Terrapin Station
8.2k

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy. Again, if you want to critique something, it might help to understand it first. — Terrapin Station

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy.

Libertarians cannot see that...or refuse to acknowledge it.

Are you a libertarian?

Harry Hindu
1.8k

This is the problem with libertarianism. We either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. If we choose the second option then which objective is 'right' becomes nothing more than a matter of preference. — Isaac

This is the most common illogical argument made against libertarianism. The fact that you make it tells me that you aren't really informed enough for me to have this discussion with you.

Libertarianism isn't letting everyone do whatever they want. That is anarchy. Libertarianism is the belief in limited govt. not no govt.

So a Libertarian would be just fine with laws that stop others from infringing on other people's rights. — Harry Hindu

And libertarians want to define what "limited government" is!

I, and many others, do not want libertarians anywhere near that decision.

So...that has to be decided at the ballot box,

How have the libertarians been doing on the national scene?

How about state-wide?

How about local?

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa

Libertarians set up systems that can't lead to anarchy. At least not without some sort of revolution that would result in an anarchy, but then any political approach could just as well lead to that. Not that an anarchy can be sustained, anyway, but imagining that it could be.

I used to be a "straight U.S.-party-styled Libertarian," and I was for a number of years. I no longer consider myself that. I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. But I understand Libertarianism well. I was very involved with the party formally for a while, to a point where I actually carted Harry Browne around to some media appearances during one of his presidential runs.

I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. — Terrapin Station

That sounds like an oxymoron. Could you maybe outline that a bit?

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


Libertarians set up systems that can't lead to anarchy. At least not without some sort of revolution that would result in an anarchy, but then any political approach could just as well lead to that. Not that an anarchy can be sustained, anyway, but imagining that it could be. — Terrapin Station

There has to be some reason besides looking at the issue and coming up with this. No sure what it is yet...but I suspect it has to do with confirmation bias.

I used to be a "straight U.S.-party-styled Libertarian," and I was for a number of years. I no longer consider myself that. I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. But I understand Libertarianism well. I was very involved with the party formally for a while, to a point where I actually carted Harry Browne around to some media appearances during one of his presidential runs.

Well...that may be the reason.

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy.

We are not going to agree on this issue.

Libertarianism isn't letting everyone do whatever they want. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say it was. Read the post before reaching for your stock reply. What I said was that we either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. We. All of us. Not just libertarians. It is a decision which everyone has to make constantly.

The problem with Libertarianism is that it assumes a level can be determined by some ideology, when in truth it is set entirely by personal preference.

Everyone believes in limited government absolutely everyone. Because no one thinks that government should dictate a person's every move. Virtually no one believes in complete anarchy (not quite such exhaustive disdain, but nearly universal). So what we end up with is everyone believing in some government control, and it's just a matter of personal preference how much.

Libertarianism isn't making an ideological statement about the level of government control. It's just asking for less because the members of the movement don't happen to like being controlled in the way they currently are.

It's fine to dress it up in fancy rhetoric for the political stage, but this is a philosophy forum, not a political rally.

That sounds like an oxymoron. Could you maybe outline that a bit? — praxis

Basically I'm a socialist on economic and social welfare issues, I'm a libertarian otherwise.

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa

So, for example, libertarians would have governments with public police forces, court systems, etc. How would that lead to an anarchy?

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


So, for example, libertarians would have governments with public police forces, court systems, etc. How would that lead to an anarchy? — Terrapin Station

Because have public police forces and court systems is not enough for society and civilization to function.

Libertarianism leads to more libertarianism...which is to say that demands for more personal freedom leads to more and greater demands for more and greater personal freedom.

It leads to anarchy and chaos.

As I've mentioned...there are places on planet Earth right now where personal freedom is almost without restraint. Libertarians do not move there. It is a concept that only sounds good to people moaning and groaning about government.

We, the governed, are the government. If anything, today we need more, not less.

Libertarianism isn't making an ideological statement about the level of government control. It's just asking for less because the members of the movement don't happen to like being controlled in the way they currently are. — Isaac

I’m no expert on libertarianism but I believe the basic ideology is that a free market or economy is self regulating and is made worse or less efficient by government interference.

A fine line between that and an American liberal?

Because have public police forces and court systems is not enough for society and civilization to function. — Frank Apisa

I wasn't saying that libertarians only have police forces and court systems. I was asking you how we wind up with anarchy when we have public police forces and court systems.

So for example, if rape is against the law and enforced as such, then we don't have an anarchy, right? So how do we go from rape being illegal and enforced as such to rape no longer being illegal under libertarianism?

A fine line between that and an American liberal? — praxis

I don't think so. Liberals want to control all sorts of stuff that I'm not at all in favor of controlling. For example, most liberals are in favor of there being some speech prohibitions.

