5 ms·

I kinda agree with you, and I think it's unfair you're getting downvoted by fundamentalists. I don't understand the libertarian stance either. They are against

I kinda agree with you, and I think it's unfair you're getting downvoted by fundamentalists. I don't understand the libertarian stance either. They are against concentration and misuse of power (big business and government), which I can relate to, to an extent. But at the same time, they seem unwilling to help or even compromise with the other people who are getting screwed (which is often a majority). Specifically, they don't want to support poor in any way, and are often against democracy. Now I sympathize with the cause, but why should I (politically, economically) help/support person (a libertarian) that is unwilling to help/support me? It doesn't make any sense, in fact it sounds as a fishy proposition, where I am gonna get screwed (though at least I appreciate the honesty). I'd be happy to hear from libertarians how is this supposed to work - why should I support you? Is your system going to help me when I am in trouble and how? (Or don't forget to downvote me as a signal that you don't want to have a tough but mature discussion about your precious beliefs.)

burntsushi 11y ago
I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. Here's the first problem: the word "libertarian" is a huge umbrella term that encompasses many different philosophies. Reasonable uses of word go from "fuck you, got mine" all the way to "no coercion, please." I've seen plenty of folks self identify on various parts of this spectrum, so I'm not even including derogatory senses of the word. And of course, many would consider this to be a "right wing" usurpation of the word from traditional leftists. So despite the broad spectrum, one could still consider it wrong in a variety of ways. With that said, I personally identify close to "no coercion, please." Notably, I largely see this as entirely orthogonal to what it means to help others. In contrast, "fuck you, got mine," is a clear statement that "helping others" is to be looked down upon, and that those who are poor are weak or lazy. The "no coercion, please" is also easy to conflate with "don't help others" because such a position often entails an argument in favor of defunding or abolishing many of the social welfare programs we see today. Often, this argument is made without any attempt at providing an alternative, so it's easily dismissed by conscientious individuals. However, many of these arguments are not based on the proposition that the poor are weak or that helping others is somehow bad, but rather, that these social welfare programs are predicated on the use of force (as us libertarians see it, which is not necessarily how others see it, because certainly not all people think that taxation is coercive, but I certainly see it that way). Since they are predicated on the use of force, they are generally incompatible with libertarian philosophy. However, the part where social welfare programs help people is, to me, not incompatible at all with libertarian philosophy. For example, there are uncountably many privately run charities in the world. These are of course organized voluntarily, and are therefore compatible with libertarian philosophy. Naturally, this turns the discussion toward "well private charities provide no guarantees to help folks in need." And yes, that is true. But now you've arrived to the heart of the matter: the only way to provide a "guarantee" is to use coercion. (I personally don't think of this as a guarantee, but government institutions certainly have an air of longevity and stability that isn't often associated with private organizations, so I can understand the sentiment.) I largely see this as a trade off between freedom and security. Freedom means there are no guarantees; folks in need will only get help if there are others willing to give it. For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. This probably makes me an absolutist. Of course, in real life, my pragmatism takes over. I don't mind being an absolutist in theory. ;-)
- chillwaves 11y ago
  >For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. Do you support Basic Income? The system of "free market capitalism" is certainly coercive in the way it walls resources off and forces people to play into the system of exchanging labor for money so they can survive.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    I think I made my position clear. If "basic income" requires coercive force, then I'm against it. If "basic income" does not require coercive force, then go for it. > The system of "free market capitalism" is certainly coercive in the way it walls resources off and forces people to play into the system of exchanging labor for money so they can survive. If exchanging labor for goods required for survival meets your definition of coercion, then we do not share the same definition. I submit that you can keep your definition. Instead, simply replace all occurrences of the word "coercion" in my comments as "the initiation of physical force (or threat of) by a specific person or group." I'm happy to support the eradication of social ills that meet your definition of coercion; but I will not abide my definition of coercion in the process.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      It seems to me, since basic income didn't appear spontaneously so far, it probably requires coercive force to appear, so you're against it. Anyway, thanks for the reply to my original comment. Like user "solipsism" though, I found your views somewhat contradictory. But it seems very apparent that your answer to my question "would you help me if I am in trouble?" is "NO, if it would mean to coerce the other party to leave you alone". Which is a rather weak ethic in my book.
      - burntsushi 11y ago
        > But it seems very apparent that your answer to my question "would you help me if I am in trouble?" My answer to that question is: "yes." I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion.
pinaceae 11y ago
no worries, was clear when I posted that the downvotes would come in heavy - this is HN after all. big fan of this ideology, especially personified by the likes of Peter Thiel, who went on record stating that letting womenfolk vote in the US was a huge mistake and has doomed his perfect vision of a society. wonder how his seabase is going?

