Why is the libertarian ideology so popular among otherwise reasonable people?

[Boofinator]

Here's the logically inconsistent part:

If the liberty of the individual is more important than utility for the many, then there should be plenty of Libertarian outrage against driving cars.  After all, when you choose to use an automobile you also choose to contribute to the death of another.

So far though, in this thread not one Libertarian has indicated a concern with driving (at least not beyond a wishy-washy "pollution is bad m'kay").  If liberty of the individual is not more important than utility for many, then it opens a whole can of worms . . . as many Libertarian policies seem to be based upon this principle.

We've established that just by existing, people contribute to the deaths of others. It's independent of the whole automobile discussion.

[bacchi]

All of us have values that we don't want sacrificed for others. The libertarian position is just a way to put a gilded exterior on a similar set of beliefs about what and what shouldn't be controlled/operated/covered by governments. The government is only minimal because some beliefs of others are ignored.

I agree, though in what way is Libertarianism any more gilded than Mustachianism? I would contend that Libertarians just see individual liberty in the same light as Mustachians see money and or environmental duty: as something to hold as a first principle, but not to hold dogmatically sacrosanct.

Many libertarians encountered in the wild are so dogmatic as to be annoying. It may be a function of the small number of its adherents but it would be like going to the Democratic National Convention and 90% of the attendees are carrying around a pocket copy of Das Kapital while they discuss the abolition of private property.

The veneer exists because libertarians seemingly have a laser focus on taxes and abolishing things that cost money rather than protecting individual liberties around government spying and asset forfeiture (not that they don't have an opinion but it's mostly about taxes, taxes, taxes!). Well, not quite true. Some do focus on age of consent laws like Arvin Vohra, who was a big L libertarian on the LNC.

Because of the ideologues, there's a disconnect between how libertarians view themselves and how others view them.

[Telecaster]

Any political philosophy, any philosophy really, will wind up with paradoxes.  My objection to libertarianism is they start from first principles (generally something like "maximize personal freedom") and then take that to ridiculous, nonsensical extremes.   Not paradoxes necessarily, but unworkable, unpractical conditions.   In a broad sense, libertarians almost reject collective action through the government as a violation of first libertarian principals, even while broadly overlooking the fact that humans, by nature, are cooperative creatures and we can increase the size of the pie more by working cooperatively than we can individually.  Principles over results, it seems. 

For example, Rand Paul (who in the past has identified as a libertarian, not sure if he still does so) has railed against low flow toilets as an example of government over reach.  Who is the government to tell me what kind of toilet I can have?  Indeed, back in the day some flow flow toilets didn't perform well (depending on manufacturer) but the free market solved that problem.  Low flow toilets work great.  They save lots of water, which lowers individual water bills, means the local water system needs to maintain less infrastructure, and there's more water for other uses, like recreation or agriculture.  It is a win-win-win, but Rand Paul is mad because he lost his right to own a crappy (didn't intend the pun initially, but left it), wasteful toilet.   Boo, hoo!  Same with the other libertarian bugagoo, the incandescent light bulb. 

Ron Paul's discussion of environmental issues linked in the Reddit thread was, quite frankly, a sign of mental instability.  You have long been able to sue someone for polluting your land.  And the liability is joint and several, which is to say if you are only 1% responsible you can be 100% liable.  So the laws have some real teeth.   But only a complete fool would suggest that going to court by itself a reasonable or acceptable way to deal with the problem.   Going to court is very expensive and time consuming, and even if you win you are unlikely to be made whole.   And that's assuming the responsible party is still around AND has the resources to deal with the problem.  Neither of which is a guarantee.  If you have to go to court, you've already lost.  Now, let's say you buy a property in LibertarianWorld and discover it was legally contaminated by the owner (it was his property, he can pollute it if he wants to), but the seller didn't disclose that (or maybe the seller didn't even know, and was it was a previous owner who did the damage).  You property is value is now zero.   Now what do you do?   Maybe it would save a whole lot of headaches, a ton of time and money, and be lots more fair if the rule was "don't pollute stuff, even if you own it."   

And if you go down the libertarian platform linked above, every plank is like that.   Sounds kinda good, unless you apply to real world situations, then it just sounds kinda dumb.   The idea is to expand personal freedom, but most of their planks would actually wind up contracting it. 

[Boofinator]

Agreed. Libertarians tend to take the idea of individual liberty and run off the deep end with it, but meanwhile they minimize the liberty that society has to form social contracts and create a government to protect joint freedoms.

For example, Rand Paul (who in the past has identified as a libertarian, not sure if he still does so) has railed against low flow toilets as an example of government over reach.  Who is the government to tell me what kind of toilet I can have?  Indeed, back in the day some flow flow toilets didn't perform well (depending on manufacturer) but the free market solved that problem.  Low flow toilets work great.  They save lots of water, which lowers individual water bills, means the local water system needs to maintain less infrastructure, and there's more water for other uses, like recreation or agriculture.  It is a win-win-win, but Rand Paul is mad because he lost his right to own a crappy (didn't intend the pun initially, but left it), wasteful toilet.

You won't hear this from me very often, but I can see where Rand is coming from. I don't know what it is about kid poos, but my kids clog up the low-flow toilets in my house ALL THE TIME (adult poos, not so much).

[Telecaster]

You won't hear this from me very often, but I can see where Rand is coming from. I don't know what it is about kid poos, but my kids clog up the low-flow toilets in my house ALL THE TIME (adult poos, not so much).

