I think the libertarian political view starts with the rule that government cant force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do ever.
This immediately falls apart when Alice wants to murder Bob, and Bob would prefer that the government did something about that.
So then libertarians extend their worldview to say that government can’t force anyone to do anything, however, no one is allowed to commit physical crimes, like murder, rape, assault, muggings, and stuff like that.
But then this falls apart with anything that meets the game theory definition of a Tragedy of the Commons or another game theory idea called the Prisoner’s Dillemma. Basically, Libertarians believe that people acting in their own selfish interest (but not being allowed to get violent), will always result in teh most optimal outcome possible. But game theory scenarios like the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner’s Dilemma show that there exists certain scenarios where people acting in their own self interest will actually produce the worst possible outcome.
THe commons will be over grazed, over fished, and the air will be polluted. And in the prisoner’s dillemma, both prisoner’s have incentive to betray the other person even though both are innocent, resulting in the worst possibel outcome for everyone.
More immediate examples of this is regulating corporations. Libertarians will generally forward the idea that while not all corporations will act in good faith, that government regulation can be abused and misused so we should get rid of regulation, that government regulation only makes things worse, and that people and consumers can deal with any corporate misbehavior simply through choosing to buy their goods at another company.
Libertarians greatly exagerate the power of boycotts.
Probably an even deeper issue with the Libertarian worldview is their standard mantra to any critic usually goes like this: “You wanna live by a different code, that’s fine, just don’t force me to do so.”
For someone to say “You shouldn’t be able to force me to do anything I don’t want to do”, at the same time they’re trying to force the government to adopt their libertarian point of view, is just amazing.
Libertarians don’t view their view as a view. They think they’ve found some sort of natural law or some mechanical law or something that isn’t a subjective rule. A libertarian will see everyone else trying to force people to do things through the government, but they think their attempts to modify governemnt won’t force anyone to do anything.
Which is crazy.
People WANT corporate regulations. People WANT the government in the business of marriage licenses. People WANT these things because they know that an unregulated Wall Street would be disasterous. People want these things because they know that if marriage were reduced to private contracts that it would be disasterous.
And yet, Libertarians think nothing of forcing their worldview on people. They think their worldview isn’t a worldview. And they don’t think they’re forcing anything on anyone.
“Norquist is philosophically a hardcore libertarian.”
Yeah, anyone who wants to drown the government the bathtub would have to be an anarchist, a libertarian, or something crazy.
“a supremely confident young man, but one who seemed to his friends strangely incapable of connecting with others. “He’s not a fellow who is motivated by or particularly needs a whole lot of human warmth or interaction,” explained one friend.”
“Grover would have trouble understanding, coping with, or even deciphering flaws in those around him. While friends insisted he had a strong moral compass for his own actions, the nuances of human personality in others often eluded him.”
I think this points to the notion that libertarians generally have a hard time putting themselves in someone else’s shoes and seeing the world from *that* *persons* point of view.
A libertarian candidate for governor of New Jersey several years back pointed out that philosophically, pollution is equivalent to vandalism, and in some cases, assault. This falls within the realm of things that (his brand of) libertarians feel it’s right for the government to intervene on.
Some of Libertarianism’s flaws can be corrected by applying its basic tenets of things-government-SHOULD-do (i.e. preserve individual liberty) in canny ways.
“philosophically, pollution is equivalent to vandalism”
The core libertarian principle is that governmetn shouldn’t be able to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do.
By itself, that principle is crazy, easily demonstrated by pointing out that rapists wouldn’t want you to stop them from raping. So then libertarians arbitrarily decide that government can enforce laws regarding physical violence.
It’s an arbitrary line they drew in the sand only because their original line was completely unsupportable by anyone but the ones stocked up on three years of canned beef stew in their bombshelter.
But then when someone shows a non-violent matter that is clearly reprehensible to most people (like air pollution), then to arbitrarily re-draw the line, yet again, at yet another arbitrary position, just shows how poor the primary principle of libertarianism is.
The people have a right to govern themselves. Which includes enforcing non-physical crime laws for immoral, but nonphysical, behavior.
And the only reason libertarians want to limit government to physical crime only is not because of any moral position on other crimes, but simply rather because they are *terrified* of an overreaching government. And for wahtever reason, libertarians won’t allow normal checks and balances that involve other human beings, like three branches of government. So they draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say “no more than this”.
