4 ms·

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

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.
- randallsquared 11y ago
  > I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. A "philosophical libertarian" is a different animal than a non-activist political libertarian, having to do with whether free will exists. Just FYI. :)
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    sigh Fine.

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.

randallsquared 11y ago
> I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. A "philosophical libertarian" is a different animal than a non-activist political libertarian, having to do with whether free will exists. Just FYI. :)
- burntsushi 11y ago
  sigh Fine.