Heh.  A toilet is one of those things you don't think about, until the moment it doesn't function property.  Then it is all you think about. 

[GuitarStv]

Here's the logically inconsistent part:

If the liberty of the individual is more important than utility for the many, then there should be plenty of Libertarian outrage against driving cars.  After all, when you choose to use an automobile you also choose to contribute to the death of another.

So far though, in this thread not one Libertarian has indicated a concern with driving (at least not beyond a wishy-washy "pollution is bad m'kay").  If liberty of the individual is not more important than utility for many, then it opens a whole can of worms . . . as many Libertarian policies seem to be based upon this principle.

We've established that just by existing, people contribute to the deaths of others. It's independent of the whole automobile discussion.

I'm not sure that we actually have established that existence inevitably contributes to the death of others.  I'd be interested to see the data you're using to make that claim.  But let's assume that we had just for the sake of argument.

Your personal liberty to live would at least balance with the personal liberty of others to live, so I think we could probably safely call it a wash.  Also, you being alive wasn't your choice . . . it was a choice made for you by other people (your parents).  That's fundamentally different than doing something that is completely optional and completely your own choice - like driving a car, isn't it?

So that brings us back to the conundrum.  Why are Libertarians arguing that the liberty of the individual is less important than utility for the many?  That's the exact type of reasoning that justifies communism, so you see my confusion when Libertarians start agreeing with it.

[Boofinator]

I'm not sure that we actually have established that existence inevitably contributes to the death of others.  I'd be interested to see the data you're using to make that claim.  But let's assume that we had just for the sake of argument.

Your personal liberty to live would at least balance with the personal liberty of others to live, so I think we could probably safely call it a wash.  Also, you being alive wasn't your choice . . . it was a choice made for you by other people (your parents).  That's fundamentally different than doing something that is completely optional and completely your own choice - like driving a car, isn't it?

Since it's central to the discussion at hand, let's consider some completely optional behaviors which may increase the mortality of others:

1) Eating more than is necessary to sustain yourself;
2) Meeting in public places, which increases the communicability of disease;
3) Having sex with more than one person in one's lifetime, which leads to more STD communicability;
4) Having a bonfire, which releases far more particulate matter than driving a car does (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2222339-fireworks-and-fires-on-bonfire-night-quadruple-air-pollution-in-the-uk/).

There are also other behaviors, such as shitting in your creek, that have been made illegal exactly due to the increase in health risks to other people. I don't think any Libertarians would argue that you have the liberty to shit in somebody else's creek, in this day and age (though things would have been different before modern sanitation).

So that brings us back to the conundrum.  Why are Libertarians arguing that the liberty of the individual is less important than utility for the many?  That's the exact type of reasoning that justifies communism, so you see my confusion when Libertarians start agreeing with it.

I would argue that's the type of reason that justifies all society, not just communism. Sometimes laws need to be put into place to restrict liberties when they are for the benefit of society as a whole (and most Libertarians (as compared to Anarchists) would agree). The big difference is that economically, Libertarianism and communism lie on two different ends of the spectrum (liberty versus collective good). It also helps to explain the general failure of both concepts when ideologically implemented.

[ctuser1]

You won't hear this from me very often, but I can see where Rand is coming from. I don't know what it is about kid poos, but my kids clog up the low-flow toilets in my house ALL THE TIME (adult poos, not so much).

Off topic - but perhaps it is worth checking if it is just the poo, or something else.

My daughter had a habit of using wipes (on top of bath tissue), and that went straight in where bath tissue went. Of course it would clog it up!

After a particularly bad episode where I could not snake the clog off I had to plop down $150 to call a plumber. He snaked out one of those wipes from way down the drain.

"But daddy, it says flushable on the packet!" - was the explanation my daughter innocently offered.

Sadly, I was forced to restrict her right to flush wipes down the toilet!!

[GuitarStv]

I'm not sure that we actually have established that existence inevitably contributes to the death of others.  I'd be interested to see the data you're using to make that claim.  But let's assume that we had just for the sake of argument.

Your personal liberty to live would at least balance with the personal liberty of others to live, so I think we could probably safely call it a wash.  Also, you being alive wasn't your choice . . . it was a choice made for you by other people (your parents).  That's fundamentally different than doing something that is completely optional and completely your own choice - like driving a car, isn't it?

Since it's central to the discussion at hand, let's consider some completely optional behaviors which may increase the mortality of others:

1) Eating more than is necessary to sustain yourself;
2) Meeting in public places, which increases the communicability of disease;
3) Having sex with more than one person in one's lifetime, which leads to more STD communicability;
4) Having a bonfire, which releases far more particulate matter than driving a car does (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2222339-fireworks-and-fires-on-bonfire-night-quadruple-air-pollution-in-the-uk/).

There are also other behaviors, such as shitting in your creek, that have been made illegal exactly due to the increase in health risks to other people. I don't think any Libertarians would argue that you have the liberty to shit in somebody else's creek, in this day and age (though things would have been different before modern sanitation).

Without going down too much of a rabbit hole here, let me respond to your comments:

1.  To the best of my knowledge eating more than is necessary to sustain yourself doesn't directly contribute to the death of anyone else.  We currently produce much more food than our entire race can consume each year.  My understanding is that most of the starvation in the world today is related to economic policy and food spoilage/waste during transport.

2.  Meeting in a public place does increase the possibility of transmitting disease.  If you're sick and you know it, I'd argue that going to a public place where you are likely to transmit the disease is immoral.  That said, I don't think that the argument holds up if you're in perfectly good health and go to a public place where there are other people in perfectly good health.

