4 ms·

I just don't get libertarians. They're great at pointing out problems but never seem to offer realistic solutions. No doubt most of these issues he raises are v

by jsz0 17y ago

I just don't get libertarians. They're great at pointing out problems but never seem to offer realistic solutions. No doubt most of these issues he raises are valid concerns however what's the alternative? The free market will magically fix everything? We know from the Great Depression and in more recent times the free market is only concerned about maximizing profits for themselves. The government may not be supremely efficient at running some of these things but at least we have a say in the process. Most of the issues he cites exist because the free market failed people in the past and there was public outrage over a government that allowed it to happen.

Semiapies 17y ago
I just don't get safety freaks. They're great at pointing out dangers, but never seem to offer realistic solutions. No doubt many of the activities they criticize are harmful, but what's the alternative? Not hitting ourselves with hammers and not walking barefoot on rusty metal and hoping that our bodies will somehow magically avoid trauma and tetanus? Seriously - in the real world, a perfectly valid way to solve a problem is to stop doing the thing that causes it. Why the defensiveness because a libertarian pointed this out?
- bwh2 17y ago
  The author complains about Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and the War on Drugs. Whether or not you agree with those programs, do you think it's practical to just stop them? While I agree with many libertarian sentiments, I rarely find a libertarian argument that even attempts to explain a transition process.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    A better question might be "Do you really think it's practical to continue them?", but to answer you: yes. As for transition processes, to be blunt, many random libertarians online don't bother discussing them because they know it will probably never come to that. If you want good discussion of such things, places like the Mises Institute and Cato.org (full of policy wonks) would be good starting points.
    - bwh2 17y ago
      For instance, I don't think that continuing the War on Drugs is practical. But I recognize that ending it is a gradual process, not an overnight one. It's entirely impractical in many regards (economic, social, political) to just stop the War on Drugs overnight. In my opinion, people who are going to complain about something should offer some practical alternative.
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        Ah, so you completely ignored my post beyond that question. Fair enough, I'll return the favor: "people who are going to complain about something should offer some practical alternative" Meh. When the overwhelming majority of the public does not believe that things like the war on drugs are destructive programs that should be stopped, why waste time on trying to satisfy the rare person who says he already agrees, but demands we all have a presentation on a detailed decriminalization/legalization scheme decades before it's even worth talking about?
        bwh2 17y ago
        I don't advocate having a detailed decriminalization scheme, but an overview or outline would be nice. To that end, I think identifying clear steps, as opposed to a strictly ideological argument, is a good way to convince the overwhelming majority that the change is necessary and good. But of all those examples, the War on Drugs is probably the easiest to "just stop," so to speak. Putting an end to Social Security overnight means that grandparents around the country won't have any source of income. That's a good example of where just ending a program overnight seems impractical to me. To address your previous point, I have spent some time on Mises before, not as much Cato. But not enough time on either to really comment about specifics on their proposals or lack thereof. I suspect the reasoning you presented is probably accurate, at least in some part.
        Semiapies 17y ago
        "I think identifying clear steps, as opposed to a strictly ideological argument, is a good way to convince the overwhelming majority that the change is necessary and good." Not sure where anyone made any "pure ideological arguments", especially since this is a thread off a very consequentialist blog post...but no, having a plan doesn't convince people that action is necessary or desirable. Plans are what you discuss after people generally agree that change must happen; the public at large doesn't want most changes libertarians are interested in, so trying to sell them on how to carry out those changes is hugely premature.
- jsz0 17y ago
  It's simply shifting the problem. End Social Security? Great we solve the money problem. New problem: Lots of old people are going to die. Pase it out slowly? New problem: Lots of voters support Social Security and want to see it continue in some form. So obviously the solution is somewhere in the middle and there are no easy, ideologically pure, answers.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Gee, it's like changing major government programs isn't trivial or something. Mind, nobody said it was.
camccann 17y ago
I just don't get libertarians. They're great at pointing out problems but never seem to offer realistic solutions. I think the default libertarian solution is "don't do anything, the problem will take care of itself", which in point of fact often is a better idea than the hodge-podge, incoherent "solutions" that actually get adopted. On the other hand, perhaps you're asserting that "do nothing" isn't a realistic solution in the sense of being politically impossible to implement; in which case you'd be completely correct, which is why libertarianism remains a fringe political position for naive idealists (along with many other philosophies that could plausibly work better than the status quo). Most of the issues he cites exist because the free market failed people in the past and there was public outrage over a government that allowed it to happen. ...to be fair, most problems caused by the market arise because of perverse incentives and government meddling that allow profiteering looters to exploit the system at everyone else's expense. The counterintuitive part is that reducing regulation is roughly as likely to "create" these problems as solve them, because in a semi-stable equilibrium removing one distortion may open a new opportunity to abuse an existing one. The energy crisis in California is an excellent example of such, where making a (stable, inefficient, heavily regulated) market more free created exploitable distortions that allowed a bunch of (unprintable) people to screw everything up.

