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

91–100 of 181 posts

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

#91

Post by tome »

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.

Having now read it, it doesn't deal with my original point which is essentially:

Libertarianism risks outsourcing manufacture of vital goods to foreign states of dubious intent, leaving domestic industry to die with no means of resurrecting it in an emergency.

The closest the above reference comes to dealing with this issue is:

* with free international trade, nobody will want to attack Libland because they can get at all its resources cheaply anyway, and

* Xia won't actually be able to invade Libland because they'll be too busy dealing with their own citizens, who, impressed by Libland's affluence, are too busy trying to convince Xia's rulers to convert to Libertarianism.

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

#92

Post by TravisLS »

tome wrote: post #29

Can somebody who understands Libertarianism help me with the following thought experiment? Suppose Libland is a libertarian state. The occupants of Libland stay alive by eating Food. Xia is another state. For whatever reason, they don't like Libland, and for whatever reason, they can produce Food much more cheaply than Libland. Xia starts flooding the Libland market with cheap Food, so that it's is uneconomic for any…

Given this situation (two and only two competing states), libertarianism is probably less viable. In the real world, however, you have a greater number of players.

If Libland has positive economic relations with other states (as most free people seem to prefer), it would theoretically have alternative sources of food from those allies. In addition, unless Libland's government had irrationally incited Xia's actions (theoretically, an unlikely choice for a free society), other states would see this a flagrant attack on Libland and come to its aid.

The example is certainly viable for a case where one state (out of over 200 in the real world) has a monopoly on producing any essential good, or where Xia's military is more powerful than the combined strength of all potential opposing states. I don't think the example extends beyond those corner cases, however.

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

#93

Post by xenophanes »

llimllib wrote: post #71
xenophanes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. S…

> And anyway, what do you expect libertarians to say about it? Either one can say that Government is the answer, or isn't. Ah, we've pinpointed the nonsense! I'll leave you with some words from Milton Friedman on the New Deal: > The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery … providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive mon…

Milton Friedman is not the only person to sometimes say unlibertarian things. To start with, you can add to your list David Friedman, Ayn Rand, and F A Hayek.

Next you can add me. I think libertarianism today is too isolationist regarding war and terrorism.

But we cannot find the truth by analyzing who said what. The important thing is which ideas are right, not who said them.

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

#94

Post by natmaster »

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?

Libertarianism is all about distributing power, instead of consolidating in. This results in less violations of individual liberty (you don't have governments stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, or corporations polluting the land the poorer live on, or large media conglomerates effectively brainwashing people into submission). This results in mostly and increase in prosperity for the poorer folks, while the rich of the rich might not be able to sustain their position (although there will still be rich people).

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

#95

Post by tome »

TravisLS wrote: post #92
tome wrote: post #29

Can somebody who understands Libertarianism help me with the following thought experiment? Suppose Libland is a libertarian state. The occupants of Libland stay alive by eating Food. Xia is another state. For whatever reason, they don't like Libland, and for whatever reason, they can produce Food much more cheaply than Libland. Xia starts flooding the Libland market with cheap Food, so that it's is uneconomic for any…

Given this situation (two and only two competing states), libertarianism is probably less viable. In the real world, however, you have a greater number of players. If Libland has positive economic relations with other states (as most free people seem to prefer), it would theoretically have alternative sources of food from those allies. In addition, unless Libland's government had irrationally incited Xia's actions (t…

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 were libertarian, they would not get involved in other states' disputes, and in any case they would know Libland would never come to their aid, so why should they reciprocate?

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

#96

Post by tome »

natmaster wrote: post #94
tome wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Libertarianism is all about distributing power, instead of consolidating in. This results in less violations of individual liberty (you don't have governments stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, or corporations polluting the land the poorer live on, or large media conglomerates effectively brainwashing people into submission). This results in mostly and increase in prosperity for the poorer folks, while th…

I admire the desired outcome (and that of Shimrod in a different reply), but I'm skeptical because of the history of inequality that capitalism has manifested, which has only increased with the liberalisation of markets.

It may be possible to successfully argue, as you and Shimrod do, that inequality is, in significant part, because of rather than in spite of the government. I'd rather like to see such an argument. As I understand it the classic libertarian arguments have focused on increasing production and efficiency rather than decreasing inequality.

(NB decreased inequality is a very different thing from decreased poverty)

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

#97

Post by mmmurf »

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…

The Libertarian party is a fringe party that is mostly concerned with hemp legalization. I know libertarians (small l) who vote for each major party some of the time.

The point of discussing libertarianism is to see the philosophical difference between someone who advocates personal freedom and economic freedom vs someone who doesn't.

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

#98

Post by gaius »

tome wrote: post #95
TravisLS wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given this situation (two and only two competing states), libertarianism is probably less viable. In the real world, however, you have a greater number of players. If Libland has positive economic relations with other states (as most free people seem to prefer), it would theoretically have alternative sources of food from those allies. In addition, unless Libland's government had irrationally incited Xia's actions (t…

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 for a Libertarian nation (not the same thing as s state) to be caught napping. A Libertarian country is likely to have a well-trained and well-armed militia, but not much equipment or experience or inclination for expeditionary warfare.

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

#99

Post by anewaccountname »

baddox wrote: post #84
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 o…

The only ration lending policy -- on an individual level -- is to discount any systemic risk you create by 100% minus how much of the system you make up. If everyone else does this, systemic risk is ballooned and it doesn't matter if you do it or not, you are still going to fail. If no one does this, it is imperative to you do it--after all, someone else is eating ~90% of the costs and you are getting the benefits.

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

#100

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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 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.

To have a minimum, you have to have a set of constraints. There's no reason those constraints could not lead to "weak governments in all levels of government"

I must be misreading you. I keep finding people making these broad over generalizations about libertarianism. Yes, libertarians are for minimal government, but minimal is a term you can drive a truck through. Simply because one libertarian believes that limited government is minimal, tiered, distributed government and another thinks it means single-layer, centralized government doesn't make one person libertarian and another person not.

The terms you mention are not simplistic, they are broad. There's a big difference. It lets a lot of people have libertarian leanings and prompts the individual to continue the definition process at a personal level, which is exactly what you want in a democracy, right?

Post reply on HN