3.  The number of partners you have sex with are beside the point.  You are responsible for what you do with your body . . . and that means if you plan on having sex with even one partner, you should ensure that you do not have a communicable sexually transmitted disease.  Having sex with anyone while knowing that you have an STD is wrong and immoral.  There's nothing wrong with having sex with a million partners if you ensure that you're tested regularly and are clean.

4.  Agreed.  Poisoning the environment because you want to laugh at a big boom sound is obviously unethical.

5.  Shitting in a creek . . . sure, that's unethical.  In fact, it's unethical for the same reason that driving a car is unethical.  Although shitting once probably won't kill your neighbour, if thousands of people shit then it's likely that he'll fall ill (at the very least).  Just like driving.  The fumes from one car probably won't kill anyone.  But the fumes from thousands of cars will certainly kill tens of thousands.

What's weird is that Libertarians are OK with increasing government regulation for the one, but not the other.


None of the things you've listed that are unethical are required to live though.  You don't have to go to public places when sick, to have sex with other people while you've got an STD, to blow stuff up with explosives, or to shit in a creek behind your neighbour's house.  Those are all optional - just like driving.

So that brings us back to the conundrum.  Why are Libertarians arguing that the liberty of the individual is less important than utility for the many?  That's the exact type of reasoning that justifies communism, so you see my confusion when Libertarians start agreeing with it.

I would argue that's the type of reason that justifies all society, not just communism. Sometimes laws need to be put into place to restrict liberties when they are for the benefit of society as a whole (and most Libertarians (as compared to Anarchists) would agree). The big difference is that economically, Libertarianism and communism lie on two different ends of the spectrum (liberty versus collective good). It also helps to explain the general failure of both concepts when ideologically implemented.

How is the difference between Libertarianism and Communism 'liberty versus collective good' when you've just explained that Libertarians favor collective good over liberty - the same as Communists?  I honestly don't follow your logic on that point.

As to your other point . . . if you want to define Libertarianism as simply 'Trying to run society with the least government possible' that's fine.  That's a definition I don't have a problem with.  It's when people start misusing terms like 'liberty' that it creates these nonsensical logic problems.

[Boofinator]

You won't hear this from me very often, but I can see where Rand is coming from. I don't know what it is about kid poos, but my kids clog up the low-flow toilets in my house ALL THE TIME (adult poos, not so much).

Off topic - but perhaps it is worth checking if it is just the poo, or something else.

My daughter had a habit of using wipes (on top of bath tissue), and that went straight in where bath tissue went. Of course it would clog it up!

After a particularly bad episode where I could not snake the clog off I had to plop down $150 to call a plumber. He snaked out one of those wipes from way down the drain.

"But daddy, it says flushable on the packet!" - was the explanation my daughter innocently offered.

Sadly, I was forced to restrict her right to flush wipes down the toilet!!

I believe it's a combination of a shit-ton of toilet paper and not pooping every day (which I was guilty of as a kid; public bathrooms are scary!!!).

Going further off-topic: in college, I had a roommate from Brazil, who essentially just didn't buy toilet paper but would use our stache (3 roomies total), even after repeated requests for him to pitch in. Right before Brazil roomie was scheduled to return to his country, roomie #3 had the brilliant idea to hide the toilet paper stache and force his hand. Well, the day he was scheduled to leave, he got home with a big smile on his face and a newspaper under his arm, and strolled into the bathroom. Fortunately, the apartment complex covered the cost of the plumber having to remove the shit-infused paper mache softball.

[Boofinator]

I'm not sure that we actually have established that existence inevitably contributes to the death of others.  I'd be interested to see the data you're using to make that claim.  But let's assume that we had just for the sake of argument.

Your personal liberty to live would at least balance with the personal liberty of others to live, so I think we could probably safely call it a wash.  Also, you being alive wasn't your choice . . . it was a choice made for you by other people (your parents).  That's fundamentally different than doing something that is completely optional and completely your own choice - like driving a car, isn't it?

Since it's central to the discussion at hand, let's consider some completely optional behaviors which may increase the mortality of others:

1) Eating more than is necessary to sustain yourself;
2) Meeting in public places, which increases the communicability of disease;
3) Having sex with more than one person in one's lifetime, which leads to more STD communicability;
4) Having a bonfire, which releases far more particulate matter than driving a car does (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2222339-fireworks-and-fires-on-bonfire-night-quadruple-air-pollution-in-the-uk/).

There are also other behaviors, such as shitting in your creek, that have been made illegal exactly due to the increase in health risks to other people. I don't think any Libertarians would argue that you have the liberty to shit in somebody else's creek, in this day and age (though things would have been different before modern sanitation).

Without going down too much of a rabbit hole here, let me respond to your comments:

1.  To the best of my knowledge eating more than is necessary to sustain yourself doesn't directly contribute to the death of anyone else.  We currently produce much more food than our entire race can consume each year.  My understanding is that most of the starvation in the world today is related to economic policy and food spoilage/waste during transport.

2.  Meeting in a public place does increase the possibility of transmitting disease.  If you're sick and you know it, I'd argue that going to a public place where you are likely to transmit the disease is immoral.  That said, I don't think that the argument holds up if you're in perfectly good health and go to a public place where there are other people in perfectly good health.

