist. If that grouping no longer serves those inviduals, then they would likely want to disband it, especially if there were a sub-group of parasitic individuals within it that existed simply to maintain that group if that was their only method of survival.

If you're going to cop out with intellectual laziness rather than provide your own opinions and observations, I think I am justified in referring to someone else's work on this topic who has addressed everything you are anemically trying to assert: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/why_govt_doesnt_work....

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

#83

Post by baddox »

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 a bit harder to argue for legalizations. However, while I haven't completely formed my opinion on drug policy, I tend to think that every drug SHOULD be legalized, and that doing so wouldn't harm society much. I can't really back up my opinion yet, other than by listing these two points: 1) We are allowed to do things like climb mountains and drive cars, given a certain amount of training and/or a test, not to mention eat whatever we want and refuse to exercise, even though all these are objectively shown to be rather dangerous. 2) I personally would not start trying all the dangerous drugs were they suddenly legalized, so I suspect reasonably wise educated people also would not, and there would not be some huge decay of society just by legalizing drugs. In fact, I have no research to back me up, but I tend to think legalization (which really is just decriminalization since we all know drugs are quite available and common) would introduce competition, drive the prices of drugs down, probably make drugs more safe (i.e. not mixed with other, worse substances), and remove the association of drugs with slums/high-crime areas. I welcome more educated libertarians to comment on my ideas and educate me more fully.

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

#84

Post by baddox »

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 didn't read your entire comment, but as for personal financial decisions ruining the economy, I don't think this would happen in a free/more free market economy where the idea of market failure was allowed to take place. Federal bailouts are what expand bubbles and cause them to be worse later. If a bank knew for sure it would fail if it took on such risky loans, rather than just being bought out by a larger bank or paid off by the government, they would probably choose a more rational lending policy.

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

#85

Post by Shimrod »

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…

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.

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

#86

Post by baddox »

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…

I don't think "weak" and "minimal" should be used interchangeably. MY personal beliefs, which I generally describe as libertarian (though I admittedly don't know, understand, or agree with ALL beliefs that may be called libertarian), are that a government should be very strong and able to do WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO. I use the term libertarian simply to mean prioritizing personal liberty. A government should be able to protect your liberties, and should perform that task above any other. Libertarians in the US surely all agree that the FEDERAL government should be small, and most probably believe the State government should stay out of your lives as much as possible as well. However, I think most would agree that the more local the government, the more of a true voice the individual has, so regulations/taxes/etc. are more acceptable at more local levels of government. For example, speaking only for myself, I have a problem with federally funded, regulated, and mandated public schools, but I DO NOT have a problem with a local tax to fund local schools being on a local ballot. Depending on where the funds would be used, the perceived necessity of the funds, and perhaps my own financial status, I would choose whether to vote for the tax, and would have no problem with the tax being passed if the locals voted for it.

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

#87

Post by tome »

veritaze wrote: post #82
tome wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a collective, yes. But what's the incentive for any one individual to attempt to innovate, especially given the high chance of his attempt failing? He might as well just wait for someone else to innovate. Indeed everyone else will wait for someone else. Prisoner's Dilemma. Oops.

If that individual has progeny to nurture and protect, I would think that individual would take measures to innovate methods to do so, including grouping together with other individuals with common goals. Even if he or she didn't, the survival instinct would still persist. If that grouping no longer serves those inviduals, then they would likely want to disband it, especially if there were a sub-group of parasitic in…

Thank you for the reference. There was no need to be rude.

Regarding the title of the reference, I'm happy to accept that government doesn't work, but I can't understand why libertarians think that libertarianism does. I shall save further comment until I've had a look at the reference.

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

#88

Post by Shimrod »

tome wrote: post #28
natmaster wrote: post #22

Libertarianism is about the most basic pragmatic view of life. There simply isn't enough variance in human intelligence for a few people at the top to be able to make effective decisions for everyone else. Libertarians believe in three basic rights - life, liberty, and property. All government should do only/everything necessary to preserve those rights. It follows then, that Libertarians are strongly against regulat…

On the other hand, there /is/ enough variance in human intelligence (or at least human capability) for huge disparities in wealth even in social democratic societies. How much more pronounced must this difference be in a libertarian society?

Probably less so. Those with more wealth wouldn't be able to lobby a powerful government for favorable legislation and bailouts.

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

#89

Post by veritaze »

tome wrote: post #87
veritaze wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that individual has progeny to nurture and protect, I would think that individual would take measures to innovate methods to do so, including grouping together with other individuals with common goals. Even if he or she didn't, the survival instinct would still persist. If that grouping no longer serves those inviduals, then they would likely want to disband it, especially if there were a sub-group of parasitic in…

Thank you for the reference. There was no need to be rude. Regarding the title of the reference, I'm happy to accept that government doesn't work, but I can't understand why libertarians think that libertarianism does . I shall save further comment until I've had a look at the reference.

How is flippantly pointing out some simplified abstraction like the Prisoner's Dilemma not rude? Anyway:

"In Game Theory, simple mathematical ``games´´ such as the prisoner's dilemma or the ``chicken´´ race, model situations where there is a potential benefit for players in finding a way to coordinate their action. All the ``theorems´´ about such games merely restate in formal terms the informal hypotheses that were put in the model. It certainly does not follow that government is the right way to achieve this coordination — though such is precisely the non sequitur claim of statists. Actually, it is possible to apply game theory to compare coordination through government coercion with coordination through market competition; and this exercise in game theory will easily show how dreadful the effects of government intervention are."

Libertarian thinking is predicated on the concept of minimal government, such as the author of that document (who was the Libertarian Party candidate for President). I'm confused as to why you would accept that government doesn't work, yet think that is somehow in conflict with libertarianism.

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

#90

Post by lallysingh »

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, and second, without going in with a plan, I don't think we'd even get the libertarians to agree with each other for doing anything.

To sum it up, I haven't seen a political party that's taken a real stance, but would rather sit on the sidelines and throw stones. Call me when you have a platform, not rhetoric. I don't want argument, I spent 11 years in a college town -- I've done it to death, I want actual proposals that I can personally evaluate. Until then, all I hear is ideology, and that's the last thing I want in government.

Post reply on HN