4 ms·

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. You've already concluded that libertarianism is not simply impractical, but also that it is, as a normative statement, mo

• pron 11y ago
  > also that it is, as a normative statement, morally repugnant and always leading to rich oligopoly. Those are two separate things and I only assert the former (although I think most libertarians have the best intentions). As to the latter, I just think that whatever evidence we have seems to suggest that this is the case, and it is reasonable to believe it is so (and that does not preclude that it may also be reasonable not to). I'd never make such a strong assertion, though. I also did not conclude that libertarianism is impractical. In fact, I think evidence suggests it is very practical (and systems similar-enough to it, IMO, were the norm throughout most of Western civilization), only it might be quite bad for the majority of people. I mainly just took issue with the statement that libertarianism has never been tried by saying that we did try approximations of it which are no less accurate than all other approximations of similarly extreme ideologies. I do, however, feel that arguments with libertarians often hit an impasse when discussing not ideas but facts -- facts that are hard to conclusively ascertain -- such as the actual dynamics of society. I feel that libertarianism pre-supposes a human dynamics which is at odds with everything I've learned in my (not too many) years of social studies; libertarians, of course, would disagree[1]. > Yet you also mention anarchy as a possible alternative I did no such thing. I simply stated that both anarchy and social democracy ideally allow all people to express their power freely, unlike libertarianism or communism, which are too freedom-constricting for my tastes. I never said anarchy is practical or something I actively strive for; merely that it (as well as social-democracy) is compatible with my moral views. Of course, history has shown that the main problem with anarchy is that it is unsustainable, in that it naturally gives rise to some form of government. [1]: Although the number of libertarians who have actually studied human society is vanishingly small. There are hardly any libertarian sociologists, anthropologists or historians. There are more than a few economists, but economists rarely agree on anything... :)
  • vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Although the number of libertarians who have actually studied human society is vanishingly small. That you keep resorting to Courtier's replies, train-of-thought generalities over any specific libertarian philosophy (instead presupposing Gilded Age = libertarian) and psychoanalyses of libertarians is revealing, I think. Economists rarely agree on anything, but if you're an example of the average sociologist or anthropologist, then surely that profession has an even worse track record.
    • pron 11y ago
      > That you keep resorting to ... I am most certainly not resorting to psychoanalyzing libertarians. I just said that I believe libertarianism is a perfectly logical conclusion for a reality that (to me) seems alien to the one we actually have. One notable (though far from unique) example is the libertarian concept of freedom of choice: It is perfectly reasonable for an idealized person, but at odds with our experience. Countless psychological experiments have shown that it is quite easy to restrict people's effective choice with nothing more than simple manipulations (with varying degrees of effectiveness, yet all fall very far from violence or even the threat of violence), yet libertarians insist that this does not constitute an actual restriction because their idealized person can somehow choose not to fall victim to those manipulations, even though the actual number of people who seem to be able to do so in the real world is small. Other examples include libertarian notions of people's motivations (again, perfectly reasonable yet at odds with findings), libertarian ideas of how power propagates in society and more. It is therefore not interesting to argue with the libertarian ideas -- they are perfectly reasonable. There's no point in arguing with the desire to build winged bicycles if their inventor assumes a weaker gravity or greater human strength and stamina. The problem is with the premise. Libertarians insist that our findings are inapplicable to testing their premises, yet fail to provide evidence to support theirs[1]. So I think generalizations are very much in order, because this puts libertarianism itself in a (large) class of utopian ideologies, all of which share quite a bit in common[2]. > if you're an example of the average sociologist or anthropologist I am neither. After getting my math degree I briefly entertained the notion of becoming a historian of medieval Europe until I realized academia is not where I want to spend my time. --- [1]: Some would gladly provide supporting evidence from approximations of libertarianism, yet discount counter-evidence on the ground that it is only an approximation. [2]: What sets libertarianism apart from some is its idealization of some things we know quite well, and so some of its followers share the ideology but not the premise or the goals. They root for the ideology precisely because they want the very same results that many (like me) believe would be bad for most people, because they believe they will be among the few who will benefit. This, too, is common among some utopian ideologies (like social Darwinism). But it means that you can find some libertarians who describe their utopia as something that sounds almost like communism (no one has too much power over others), while others describe a jungle where they (so they hope) are at the top of the food-chain. This divergence of vision is actually rather unique.