3.  The number of partners you have sex with are beside the point.  You are responsible for what you do with your body . . . and that means if you plan on having sex with even one partner, you should ensure that you do not have a communicable sexually transmitted disease.  Having sex with anyone while knowing that you have an STD is wrong and immoral.  There's nothing wrong with having sex with a million partners if you ensure that you're tested regularly and are clean.

4.  Agreed.  Poisoning the environment because you want to laugh at a big boom sound is obviously unethical.

5.  Shitting in a creek . . . sure, that's unethical.  In fact, it's unethical for the same reason that driving a car is unethical.  Although shitting once probably won't kill your neighbour, if thousands of people shit then it's likely that he'll fall ill (at the very least).  Just like driving.  The fumes from one car probably won't kill anyone.  But the fumes from thousands of cars will certainly kill tens of thousands.

What's weird is that Libertarians are OK with increasing government regulation for the one, but not the other.


None of the things you've listed that are unethical are required to live though.  You don't have to go to public places when sick, to have sex with other people while you've got an STD, to blow stuff up with explosives, or to shit in a creek behind your neighbour's house.  Those are all optional - just like driving.

So that brings us back to the conundrum.  Why are Libertarians arguing that the liberty of the individual is less important than utility for the many?  That's the exact type of reasoning that justifies communism, so you see my confusion when Libertarians start agreeing with it.

I would argue that's the type of reason that justifies all society, not just communism. Sometimes laws need to be put into place to restrict liberties when they are for the benefit of society as a whole (and most Libertarians (as compared to Anarchists) would agree). The big difference is that economically, Libertarianism and communism lie on two different ends of the spectrum (liberty versus collective good). It also helps to explain the general failure of both concepts when ideologically implemented.

How is the difference between Libertarianism and Communism 'liberty versus collective good' when you've just explained that Libertarians favor collective good over liberty - the same as Communists?  I honestly don't follow your logic on that point.

As to your other point . . . if you want to define Libertarianism as simply 'Trying to run society with the least government possible' that's fine.  That's a definition I don't have a problem with.  It's when people start misusing terms like 'liberty' that it creates these nonsensical logic problems.

Tell you what: Since I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian, maybe we can get one of those to join this conversation to explain whether they agree with the illogical scenario presented. I don't think we're bridging the gap as two non-Libertarians.

[J Boogie]

So far though, in this thread not one Libertarian has indicated a concern with driving (at least not beyond a wishy-washy "pollution is bad m'kay").  If liberty of the individual is not more important than utility for many, then it opens a whole can of worms . . . as many Libertarian policies seem to be based upon this principle.

Libertarianism is more based on the principle of having the liberty to do as you please.

Libertarians don't regard themselves or anyone as having the right to breathe clean air everywhere they go.

Libertarians and society in general have accepted the EHS tradeoffs of ubiquitous automobile use, to the point where we're all complicit except perhaps the amish. Even those like you whose primary transportation is bicycle are complicit as probably 99% of your purchases involve significant emissions at some point whether in MFG or supply chain or both. You're benefiting from the decrease in price that you'd have to pay for artisans to build things by hand and a crew of bicycle couriers to bring it to you.

The only difference between libertarians and the rest of the political spectrum on this issue is that many libertarians admittedly have way too optimistic a view of tort laws. Yeah, we need an EPA to be proactive rather than allow for reactive lawsuits because, and this should be kind of obvious to these libertarians who I suspect are playing dumb or obstinately married to their dogma, but once you're reacting the damage has been done and it's probably too late.  A lot of pollution is mostly irreversible and the phrase "better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission" is not exactly uncommon in the business world.

But my point is that libertarians are in the majority when it comes to accepting the EHS tradeoffs of ubiquituos vehicle use. Asking why they don't oppose it as they should believe everyone has the right to clean air everywhere is quite a rhetorical stretch.

[J Boogie]

The founding principle of Canada's founding legislation was "peace, order and good government". Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.  It works at least as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness".

Yes, it's pragmatic and it's also a completely uninspiring founding principle. Peace and order at what cost? What makes government good vs bad? It does not answer these questions and ostensibly an authoritarian regime could meet that criteria. Singapore has gone all in on peace and order. You receive public corporal punishment for graffiti and overstaying your visa by 3 months. Obviously Canada is more like the US than Singapore, but that's in spite of its founding principle rather than because of it.

The US founding principle make it clear that citizens have the right to live and be free and this supersedes all other societal interests such as peace & order.  So we at least in theory have liberty enshrined as a value with which to persuade the Rs to dump the authoritarian in the white house.

[GuitarStv]

So far though, in this thread not one Libertarian has indicated a concern with driving (at least not beyond a wishy-washy "pollution is bad m'kay").  If liberty of the individual is not more important than utility for many, then it opens a whole can of worms . . . as many Libertarian policies seem to be based upon this principle.

Libertarianism is more based on the principle of having the liberty to do as you please.

Libertarians don't regard themselves or anyone as having the right to breathe clean air everywhere they go.

It's not the 'right to breathe clean air' that I'd expect Libertarian support on . . . it's the fact that driving kills people.  Allowing someone else to kill a person because it makes their own life slightly easier doesn't really jive with the Libertarian jargon I typically hear about liberty.

I mean, if they're OK with that for cars . . . why would they have a problem with nationalizing a drug company that is overcharging for medicine?  This would save lots of lives and be a net benefit for society at the expense of a little liberty for the few.