burntsushi 11y ago

I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. Here's the first problem: the word "libertarian" is a huge umbrella term that encompasses many different philosophies. Reasonable uses of word go from "fuck you, got mine" all the way to "no coercion, please." I've seen plenty of folks self identify on various parts of this spectrum, so I'm not even including derogatory senses of the word. And of course, many would consider this to be a "right wing" usurpation of the word from traditional leftists. So despite the broad spectrum, one could still consider it wrong in a variety of ways. With that said, I personally identify close to "no coercion, please." Notably, I largely see this as entirely orthogonal to what it means to help others. In contrast, "fuck you, got mine," is a clear statement that "helping others" is to be looked down upon, and that those who are poor are weak or lazy. The "no coercion, please" is also easy to conflate with "don't help others" because such a position often entails an argument in favor of defunding or abolishing many of the social welfare programs we see today. Often, this argument is made without any attempt at providing an alternative, so it's easily dismissed by conscientious individuals. However, many of these arguments are not based on the proposition that the poor are weak or that helping others is somehow bad, but rather, that these social welfare programs are predicated on the use of force (as us libertarians see it, which is not necessarily how others see it, because certainly not all people think that taxation is coercive, but I certainly see it that way). Since they are predicated on the use of force, they are generally incompatible with libertarian philosophy. However, the part where social welfare programs help people is, to me, not incompatible at all with libertarian philosophy. For example, there are uncountably many privately run charities in the world. These are of course organized voluntarily, and are therefore compatible with libertarian philosophy. Naturally, this turns the discussion toward "well private charities provide no guarantees to help folks in need." And yes, that is true. But now you've arrived to the heart of the matter: the only way to provide a "guarantee" is to use coercion. (I personally don't think of this as a guarantee, but government institutions certainly have an air of longevity and stability that isn't often associated with private organizations, so I can understand the sentiment.) I largely see this as a trade off between freedom and security. Freedom means there are no guarantees; folks in need will only get help if there are others willing to give it. For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. This probably makes me an absolutist. Of course, in real life, my pragmatism takes over. I don't mind being an absolutist in theory. ;-)

chillwaves 11y ago
>For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. Do you support Basic Income? The system of "free market capitalism" is certainly coercive in the way it walls resources off and forces people to play into the system of exchanging labor for money so they can survive.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  I think I made my position clear. If "basic income" requires coercive force, then I'm against it. If "basic income" does not require coercive force, then go for it. > The system of "free market capitalism" is certainly coercive in the way it walls resources off and forces people to play into the system of exchanging labor for money so they can survive. If exchanging labor for goods required for survival meets your definition of coercion, then we do not share the same definition. I submit that you can keep your definition. Instead, simply replace all occurrences of the word "coercion" in my comments as "the initiation of physical force (or threat of) by a specific person or group." I'm happy to support the eradication of social ills that meet your definition of coercion; but I will not abide my definition of coercion in the process.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    It seems to me, since basic income didn't appear spontaneously so far, it probably requires coercive force to appear, so you're against it. Anyway, thanks for the reply to my original comment. Like user "solipsism" though, I found your views somewhat contradictory. But it seems very apparent that your answer to my question "would you help me if I am in trouble?" is "NO, if it would mean to coerce the other party to leave you alone". Which is a rather weak ethic in my book.
    - burntsushi 11y ago
      > But it seems very apparent that your answer to my question "would you help me if I am in trouble?" My answer to that question is: "yes." I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion.

pinaceae 11y ago

no worries, was clear when I posted that the downvotes would come in heavy - this is HN after all. big fan of this ideology, especially personified by the likes of Peter Thiel, who went on record stating that letting womenfolk vote in the US was a huge mistake and has doomed his perfect vision of a society. wonder how his seabase is going?