Was pondering this in the car yesterday and it occurred to me that there is a simple, real world example to show the ludicrousness of the core libertarian philosophy that is “the government shall only regulate crimes of physical violence”.
The next time you drive through your home town mainstreet, imagine every stop sign and stoplight were removed. Imagine every painted yellow line in the middle of the road is removed. Imagine all speed limits are removed. Imagine every single traffic law is removed, and then imagine what the result wouild be.
If you imagine anythign other than complete and total chaos, you’re not imagining hard enough.
Why should I stop at this corner? What if there is no one visible for miles in any direction? Don’t I know better than the government that I don’t have to stop? Isn’t it government overreach for the state to tell me I must stop at this intersection?
Isn’t it unneccessary government restriction to say that 55 is legal and 56 can get you a fine?
Government should punish people ONLY IF their actions HARM someone. If I drive a hundred miles an hour through a residential area, and don’t hurt anyone, then I shouldn’t get a ticket, right?
Isn’t that the core libertarian philosophy?
If we removed ALL GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC REGULATION, if we removed stop signs, if we removed speed limits, if we removed all this government intrusion, and if we allowed individuals their freedoms, and only punish people when they actually create an ACCIDENT, if we only restrict and punish a driver when he physically harms someone, wouldn’t that be laissez-faire capitalism in a nutshell?
Wouldn’t that be the end result of libertarian philosophy taken to its ultimate conclusion?
You completely missed the point of Libertarian philosophy and thought. The core principle is not government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do. It’s do whatever you like so long as you don’t hurt others in the process. This leads to a need for a very limited governmental structure, one that includes traffic laws and stop signs.
If you are not aware of them, I would suggest you spend some time reading Reason magazine and visit reason dot com. Also, go to libertarianism dot org and mises dot com. They should cure you of your straw man fetish.
Greg | 29-Jan-12 at 11:14 am | Permalink
I think the libertarian political view starts with the rule that government cant force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do ever.
This immediately falls apart when Alice wants to murder Bob, and Bob would prefer that the government did something about that.
So then libertarians extend their worldview to say that government can’t force anyone to do anything, however, no one is allowed to commit physical crimes, like murder, rape, assault, muggings, and stuff like that.
But then this falls apart with anything that meets the game theory definition of a Tragedy of the Commons or another game theory idea called the Prisoner’s Dillemma. Basically, Libertarians believe that people acting in their own selfish interest (but not being allowed to get violent), will always result in teh most optimal outcome possible. But game theory scenarios like the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner’s Dilemma show that there exists certain scenarios where people acting in their own self interest will actually produce the worst possible outcome.
THe commons will be over grazed, over fished, and the air will be polluted. And in the prisoner’s dillemma, both prisoner’s have incentive to betray the other person even though both are innocent, resulting in the worst possibel outcome for everyone.
More immediate examples of this is regulating corporations. Libertarians will generally forward the idea that while not all corporations will act in good faith, that government regulation can be abused and misused so we should get rid of regulation, that government regulation only makes things worse, and that people and consumers can deal with any corporate misbehavior simply through choosing to buy their goods at another company.
Libertarians greatly exagerate the power of boycotts.
Probably an even deeper issue with the Libertarian worldview is their standard mantra to any critic usually goes like this: “You wanna live by a different code, that’s fine, just don’t force me to do so.”
For someone to say “You shouldn’t be able to force me to do anything I don’t want to do”, at the same time they’re trying to force the government to adopt their libertarian point of view, is just amazing.
Libertarians don’t view their view as a view. They think they’ve found some sort of natural law or some mechanical law or something that isn’t a subjective rule. A libertarian will see everyone else trying to force people to do things through the government, but they think their attempts to modify governemnt won’t force anyone to do anything.
Which is crazy.
People WANT corporate regulations. People WANT the government in the business of marriage licenses. People WANT these things because they know that an unregulated Wall Street would be disasterous. People want these things because they know that if marriage were reduced to private contracts that it would be disasterous.
And yet, Libertarians think nothing of forcing their worldview on people. They think their worldview isn’t a worldview. And they don’t think they’re forcing anything on anyone.
Greg | 29-Jan-12 at 11:39 am | Permalink
OK, this is kind of funny
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/unimpeachable-revolutionary-grover-is.html
“Norquist is philosophically a hardcore libertarian.”
