3 ms·

I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really di

I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book, which turns out to be hopelessly circular (as in the case of property, which is defined in terms of non-coercion, which is also defined in terms of property). It seems that you want to have world black and white, and so you invent new categories to deal with difficult moral dilemmas. But personal ethics is not something coming from a book, it's a result of intuitively answering these questions (by "feel") and sometimes accepting that there is no good answer, or that answer depends on different circumstances. > look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions .. it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic Yes and no - that's my original problem. When I ask you a specific moral question, the answer indeed seems quite reasonable. But then you're (very definitely) against things like taxation or state (which are integral part of the Western culture). I would like to understand where this contradiction comes from. Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, especially given you were the only person willing to respond to my original post.

burntsushi 11y ago
> when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book I would do exactly the same if it was a really difficult technical topic. Instead of spending a week writing a 10,000 word essay for you, I'd point you to someone else who has already done it. Feel free to trawl through my comments on HN. I regularly defer to some other source of information. It's just common sense. The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. I've not invoked any such construct, so I don't see the similarities. > It seems that you want to have world black and white No, I don't actually. I just want to stop legitimizing coercion. > Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Frankly, this is beyond the scope of my ethic. For example, if you had read other works by the OP, you would know that there is indeed quite a bit of theory behind proportion. Your absolutist views on property are your own. I do not share them. I don't care what system of property you invent, even if it means eradicating property altogether. But if your system needs legitimized coercion, then I would find it immoral. It's really as simple as that. Finally, I'd also like to note that you seem to have ignored---or at least not acknowledged---my answer to your question. Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. The entire point of my response was to demonstrate why this wasn't necessarily true, while acknowledging that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree (because there are so many different flavors of libertarianism). The conversation has now devolved into an attempt to have me build up an entire theory of case law for you in HN comments. When I refused, I was compared with theologians. Personally, I don't find this progression of discussion to be in good faith. I responded to your initial comment because I feel very strongly about helping others, and it always pains me to see a common misconception about libertarianism used to paint all of its adherents under some evil light. (Because I do consider refusal to help others to be a sort of evil.) I love to help others and I know plenty of other libertarians who share that zeal. I tried to demonstrate this by pointing out the things I truly care about ("no coercion") in libertarianism and how they don't preclude helping others.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  Actually, I think I understand your position lot better now. :-) > The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. Every book on libertarianism I have seen was lot more interested in some sort of ultimate, axiomatic moral truth, rather than empirical evidence that libertarianism works (by whatever criteria) in the real world. Ayn Rand with her fiction is probably the best example, but Rothbard is IIRC not much better. Heaps of theory and little evidence. > Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. I think I finally understand what you're really saying. You basically think that helping others (say, economically) is something that shouldn't be enforced by society. I can see why people (including me) can wrongly interpret that as being against helping itself. It seems kind of similar to moral view that we have in the West regarding adultery. Most of us find it immoral, but we don't agree it should be punished by law, or that there should be deliberate obstacles put in place in order to prevent it happening (such as separation of men and women). And here too, this can be interpreted by say, religious fundamentalists, that this view supports adultery. (Originally, I thought you just think that not-helping others shouldn't be punished, but that's a weaker proposition that still doesn't explain why are you against say, taxes.) I don't think though society can even exist in such framework. I pretty much agree with what wfo wrote you above. Seriously, some empirical evidence for your position would help. It may even be in a form of computer simulation.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    > Every book on libertarianism I have seen was lot more interested in some sort of ultimate, axiomatic moral truth, rather than empirical evidence that libertarianism works (by whatever criteria) in the real world. Ayn Rand with her fiction is probably the best example, but Rothbard is IIRC not much better. Heaps of theory and little evidence. Ayn Rand has always put me off. She is more in the "got mine, fuck you" end of the libertarian spectrum IMO. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of other libertarians are that way too. I've personally always found Rothbard compelling. The axiomatic stuff is just a way to build a foundation, and there's definitely lots of hand wringing there. But you have to start somewhere. Personally, I think it's quite possible to disagree with those axioms and therefore reject any conclusions drawn from them. More to the point, I don't see how this is specifically a condemnation of libertarianism. Any political philosophy relies on some axiom or another, e.g., social contract theory, which purportedly justifies our current system. > I don't think though society can even exist in such framework. I pretty much agree with what wfo wrote you above. Seriously, some empirical evidence for your position would help. It may even be in a form of computer simulation. I kindly defer to the very first line in my very first comment: > I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. I'm not really sure there is much empirical evidence to be found here. The only way to really know for sure whether it will work is to convince a society that freedom is an ideal worth pursuing and then try it. My own personal hope is that it occurs peacefully over time via cultural and societal evolution. It might span centuries. Once again, I note that we have once again swayed from the original point. You called out libertarians as being against helping others. Instead, you end your comment with, "Ok, fine, I'll just dismiss that and jump straight to: but but but I can't possibly imagine how it will work." So? I don't really know either. Why can't we be content with not knowing stuff? I am. I am certainly content with not knowing how a free society would work. What I do know is that my belief that coercion is unethical is unshakable.