For example, most liberals are in favor of there being some speech prohibitions. — Terrapin Station

Can you support this claim with evidence?

If you’re referring to things like SJW and “identity politics,” those are expressions of liberal values surrounding egalitarianism and concern for the well-being of the disenfranchised. A libertarian values liberty more than they care for the plight of the underclass.

And who really gives a fuck if a libertarian fool like Milo Yiannopoulos is talked down at college campuses by some impassioned adolescents.

Can you support this claim with evidence? — praxis

Would you need evidence of them being in favor of slander and libel prohibitions, for example?

Aside from that, many are in favor of some hate speech and hate crime prohibitions, for example.

I suggest trying to support the claim any way that you can. Bear in mind that you need to show majority support.

So you don't buy that most people are in favor of slander and libel laws?

So you don't buy that most people are in favor of slander and libel laws? — Terrapin Station

I do indeed, including libertarian hero Milo https://bigleaguepolitics.com/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-talks-his-lawsuit-against-newspaper-that-blamed-him-for-5-deaths/

Are you implying that if someone damaged your professional reputation, for example, and it cost you significant monetary damage, you wouldn't pursue a legal case because of ideological beliefs?

I do indeed, — praxis

Cool. I think that most people are in favor of them, too. I just don't know how I'd provide evidence of that to someone who doesn't believe that most people are in favor of them.

Re "Milo," I don't know anything about him. He certainly doesn't have anything to do with me.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not in favor of slander and libel laws, or any speech prohibitions whatsoever.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not in favor of slander and libel laws, or any speech prohibitions whatsoever. — Terrapin Station

So you wouldn’t pursue a legal case for ideological reasons, no matter how bad the damages?

Must be easy to compete with libertarians.

So you wouldn’t pursue a legal case for ideological reasons, no matter how bad the damages? — praxis

Correct.

I'm not at all claiming to represent anyone else. I was just telling you that my views don't at all equate to typical liberal views.

If, by raising a "level-playing-field problem", you mean to say that the situation is unfair, this is only a problem for a position if that position is concerned to make everything fair (presumably equal in an important sense). Is libertarianism such a position? Does anyone say that it is about fairness?

Fairness and equality seem more to be a concern of those advocating for systems such as socialism.

Libertarians seem to be coming from more of a standpoint of realism about inevitable inequality and a kind of survival of the fittest and promotion of innovation by competition, which is said to be incentivized by rewards for excellence. A common claim of free-market advocates: A free market produces the best products and the most overall wealth.

Suppose we are just talking evolutionary biology. If birds with better wings tend to be more successful, birds will tend to develop better wings. The birds with better wings didn't merit them. They just happen to have them. Is this unfair? Perhaps. What if we level the playing field and make sure that all birds reproduce at exactly the same rates, regardless of their wings? What if even the most decrepit bird reproduces and contributes to the gene pool just as much as the most high-performing bird? Suppose we interfere and extract the sperm and combine it with the eggs. What if we ensure that all the birds have equal reproductive success? Is this good for birds in the long run? Probably not. Is it more fair? Perhaps. Is the natural system unfair? Sure. Life is unfair through and through.

Free-market people like competition. Competition is the revealing of advantage. It is exactly about discovering inequalities and revealing and rewarding the best.

Consider the idea that performance enhancing drugs are considered cheating because they make the playing field unequal. Is the playing field equal without them? Is it? What about superior genes for the sport? What about more money for good trainers? What about higher intelligence behind the training? What about better equipment? It could be argued that absolutely every single factor that leads to the winner winning is a matter of an unfair advantage.

So and so tried harder and therefore advanced in fitness more and therefore deserved his win. But what is motivation if not a part of health that is unequally distributed? If your heart is less healthy than mine, you'll feel more depressed, less able to run hard without chest pain, and so on. You might look like you aren't trying as hard. You might give up. I might call you lazy. But in reality, it might come down to difference in genetics, age, or something similar.

Where libertarianism gets into trouble in my opinion is when it tries to claim that in such a system, everyone gets what they "deserve", what they "merit", when it moralizes success, winners presumably winning because they are good people and losers losing because they are bad people. There, I am going to raise a lot of problems for their obviously faulty position. Take your prosperity theology and shove it! That shit pisses me off. Trump didn't earn his inheritance. Einstein didn't earn his intelligence.

But socialists, if they say that by leveling the playing field, they are ensuring that everyone gets what they "deserve", they are going to have to answer some questions as well.

The funny thing about the idea of a "level playing field" is that "playing field" suggests competition. And competition is basically about revealing inequalities. And "leveling" is about eliminating inequalities. A truly level playing field would be a ridiculous affair. Just consider it:

All players have the same genes. All players have exactly the same past experience and mental and physical conditioning. All players have exactly the same play conditions and are faced with exactly the same obstacles.