Yeah, anyone who wants to drown the government the bathtub would have to be an anarchist, a libertarian, or something crazy.
“a supremely confident young man, but one who seemed to his friends strangely incapable of connecting with others. “He’s not a fellow who is motivated by or particularly needs a whole lot of human warmth or interaction,” explained one friend.”
“Grover would have trouble understanding, coping with, or even deciphering flaws in those around him. While friends insisted he had a strong moral compass for his own actions, the nuances of human personality in others often eluded him.”
I think this points to the notion that libertarians generally have a hard time putting themselves in someone else’s shoes and seeing the world from *that* *persons* point of view.
Something I heartily agree with.
Drachefly | 01-Feb-12 at 7:44 am | Permalink
A libertarian candidate for governor of New Jersey several years back pointed out that philosophically, pollution is equivalent to vandalism, and in some cases, assault. This falls within the realm of things that (his brand of) libertarians feel it’s right for the government to intervene on.
Some of Libertarianism’s flaws can be corrected by applying its basic tenets of things-government-SHOULD-do (i.e. preserve individual liberty) in canny ways.
Greg | 04-Feb-12 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
“philosophically, pollution is equivalent to vandalism”
The core libertarian principle is that governmetn shouldn’t be able to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do.
By itself, that principle is crazy, easily demonstrated by pointing out that rapists wouldn’t want you to stop them from raping. So then libertarians arbitrarily decide that government can enforce laws regarding physical violence.
It’s an arbitrary line they drew in the sand only because their original line was completely unsupportable by anyone but the ones stocked up on three years of canned beef stew in their bombshelter.
But then when someone shows a non-violent matter that is clearly reprehensible to most people (like air pollution), then to arbitrarily re-draw the line, yet again, at yet another arbitrary position, just shows how poor the primary principle of libertarianism is.
The people have a right to govern themselves. Which includes enforcing non-physical crime laws for immoral, but nonphysical, behavior.
And the only reason libertarians want to limit government to physical crime only is not because of any moral position on other crimes, but simply rather because they are *terrified* of an overreaching government. And for wahtever reason, libertarians won’t allow normal checks and balances that involve other human beings, like three branches of government. So they draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say “no more than this”.
Greg | 06-Feb-12 at 9:54 am | Permalink
Was pondering this in the car yesterday and it occurred to me that there is a simple, real world example to show the ludicrousness of the core libertarian philosophy that is “the government shall only regulate crimes of physical violence”.
The next time you drive through your home town mainstreet, imagine every stop sign and stoplight were removed. Imagine every painted yellow line in the middle of the road is removed. Imagine all speed limits are removed. Imagine every single traffic law is removed, and then imagine what the result wouild be.
If you imagine anythign other than complete and total chaos, you’re not imagining hard enough.
Why should I stop at this corner? What if there is no one visible for miles in any direction? Don’t I know better than the government that I don’t have to stop? Isn’t it government overreach for the state to tell me I must stop at this intersection?
Isn’t it unneccessary government restriction to say that 55 is legal and 56 can get you a fine?
Government should punish people ONLY IF their actions HARM someone. If I drive a hundred miles an hour through a residential area, and don’t hurt anyone, then I shouldn’t get a ticket, right?
Isn’t that the core libertarian philosophy?
If we removed ALL GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC REGULATION, if we removed stop signs, if we removed speed limits, if we removed all this government intrusion, and if we allowed individuals their freedoms, and only punish people when they actually create an ACCIDENT, if we only restrict and punish a driver when he physically harms someone, wouldn’t that be laissez-faire capitalism in a nutshell?
Wouldn’t that be the end result of libertarian philosophy taken to its ultimate conclusion?
Drachefly | 12-Feb-12 at 7:22 am | Permalink
Greg, you’re definitely strawmanning there. I’ve never even heard of a libertarian who wanted to allow theft, and that’s not physical violence.
Roger | 07-Sep-12 at 7:09 am | Permalink
You completely missed the point of Libertarian philosophy and thought. The core principle is not government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do. It’s do whatever you like so long as you don’t hurt others in the process. This leads to a need for a very limited governmental structure, one that includes traffic laws and stop signs.
If you are not aware of them, I would suggest you spend some time reading Reason magazine and visit reason dot com. Also, go to libertarianism dot org and mises dot com. They should cure you of your straw man fetish.