Libertarians and society in general have accepted the EHS tradeoffs of ubiquitous automobile use, to the point where we're all complicit except perhaps the amish. Even those like you whose primary transportation is bicycle are complicit as probably 99% of your purchases involve significant emissions at some point whether in MFG or supply chain or both. You're benefiting from the decrease in price that you'd have to pay for artisans to build things by hand and a crew of bicycle couriers to bring it to you.

Yeah, don't get me wrong.  I'm not pointing a finger at Libertarians for killing folks with their cars . . . I'm certainly at least as guilty as anyone else of this.  But I've never claimed to believe that the rights of the individual should take precedence over what benefits society.

The only difference between libertarians and the rest of the political spectrum on this issue is that many libertarians admittedly have way too optimistic a view of tort laws. Yeah, we need an EPA to be proactive rather than allow for reactive lawsuits because, and this should be kind of obvious to these libertarians who I suspect are playing dumb or obstinately married to their dogma, but once you're reacting the damage has been done and it's probably too late.  A lot of pollution is mostly irreversible and the phrase "better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission" is not exactly uncommon in the business world.

I think this is a pretty fair description of a common problem that is seen with the Libertarian philosophy.

But my point is that libertarians are in the majority when it comes to accepting the EHS tradeoffs of ubiquituos vehicle use. Asking why they don't oppose it as they should believe everyone has the right to clean air everywhere is quite a rhetorical stretch.

I agree that Libertarians are in the majority on the issue.  Again though, it's not a 'right to clean air' that I'd expect the resistance to come from.  I'd expect to find it in the regular discussion of how importance of the individual should supersede the good of the state that is so common in Libertarian discussion.

[GuitarStv]

The founding principle of Canada's founding legislation was "peace, order and good government". Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.  It works at least as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness".

Yes, it's pragmatic and it's also a completely uninspiring founding principle. Peace and order at what cost? What makes government good vs bad? It does not answer these questions and ostensibly an authoritarian regime could meet that criteria. Singapore has gone all in on peace and order. You receive public corporal punishment for graffiti and overstaying your visa by 3 months. Obviously Canada is more like the US than Singapore, but that's in spite of its founding principle rather than because of it.

The US founding principle make it clear that citizens have the right to live and be free and this supersedes all other societal interests such as peace & order.  So we at least in theory have liberty enshrined as a value with which to persuade the Rs to dump the authoritarian in the white house.

You believe that an authoritarian regime meets the criteria of 'good government'?  I wouldn't say it does.  :P

[Boofinator]

You believe that an authoritarian regime meets the criteria of 'good government'?  I wouldn't say it does.  :P

The North Koreans (among many others) would beg to differ.

[GuitarStv]

You believe that an authoritarian regime meets the criteria of 'good government'?  I wouldn't say it does.  :P

The North Koreans (among many others) would beg to differ.

Sure.  They would also tell you that they've got greater freedom that folks in the US.  And that Kim hit 18 holes in one during his first game of golf.  People will say lots of crazy shit when you've got a gun to their head.

But by every objective measure I can think of, North Korea fails to meet the criteria of 'good government'.

[maizefolk]

North Korea is an easy example of an incompetent authoritarian government.

The early years of Mussolini's Italy is perhaps a better example of the risks of prioritizing "order" as an inherently more important virtue in a government than respect for human freedoms.

The difference between the Italian railway service in 1919, 1920 and 1921 and that which obtained during the first year of the Mussolini regime was almost beyond belief. The cars were clean, the employees were snappy and courteous, and trains arrived at and left the stations on time — not fifteen minutes late, and not five minutes late; but on the minute.

I don't think Canada actually does prioritize order over human freedom, but if one were judging based on no other data than those two sets of founding principles... fortunately we have additional data.

The real world is a messy and complicated place. Sometimes we sacrifice a little liberty for the good of society and we're better off. Sometimes doing so becomes a slippery slope to the point that government can just do whatever it wants without respect to human rights or freedoms.

But when both ends of a slippery slope (GuitarStv's two black and white positions of individual's rights and liberties don't matter at all or they can never be infringed on even a little) are unpleasant places to live, one has no choice but to try to stand somewhere on the slippery slope. Shades of gray exist.

That doesn't mean we cannot have moral or political principles that act as starting positions as we figure out when compromise is worth it and when it is not. I wouldn't call a democrat a hypocrite for wanting to keep the option for private health insurance. I wouldn't call a republican a hypocrite for supporting food stamps. AndI wouldn't call a libertarian a hypocrite for supporting emissions control regulations.

[robartsd]

If your argument is "local" government needs to worry about this, and not state/federal - does the local government get to keep all the tax revenue that NYC sends to state/feds? That seems like a fair ask - right? Local government is the only one worrying about infra - so NYC generates its funds for itself and does all the infra work, and Boise Idaho does theirs!!

This is where libertarian logic leads. Is that what you are arguing for when you say there is "no reason" for federal involvement in .....

Yes, I think this is pretty much what I was saying about local infrastructure. Vastly reduced (not entirely eliminated) federal taxation, mostly balanced by increased local taxation.

[GuitarStv]

If your argument is "local" government needs to worry about this, and not state/federal - does the local government get to keep all the tax revenue that NYC sends to state/feds? That seems like a fair ask - right? Local government is the only one worrying about infra - so NYC generates its funds for itself and does all the infra work, and Boise Idaho does theirs!!

This is where libertarian logic leads. Is that what you are arguing for when you say there is "no reason" for federal involvement in .....

Yes, I think this is pretty much what I was saying about local infrastructure. Vastly reduced (not entirely eliminated) federal taxation, mostly balanced by increased local taxation.

