5 ms·

> That's not remotely true. I've witnessed self-described libertarians doing exactly that. It usually goes along with a lack of understanding of the power they

> That's not remotely true. I've witnessed self-described libertarians doing exactly that. It usually goes along with a lack of understanding of the power they have over someone far less economically fortunate.

__blockcipher__ 9y ago
It seems quite silly to argue against a viewpoint by citing that you've met some douchebags who follow that philosophy. I'm met plenty of republicans who lack understanding of the power they have over the less fortunate. I've also met many liberals who can't comprehend why someone would want to own a gun, or who constantly look for any excuse to peg someone as racist/sexist/classist/etc. (Obviously these are all United States-centric examples since I've spent most of my life here) To me it seems far more productive to examine the "best form" of each philosophy rather than the worst
- bittercynic 9y ago
  I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with either of your first two paragraphs. On the third, though, I think it is worthwhile to examine the good, bad, and ugly of each viewpoint. I only meant to point out an example of ugliness that sometimes falls out of libertarianism.
WalterBright 9y ago
There are plenty of jerks of every political persuasion who use those philosophies to justify being jerks. Now, if there is something in the philosophy of libertarianism that endorses being a jerk, please point it out.
- bittercynic 9y ago
  Though it may not be a core tenet of libertarianism, much of it seems to rely on an assumption that people are rational actors with access to good information who compete on a level playing field and seek to maximize their own utility in each individual transaction. This can boil down to something like the big boy principal, which does seem to advocate acting like a jerk, or acting in bad faith and then blaming your victim with a "He should have known better, so it's his fault I took advantage of him."
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    The core tenet of libertarianism is you cannot force others to do your will, nor can you hurt them. Tricking people, conning them, defrauding them, rooking them into bad contracts, etc., is all proscribed.
    - bittercynic 9y ago
      Please don't take this as an attack on libertarianism, as it seems as valid as any of the competing philosophies to me. That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake. I don't think I'm straw-manning here, as I have come across that argument fairly regularly, but I understand this does not represent the perspective of every person who identifies as libertarian.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        I'm just responding to the "jerks" issue.
        bittercynic 9y ago
        After I posted that last one I realized I was getting off-track, and maybe just feeling argumentative. I think we fundamentally agree on the jerks issue.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake Thats the point of the libertarian moral tenets. You might disagree with them, but that does not imply 'jerkness' nor it is a 'nice thing' to do great things to some people by harming others.
        bittercynic 9y ago

__blockcipher__ 9y ago

It seems quite silly to argue against a viewpoint by citing that you've met some douchebags who follow that philosophy. I'm met plenty of republicans who lack understanding of the power they have over the less fortunate. I've also met many liberals who can't comprehend why someone would want to own a gun, or who constantly look for any excuse to peg someone as racist/sexist/classist/etc. (Obviously these are all United States-centric examples since I've spent most of my life here) To me it seems far more productive to examine the "best form" of each philosophy rather than the worst

bittercynic 9y ago
I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with either of your first two paragraphs. On the third, though, I think it is worthwhile to examine the good, bad, and ugly of each viewpoint. I only meant to point out an example of ugliness that sometimes falls out of libertarianism.

WalterBright 9y ago

There are plenty of jerks of every political persuasion who use those philosophies to justify being jerks. Now, if there is something in the philosophy of libertarianism that endorses being a jerk, please point it out.

bittercynic 9y ago
Though it may not be a core tenet of libertarianism, much of it seems to rely on an assumption that people are rational actors with access to good information who compete on a level playing field and seek to maximize their own utility in each individual transaction. This can boil down to something like the big boy principal, which does seem to advocate acting like a jerk, or acting in bad faith and then blaming your victim with a "He should have known better, so it's his fault I took advantage of him."
- WalterBright 9y ago
  The core tenet of libertarianism is you cannot force others to do your will, nor can you hurt them. Tricking people, conning them, defrauding them, rooking them into bad contracts, etc., is all proscribed.
  - bittercynic 9y ago
    Please don't take this as an attack on libertarianism, as it seems as valid as any of the competing philosophies to me. That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake. I don't think I'm straw-manning here, as I have come across that argument fairly regularly, but I understand this does not represent the perspective of every person who identifies as libertarian.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      I'm just responding to the "jerks" issue.
      - bittercynic 9y ago
        After I posted that last one I realized I was getting off-track, and maybe just feeling argumentative. I think we fundamentally agree on the jerks issue.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake Thats the point of the libertarian moral tenets. You might disagree with them, but that does not imply 'jerkness' nor it is a 'nice thing' to do great things to some people by harming others.
      - bittercynic 9y ago