burntsushi 11y ago

> when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book I would do exactly the same if it was a really difficult technical topic. Instead of spending a week writing a 10,000 word essay for you, I'd point you to someone else who has already done it. Feel free to trawl through my comments on HN. I regularly defer to some other source of information. It's just common sense. The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. I've not invoked any such construct, so I don't see the similarities. > It seems that you want to have world black and white No, I don't actually. I just want to stop legitimizing coercion. > Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Frankly, this is beyond the scope of my ethic. For example, if you had read other works by the OP, you would know that there is indeed quite a bit of theory behind proportion. Your absolutist views on property are your own. I do not share them. I don't care what system of property you invent, even if it means eradicating property altogether. But if your system needs legitimized coercion, then I would find it immoral. It's really as simple as that. Finally, I'd also like to note that you seem to have ignored---or at least not acknowledged---my answer to your question. Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. The entire point of my response was to demonstrate why this wasn't necessarily true, while acknowledging that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree (because there are so many different flavors of libertarianism). The conversation has now devolved into an attempt to have me build up an entire theory of case law for you in HN comments. When I refused, I was compared with theologians. Personally, I don't find this progression of discussion to be in good faith. I responded to your initial comment because I feel very strongly about helping others, and it always pains me to see a common misconception about libertarianism used to paint all of its adherents under some evil light. (Because I do consider refusal to help others to be a sort of evil.) I love to help others and I know plenty of other libertarians who share that zeal. I tried to demonstrate this by pointing out the things I truly care about ("no coercion") in libertarianism and how they don't preclude helping others.

asgard1024 11y ago
Actually, I think I understand your position lot better now. :-) > The comparison with theology is weird, considering that theology is based on the premise of revealed knowledge about the world. Every book on libertarianism I have seen was lot more interested in some sort of ultimate, axiomatic moral truth, rather than empirical evidence that libertarianism works (by whatever criteria) in the real world. Ayn Rand with her fiction is probably the best example, but Rothbard is IIRC not much better. Heaps of theory and little evidence. > Namely, that being libertarian is somehow contrary to helping others. I think I finally understand what you're really saying. You basically think that helping others (say, economically) is something that shouldn't be enforced by society. I can see why people (including me) can wrongly interpret that as being against helping itself. It seems kind of similar to moral view that we have in the West regarding adultery. Most of us find it immoral, but we don't agree it should be punished by law, or that there should be deliberate obstacles put in place in order to prevent it happening (such as separation of men and women). And here too, this can be interpreted by say, religious fundamentalists, that this view supports adultery. (Originally, I thought you just think that not-helping others shouldn't be punished, but that's a weaker proposition that still doesn't explain why are you against say, taxes.) I don't think though society can even exist in such framework. I pretty much agree with what wfo wrote you above. Seriously, some empirical evidence for your position would help. It may even be in a form of computer simulation.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > Every book on libertarianism I have seen was lot more interested in some sort of ultimate, axiomatic moral truth, rather than empirical evidence that libertarianism works (by whatever criteria) in the real world. Ayn Rand with her fiction is probably the best example, but Rothbard is IIRC not much better. Heaps of theory and little evidence. Ayn Rand has always put me off. She is more in the "got mine, fuck you" end of the libertarian spectrum IMO. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of other libertarians are that way too. I've personally always found Rothbard compelling. The axiomatic stuff is just a way to build a foundation, and there's definitely lots of hand wringing there. But you have to start somewhere. Personally, I think it's quite possible to disagree with those axioms and therefore reject any conclusions drawn from them. More to the point, I don't see how this is specifically a condemnation of libertarianism. Any political philosophy relies on some axiom or another, e.g., social contract theory, which purportedly justifies our current system. > I don't think though society can even exist in such framework. I pretty much agree with what wfo wrote you above. Seriously, some empirical evidence for your position would help. It may even be in a form of computer simulation. I kindly defer to the very first line in my very first comment: > I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. I'm not really sure there is much empirical evidence to be found here. The only way to really know for sure whether it will work is to convince a society that freedom is an ideal worth pursuing and then try it. My own personal hope is that it occurs peacefully over time via cultural and societal evolution. It might span centuries. Once again, I note that we have once again swayed from the original point. You called out libertarians as being against helping others. Instead, you end your comment with, "Ok, fine, I'll just dismiss that and jump straight to: but but but I can't possibly imagine how it will work." So? I don't really know either. Why can't we be content with not knowing stuff? I am. I am certainly content with not knowing how a free society would work. What I do know is that my belief that coercion is unethical is unshakable.