Removing the huge subsidies that they receive from cities a good way to make life in rural areas extremely miserable/untenable.  It should accelerate the move from the boonies to cities that has been going on for years.  My experience with grizzled old cranky farmers is that they wouldn't take this very kindly though.

[ctuser1]

If your argument is "local" government needs to worry about this, and not state/federal - does the local government get to keep all the tax revenue that NYC sends to state/feds? That seems like a fair ask - right? Local government is the only one worrying about infra - so NYC generates its funds for itself and does all the infra work, and Boise Idaho does theirs!!

This is where libertarian logic leads. Is that what you are arguing for when you say there is "no reason" for federal involvement in .....

Yes, I think this is pretty much what I was saying about local infrastructure. Vastly reduced (not entirely eliminated) federal taxation, mostly balanced by increased local taxation.

It doesn't scale in real world.

City-state like Singapore - possibly!

A real country like the US - it won't work! At best it will accelerate the trend of superstar cities and completely depopulated countryside (we have already seen how that works). Worst case can be much worse.

Show me some examples otherwise :-)

[RetiredAt63]

The founding principle of Canada's founding legislation was "peace, order and good government". Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.  It works at least as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness".

Yes, it's pragmatic and it's also a completely uninspiring founding principle. Peace and order at what cost? What makes government good vs bad? It does not answer these questions and ostensibly an authoritarian regime could meet that criteria. Singapore has gone all in on peace and order. You receive public corporal punishment for graffiti and overstaying your visa by 3 months. Obviously Canada is more like the US than Singapore, but that's in spite of its founding principle rather than because of it.

The US founding principle make it clear that citizens have the right to live and be free and this supersedes all other societal interests such as peace & order.  So we at least in theory have liberty enshrined as a value with which to persuade the Rs to dump the authoritarian in the white house.

First, it was in the context of the British Parliamentary system. Second, it was 1867,  and watching what the next door neighbours were doing with their slogan.

And let's be honest, in the Parliamentary system a Prime Minister with a good majority in the House of Commons and an aquiscent Senate/House of Lords can be a dictator, in terms of pushing undesired legislation through.  That's why the American system was set up with it's checks and balances.  Every system can be subverted.

[J Boogie]

I agree that Libertarians are in the majority on the issue.  Again though, it's not a 'right to clean air' that I'd expect the resistance to come from.  I'd expect to find it in the regular discussion of how importance of the individual should supersede the good of the state that is so common in Libertarian discussion.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

The reason you shouldn't expect to find libertarians arguing against emissions from an individual vs common good discussion is that they probably individually benefit from being able to freely use auto transit and anyone who is at risk of suffering the negative consequences is theoretically free to choose a place to live with less traffic.

To arrive at your conclusion, you would have to combine your statement with the progressive argument of how redlining unjustly and permanently placed minorities in unhealthier parts of the cities, federal highway projects displaced their neighborhoods and left them adjacent to freeways when leaded gasoline was still being used, etc etc.  There are very valid arguments as to how their freedom to live where they please has been compromised, and many libertarians will not dispute their validity, but libertarians are more likely to use this as an opportunity to preach about how these racist evils occurred due to a powerful centralized government violating civil liberties and immorally invoking eminent domain.

And that's because libertarian policies don't mix well with anything that isn't libertarian. Ron Paul once said about the middle east - "We just marched in, and we can just march out!" but obviously it's not that simple. The US made a commitment to the people of Iraq, etc etc. Libertarian policies are unable to right any wrongs, as that often requires an equal and opposite instance of government overreach.

[GuitarStv]

I agree that Libertarians are in the majority on the issue.  Again though, it's not a 'right to clean air' that I'd expect the resistance to come from.  I'd expect to find it in the regular discussion of how importance of the individual should supersede the good of the state that is so common in Libertarian discussion.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

The reason you shouldn't expect to find libertarians arguing against emissions from an individual vs common good discussion is that they probably individually benefit from being able to freely use auto transit and anyone who is at risk of suffering the negative consequences is theoretically free to choose a place to live with less traffic.

So, to use boofinator's example from earlier . . . if your neighbour gets water from the creek behind his house, you should be free to shit in it.  If he doesn't like it, he can move.

But the weird thing is, Libertarians are apparently against doing this.  Aren't they?

Hence the conundrum.

To arrive at your conclusion, you would have to combine your statement with the progressive argument of how redlining unjustly and permanently placed minorities in unhealthier parts of the cities, federal highway projects displaced their neighborhoods and left them adjacent to freeways when leaded gasoline was still being used, etc etc.  There are very valid arguments as to how their freedom to live where they please has been compromised, and many libertarians will not dispute their validity, but libertarians are more likely to use this as an opportunity to preach about how these racist evils occurred due to a powerful centralized government violating civil liberties and immorally invoking eminent domain.

And that's because libertarian policies don't mix well with anything that isn't libertarian. Ron Paul once said about the middle east - "We just marched in, and we can just march out!" but obviously it's not that simple. The US made a commitment to the people of Iraq, etc etc. Libertarian policies are unable to right any wrongs, as that often requires an equal and opposite instance of government overreach.

I agree with you with most of this post.  Libertarian policies do appear to be unable to right existing wrongs.  But there's no government overreach forcing people to drive cars.  That's a personal, individual decision made that deprives others of their liberty.  So it's entirely within the scope of Libertarian policy to fix.