by jsz0 17y ago

Semiapies 17y ago

I just don't get safety freaks. They're great at pointing out dangers, but never seem to offer realistic solutions. No doubt many of the activities they criticize are harmful, but what's the alternative? Not hitting ourselves with hammers and not walking barefoot on rusty metal and hoping that our bodies will somehow magically avoid trauma and tetanus? Seriously - in the real world, a perfectly valid way to solve a problem is to stop doing the thing that causes it. Why the defensiveness because a libertarian pointed this out?

bwh2 17y ago
The author complains about Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and the War on Drugs. Whether or not you agree with those programs, do you think it's practical to just stop them? While I agree with many libertarian sentiments, I rarely find a libertarian argument that even attempts to explain a transition process.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  A better question might be "Do you really think it's practical to continue them?", but to answer you: yes. As for transition processes, to be blunt, many random libertarians online don't bother discussing them because they know it will probably never come to that. If you want good discussion of such things, places like the Mises Institute and Cato.org (full of policy wonks) would be good starting points.
  - bwh2 17y ago
    For instance, I don't think that continuing the War on Drugs is practical. But I recognize that ending it is a gradual process, not an overnight one. It's entirely impractical in many regards (economic, social, political) to just stop the War on Drugs overnight. In my opinion, people who are going to complain about something should offer some practical alternative.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      Ah, so you completely ignored my post beyond that question. Fair enough, I'll return the favor: "people who are going to complain about something should offer some practical alternative" Meh. When the overwhelming majority of the public does not believe that things like the war on drugs are destructive programs that should be stopped, why waste time on trying to satisfy the rare person who says he already agrees, but demands we all have a presentation on a detailed decriminalization/legalization scheme decades before it's even worth talking about?
      - bwh2 17y ago
        I don't advocate having a detailed decriminalization scheme, but an overview or outline would be nice. To that end, I think identifying clear steps, as opposed to a strictly ideological argument, is a good way to convince the overwhelming majority that the change is necessary and good. But of all those examples, the War on Drugs is probably the easiest to "just stop," so to speak. Putting an end to Social Security overnight means that grandparents around the country won't have any source of income. That's a good example of where just ending a program overnight seems impractical to me. To address your previous point, I have spent some time on Mises before, not as much Cato. But not enough time on either to really comment about specifics on their proposals or lack thereof. I suspect the reasoning you presented is probably accurate, at least in some part.
        Semiapies 17y ago
        "I think identifying clear steps, as opposed to a strictly ideological argument, is a good way to convince the overwhelming majority that the change is necessary and good." Not sure where anyone made any "pure ideological arguments", especially since this is a thread off a very consequentialist blog post...but no, having a plan doesn't convince people that action is necessary or desirable. Plans are what you discuss after people generally agree that change must happen; the public at large doesn't want most changes libertarians are interested in, so trying to sell them on how to carry out those changes is hugely premature.
jsz0 17y ago
It's simply shifting the problem. End Social Security? Great we solve the money problem. New problem: Lots of old people are going to die. Pase it out slowly? New problem: Lots of voters support Social Security and want to see it continue in some form. So obviously the solution is somewhere in the middle and there are no easy, ideologically pure, answers.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Gee, it's like changing major government programs isn't trivial or something. Mind, nobody said it was.

camccann 17y ago

I just don't get libertarians. They're great at pointing out problems but never seem to offer realistic solutions. I think the default libertarian solution is "don't do anything, the problem will take care of itself", which in point of fact often is a better idea than the hodge-podge, incoherent "solutions" that actually get adopted. On the other hand, perhaps you're asserting that "do nothing" isn't a realistic solution in the sense of being politically impossible to implement; in which case you'd be completely correct, which is why libertarianism remains a fringe political position for naive idealists (along with many other philosophies that could plausibly work better than the status quo). Most of the issues he cites exist because the free market failed people in the past and there was public outrage over a government that allowed it to happen. ...to be fair, most problems caused by the market arise because of perverse incentives and government meddling that allow profiteering looters to exploit the system at everyone else's expense. The counterintuitive part is that reducing regulation is roughly as likely to "create" these problems as solve them, because in a semi-stable equilibrium removing one distortion may open a new opportunity to abuse an existing one. The energy crisis in California is an excellent example of such, where making a (stable, inefficient, heavily regulated) market more free created exploitable distortions that allowed a bunch of (unprintable) people to screw everything up.