What would this mean? Theoretically, all players would perform exactly equally. We would be dealing with a set of identical deterministic systems and initial conditions. If there are no inequalities, there are no differences for the contest to reveal.

Contrary to popular fantasy, sport isn't about fairness. Really, it is about sorting people according to fitness and bringing the cream of the crop to the top. It plays into status games, mating games, and so on. It is like having a dog show and revealing the best candidates for breeding. It is also simply about the spectacle and the struggle. It is fun to watch people perform at high levels. And if you reveal the top performer and watch that person being tested, it is impressive to see. People pay to see that.

The idea that sport is about fundamental fairness and merit is a sham. Only without thinking about the matter can we believe this.

It would seem to me that the real reason that performance-enhancing drugs are maybe a problem in sport is because they deceive us about who is in fact physically and mentally superior. It is like people straightening their teeth with orthodontics and thus fooling potential mates into thinking they do not have bad-teeth genes. If a person's facial attractiveness tells me something about their genetic health and I am evaluating candidates to mix my genes with, makeup deceives me. It is like lying in a job interview. It is untruth in advertising. Someone is misrepresenting the product they are trying to sell me, to put it very unpleasantly and objectifyingly.

If the purpose of the game is to reveal the best genes, the best training strategies, the best culture, or whatever, if some use performance-enhancing drugs and some don't, this undermines the purpose of the contest.

All this is ugly, yes. And I am uncomfortable with it. But to some extent, it is the way things are. Life is unfair. All people are eugenicists when dating. We are in fact not equal in many respects. And no person is responsible for things being this way. And I am not saying that it is right that they should be this way. It's just how it is. Some are smarter. Some are faster. Some are stronger. Some are more beautiful. The world is topographically varied. Things are not level. They never were and never will be.

But it could be argued that we can smooth some of the roughest edges from things. We could make reality a little more pleasant to live in.

I should mention that I am not a libertarian.

I'm not at all claiming to represent anyone else. I was just telling you that my views don't at all equate to typical liberal views. — Terrapin Station

I think you could safely remove ‘liberal’ from the sentence. I doubt it’s typical for a libertarian to be so absolutist.

I wonder, would you also not pursue a legal case if someone intentionally damaged your property? For business ventures, reputation or branding can be much more valuable than property. I don’t see a fundamental difference between brand and property when intentional harm is committed.

I agree with most of what you said, I just don't think that the field is level, already. But, I don't agree with the false analogy of there being people with superior genes and all that eugenic bullcrap. If everyone would assume the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, then some unanimous decision could be made about the merit of having a level playing field as an original position everyone would want to start with.

But, I don't agree with the false analogy of there being people with superior genes and all that eugenic bullcrap. — Wallows

We could dispense with the valuation implicit in "superior" and just say "genes for more X", faster running for example. How's that?

I should make it clear that I am not advocating eugenics as social policy. But I do think nature operates in a rather eugenicist fashion in how it ruthlessly selects for fitness traits, though it certainly doesn't make any kind of valuations. And it doesn't necessarily always select for traits that humans value. I also have in mind the free market when I talk of nature selecting for fitness traits.

And without suggesting that it is good that it is the case, I'd point out that human contests might in fact serve a eugenic purpose, whether they are designed for this consciously or not. Consider how the women line up to breed with star male athletes, for example. I remember Magic Johnson years ago claiming that he slept with, what, over a thousand women? Unprotected too! Assuming some of those women were not on birth control, he probably fathered many more children than the less successful players.

Consider beauty pageants. They are a kind of meat market for rich men, aren't they? It is like someone visiting a slave market and checking the teeth of the slaves to assess value. Notice that men like Trump are into beauty pageants and tend to commonly rate women for their attractiveness. They are shopping. Do the women know that they are genetic specimens on display in a store window? Probably not. Maybe they do! Maybe they also want to win the attention of the wealthy men! Such men are also the winners of a sort of contest. And the money doesn't hurt!

In horse races, winning horses have extremely valuable sperm that is in high demand. link Do you suppose human contests are completely unlike that?

Commonplace mate selection in dating is rather eugenicist and Nazi-esque in practice as well. But most people don't recognize it. Would you have unprotected sex with a developmentally disabled person with severe physical deformities? Suppose one eye is an inch higher than the other and there is no arm, just a hand protruding from the shoulder. Would such a person be sexually attractive to you? Asking yourself such a question elicits uncomfortable answers, doesn't it? But not wanting to mate with such a person is basically deciding that such a person shouldn't reproduce, shouldn't continue to exist. What other sorts of people would you resist sleeping with?