[LennStar]

North Korea is an easy example of an incompetent authoritarian government.

Uh? Um?
I would be really interested in your reasoning for this.

Kim Yong Un (as a dictator, he is the government) came to power when he was only 27(?) and helds this position for 9 years now. That already places him in the upper half of duration I think.
He has disposed of internal enemies and ensured the loyality of the upper crust by showing that everyone is exchangable - he executed his uncle.
He has disposed of his biggest (at this time external) rival (the brother that was "prank" killed.)
The military - always the most important point for a dictator - is on his side.
He has survived external threads, not least the "bigger button loony" Trump.

On all accounts he was successful as a dictator.

Or do you mean the starving people? Oh, big misconception. That is is not a bug, it's a feature. Starving people do not revolt. And everyone now loyal on his side certainly does not want to fall down to that (if he even lives after falling out of grace, that is)
Feature is also that his cronies get to sell food help from outside on the black market. That is part of their perks that keeps them loyal.

Trump may be an idiot, but he understands (or better feels) the rules of power. Hence that comedy like round where everyone praised him to heaven in front of cameras. Remember what I mean?
Doing that is like getting a slave mark branded into your forehead, just out of your free will.

Kim also understands power, and he has the considerable advantage of not being an idiot, so he can (and has) planned ahead instead of just reacting like Trump.

We don't know anything in detail about NK, but judging by the very little we know I see it as highly unlikely that Kim will not be the leader in 10 more years. The only way Kim will be removed from power is by death, in whatever way, and both natural und unnatural seem unlikely.

[maizefolk]

North Korea is an easy example of an incompetent authoritarian government.

On all accounts he was successful as a dictator.

Or do you mean the starving people? Oh, big misconception. That is is not a bug, it's a feature. Starving people do not revolt. And everyone now loyal on his side certainly does not want to fall down to that (if he even lives after falling out of grace, that is)
Feature is also that his cronies get to sell food help from outside on the black market. That is part of their perks that keeps them loyal.

Fair enough. My post was in response to GuitarStv talking about how North Korea was or wasn't an example of "good government." But you're right, competent, the word I used, isn't quit right.

I agree North Korea may intentionally be working to achieve bad government, making him very competent at running a bad government. But yes, a government that has millions of people starving to death does meet my definition of bad government.

[ctuser1]

The founding principle of Canada's founding legislation was "peace, order and good government". Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.  It works at least as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness".

Yes, it's pragmatic and it's also a completely uninspiring founding principle. Peace and order at what cost? What makes government good vs bad? It does not answer these questions and ostensibly an authoritarian regime could meet that criteria. Singapore has gone all in on peace and order. You receive public corporal punishment for graffiti and overstaying your visa by 3 months. Obviously Canada is more like the US than Singapore, but that's in spite of its founding principle rather than because of it.

The US founding principle make it clear that citizens have the right to live and be free and this supersedes all other societal interests such as peace & order.  So we at least in theory have liberty enshrined as a value with which to persuade the Rs to dump the authoritarian in the white house.

This thread has probably been flogged to death, except for this one point you have raised opposing "purely pragmatic" point of view as a driver of a nation-state.

I wasn't sure how to respond when you question some of the basic axioms of the pragmatic worldview I was using to attempt to rip apart Libertarianism (same POV can rip apart any "ideology" or "ism", so libertarianism is not unique in that respect). So I took some time to think about it.

It is true that the US *has* been defined by an "extremist"/"ideological"/"manifest destiny" strain of national idea from the very beginning. It has resulted in good and evil, "melting pot" and "trail of tears", "immigrant country" and "caged immigrant children". US has the go-getter capitalistic genes *because* of those "extremist" foundational ideas.

I don't have a clear empirical case to dispute carte blanche something that has, historically, brought both good and evil in equal measure. But, it is probably logical to try to find ways to hedge against the evils as and when they manifest.

That "ideological" strain, is currently eating it's own. Class mobility is at it's lowest since data was captured reliably, so is rate of entrepreneurship. The blame can largely be laid to the foot of libertarian ideas and ideology that seems to have an increasing grasp of government policy since the 80s. When the american dream (as defined by class mobility and entrepreneurship) dies, US becomes the nation defined solely by the "trail of tears" and "caged immigrant children" side of things.

That, I find frightening!!

I also posit that pragmatic non-ideological government is NOT an either/or exclusive choice with an "ideological" founding principles. US seems to have gotten it right in patches now and then, for probably the majority of the time.

You're probably suffering from recency bias when you define the experience since 1980's to be normative. This is a period where libertarians became bedfellows with anti-civil-right ***ists and declared war against the normal Americans. Maybe we need to pick the period from new deal to 1970's when things went largely correct to re-calibrate the assumptions and axioms?

[LennStar]

Coincidentally there is an article about the death of libertarianism and climate change today. Read it or not. Your choice ;)

https://boingboing.net/2020/01/27/galt-underwater.html
Climate denial has destroyed the libertarian movement

[J Boogie]

The founding principle of Canada's founding legislation was "peace, order and good government". Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.  It works at least as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness".

1 - I don't have a clear empirical case to dispute carte blanche something that has, historically, brought both good and evil in equal measure. But, it is probably logical to try to find ways to hedge against the evils as and when they manifest.

2 -You're probably suffering from recency bias when you define the experience since 1980's to be normative. This is a period where libertarians became bedfellows with anti-civil-right ***ists and declared war against the normal Americans. Maybe we need to pick the period from new deal to 1970's when things went largely correct to re-calibrate the assumptions and axioms?