Maybe a more fair situation is to give all people equal mating opportunities. We could just have computers randomly pair people to have sex and we would all be required to have sex with whoever we are assigned to. "Level the playing field." "Regulate the market." "Redistribute wealth." We could have a kind of affirmative action for ugly men. Force pretty girls to sleep with a certain number of ugly men. :wink: Check your privilege, attractive people! Sexually unattractive people are the new oppressed class! I am joking, of course!

Or we could ban sex altogether and just combine sperm and egg in labs, using some sort of random mate selection. This way, we could avoid the rape problem. :wink: Fairness!



Please don't mistake anything I am saying for anything like Nazi-sympathy. To say "X ought to happen" is very different from saying that "X happens". I here make descriptive claims, not prescriptive. I disapprove of Nazism. I just want to make that clear.

If everyone would assume the Rawlsian veil of ignorance... — Wallows

Something like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance can lead to conclusions quite unlike the ones we are expected to arrive at. Suppose we do a thought experiment where reincarnation is real and we don't know who we'll be in the next life. Maybe it is random. Perhaps to achieve social justice, we ought to think about social policy from such a standpoint, behind such a veil of ignorance. Presumably, since I might be born poor, I would vote for a minimum income and lots of safety nets for the poor.

But it occurs to me that a Nazi could say that he would prefer to be part of the master race in the next life, and so to eliminate all non-whites is to ensure that he'll be born white.

A regular eugenicist could argue that if eugenics is practiced, the body she would get in the next life would be more likely to be a good one.

A free market advocate could argue that the average member of a free market society has an average higher standard of living than in a centrally planned system, even if wealth disparity might be greater. This being the case, he might prefer to be a random person in a free market economy rather than one in which wealth is redistributed heavily, which might disincentivize innovation and so on. Maybe he really wants an iPhone and iPhones are impossible in a planned economy.

Suppose we do something different from the veil of ignorance, something more radical. Instead of saying that we don't know who we are, what if we say that there is one self that experiences being everyone in the society at all times? That which experiences being you also experiences being everyone else. You, in other words, are everyone. What policies would we choose then? In such a case, if I know that I am not only Trump, but also the homeless guy on the street, presumably, I'd go for massive wealth redistribution. After all, poor people outnumber rich people by a large margin, so most of my simultaneously lived lives are lives in poverty. And naturally I would be an environmentalist since I will also be my own grandchildren and will inherit the earth. Right?

But would generally leftist social policy always be the natural answer? A Nazi could once again choose as I suggested above. And so on.

Hell, an anti-natalist might argue that all human lives suck and to end human existence is to place limits on this unpleasantness!

Some suicidal anti-humans might even advocate the releasing of a virus to wipe out the species immediately! All this for social justice!

Someone else who loves life might want to maximize population at whatever level is sustainable, or whatever will produce the most overall number of humans throughout our entire history, even if that might mean wiping out the biosphere in the process of burning up the planet's resources to develop as necessary to cut loose from this planetary system.

Personally, I think complex, intelligent, and aesthetically pleasing conscious experience ought to be maximized, however that is to be best achieved. The more the universe understands and appreciates its existence, the better! That is my general ethical imperative.

How we reason about social policy from behind a veil of ignorance clearly depends on our values. No particular policy naturally falls out of the thought experiments.

I think you could safely remove ‘liberal’ from the sentence. I doubt it’s typical for a libertarian to be so absolutist. — praxis

Well, as a libertarian socialist my views certainly aren't typical libertarian views, either. But yeah they're not even typical of other folks who have called themselves libertarian socialists. Nevertheless, they don't more or less just amount to liberalism.

I wonder, would you also not pursue a legal case if someone intentionally damaged your property? — praxis

It would depend on the situation. What was damaged/how badly, who damaged it, why/what was the scenario, etc. In some situations I would, in some I wouldn't. Same would go for personal injury and breach of contract.

For business ventures, reputation or branding can be much more valuable than property. — praxis

Speech doesn't force anyone to believe what was said. I care about causality.

I don't frame anything simply on "harm." This is a good example why.

I don't frame anything simply on "harm." — Terrapin Station

Now I believe you’re not a liberal.

In general, by the way, I don't like that people are so lawsuit/press-charges/prosecute-others-for-every-little-thing happy. I think we ridiculously overreact in that regard. I think that we impose ridiculous sentences on people. And I think that the prison system, and the criminal justice system in general, should be completely retooled. I'm definitely in favor of separating out people who commit significant violent offenses, for example, especially if there's any reason to believe that they'd commit further offenses, but I think that sentences/penalties tend to be ridiculous overall.

I agree.

Legal defamation of business competitors or political rivals would be rather anarchistic, on the other hand, and lead to instability.