1 - I agree, but I think identifying the root cause of problems can be an enormous challenge when there are 2 sides who are so invested in their views that they use motivated reasoning to arrive at conclusions that support their thesis. Effective hedging requires an unbiased review which is very difficult for elected lawmakers to execute. So CBO et all data frequently gets massaged, ignored, etc by elected officials. Not to say these efforts shouldn't be made, but just that sometimes these hedges worsen a problem or create new ones. IE, the proliferation of subsidized student loans leading to massive increases in the cost of tuition and ultimately making college LESS affordable.

2 - I don't think a normative period exists - You've probably heard this before, but the problem with trying to learn from history as you would a science experiment is that the variables are always changing and there is no control group.  There's almost no period where things are all that static. New Deal to 70's included so much dramatic change to the global economy.


Pragmatism knows something is wrong, and can offer effective short term solutions when the data is likely to point overwhelmingly in one simple direction.

But when the data doesn't point all that clearly, and a decision needs to be made, I believe that's when the founding principles and priorities must be relied upon. The patriot act is a great example of data offering no clear winner. Perhaps we have been safer thanks to the patriot act, perhaps not. But many of its provisions violate our founding principles, and that should have made the choice clear as day.  But from a pragmatic POV, the patriot act makes perfect sense because we're better safe than sorry. How much TSA screening is too much?  The data won't tell you. Only your principles will.

[ctuser1]

But when the data doesn't point all that clearly, and a decision needs to be made, I believe that's when the founding principles and priorities must be relied upon.

All ideologies become evil when they invariably demand precedence over data and logic.

When the order of precedence is:
1. "see if data exists to point to significant public interest being served one way or the other, and, oh, review periodically", followed by
2. "it seems no clear pragmatic direction exists despite spending years and gazillions of $$ on research. What does our founding principles say? We'll of course continue research and change course if more clear data becomes available"
... then it is pretty logical.

Libertarians started demanding the reverse order when they started using the "non-negotiable" rhetoric. That's what made them like any other ideology.

[DarkandStormy]

The entire libertarian ideology has crumbled in all of ~three weeks.  Amazing to see.

[LennStar]

The entire libertarian ideology has crumbled in all of ~three weeks.  Amazing to see.

It is clearly the government's fault that there is no toilet paper to buy anywhere!!

[GuitarStv]

The Libertarian ideology has fundamental logical problems in it's framework . . . so seeing it fall apart when presented with a novel situation is not particularly unexpected.

[LennStar]

Unexpected for me is that there is actually someone who still thought it has not completely crumbled in 2008.

Crumbled of course as in "proven totaly, superbly wrong", but that was basically true since it's invention and it still was around all the time.

Ideologies don't die. Only their believers.

[DarkandStormy]

Unexpected for me is that there is actually someone who still thought it has not completely crumbled in 2008.

This thread was started in December 2019.  It even says the libertarian ideology is "so popular" among otherwise reasonable people.

[Kris]

Anecdotally, all the libertarians I know are white males, who seem very convinced that all of their successes in life were caused 100% by their own efforts and basically nothing else.

I don't find that people who think things like that are very inclined to look at systemic forces in play. Hence perhaps the remarkable resilience of the ideology among its followers.

[bacchi]

Anecdotally, all the libertarians I know are white males, who seem very convinced that all of their successes in life were caused 100% by their own efforts and basically nothing else.

Yep. And if they're not successful, they blame it on The Man.

[LennStar]

Anecdotally, all the libertarians I know are white males, who seem very convinced that all of their successes in life were caused 100% by their own efforts and basically nothing else.

Yep. And if they're not successful, they blame it on The Man.

Which strange, since The Woman would have equally the same chance to be the misfit, right?

[robartsd]

Anecdotally, all the libertarians I know are white males, who seem very convinced that all of their successes in life were caused 100% by their own efforts and basically nothing else.

I don't find that people who think things like that are very inclined to look at systemic forces in play. Hence perhaps the remarkable resilience of the ideology among its followers.

I've personally met about as many white female libertarians as white male libertarians. I think some even acknowledged that they have had a few advantages that helped their hard work pay off. I'm pretty sure that all libertarians I've encountered did start with at least middle-class privilege.

[mm1970]

Anecdotally, all the libertarians I know are white males, who seem very convinced that all of their successes in life were caused 100% by their own efforts and basically nothing else.

I don't find that people who think things like that are very inclined to look at systemic forces in play. Hence perhaps the remarkable resilience of the ideology among its followers.

Same.  In fact, I recently reconnected with a college classmate (thanks to Facebook).  He's definitely a reader, and a hard core Christian.  Like many of my college friends, he's a friend from ROTC.

He's been posting excerpts from the book that he is reading (about poverty) and opening up discussions about extreme wealth and the problems with wealth disparity.  Namely, the power imbalance.  I noted that the book that I'm reading (Out to Work by Alice Kessler Harris) discusses the power imbalance also.  It's about women in the workplace starting in the 1800s (I'm just post WWII right now). 

Interestingly, there are 3 people who are very much arguing with the anti-wealth stance.  They have all moved on to arguing about what the bible says about wealth (I'm an ex-Catholic now Atheist, so I'm not going there).  It's interesting though that the 3 pro wealth people are all very much white males.  (The friend who is reading the book and opening up the dialog is black.)  One of the 3 is another college classmate, never really did like him because of his attitude against women.

[LennStar]