3 ms·

I can give you a reading list to illustrate the libertarian views on public choice and government intervention (perhaps starting with non-libertarian James C Sc

by nickff 6y ago

I can give you a reading list to illustrate the libertarian views on public choice and government intervention (perhaps starting with non-libertarian James C Scott's "Seeing Like a State", and including Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter"), but I have to say that we're unlikely to convince each other (for reasons described by Jonathan Haidt in "The Righteous Mind"). Municipalities organized as corporations are not unique to California, but the "inc." at the end of the name doesn't change anything. A government is an organization granted a monopoly (or oligopoly) on the legitimate use of force in a designated geographic area. For a discussion on the philosophical problems with governments as such, I recommend reading "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer.

kristopolous 6y ago
> A government is an organization explicit, implicit, loose, tight, chartered, unchartered, natural? > granted by whom, to whom, under what authority, given by what, enforced by what and applicable to what and whom > a monopoly (or oligopoly) determined and defined by whom? enforced by whom? > on the legitimate same question > use of arbitrary, restrained, indefinite, transparent, accountable, proportionate? what are we talking about here? > force define force. is it physical force? psychological? threats? persuasion? What about the physical force in the seizing of property? > in a designated defined by whom? universally acknowledged? how? by what mechanism? where? > geographic physical? virtual? what types of legal fictions? > area contiguous? porous? uniform in space and in time? I can use that and make it apply to just about anything by answering those questions differently. That's why it's utterly arbitrary. I've read your authors - they use superficial theoretical chalkboard constructed non-realities to scaffold up their taxonomies. It's not real. That's why this style of libertarianism has exactly zero agreed upon historical examples. Because they aren't describing reality. Their supposedly "concrete" definitions conveniently move and morph based on the context. The liberals look at europe and say "yeah, that's pretty much what we mean" The socialists look at cuba, ussr, and china and say "well, ok, we want things to be less brutal, but ok, yes this matches our definition (shameface)" The anarchist look at the paris commune of 1871, the Seattle general strike of 1919, occupy wall street, etc and say "yes, this is what we mean". The (honest) conservatives look at the middle east and turkey and say "yes, this is what we want, only with a different religion and more equality of opportunity" But the libertarians are just there with their chalkboard because there is no agreed reality that undergirds it. The largest consensus I've found is Friedman's "The Miracle of Chile", which took place under a literal dictatorship, but because their terms are arbitrarily defined, this isn't actually a problem. A military police state that seized people in their sleep and rolled tanks through the street somehow gets shoe-horned into the examples section ... that's how free-floating the categories are. There's a different form of libertarianism that doesn't have such issues: "When a choice need be made, always tend towards individual freedom". This one, although not free from issues, can't fall victim to the deck-stacking category dance and purely arbitrary construction of the force/monopoly/government style.
- nickff 6y ago
  If you'd like answers to all the questions in the first half of your post, I suggest you read Huemer's book.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Yes, there are answers, many many many answers by different people, that conflict and are mutually exclusive. That's the whole point. The Heritage Foundation does this all the time. Depending on whose paying the bills they will use the exact same arguments to draw different sets of conclusions on the exact same topics. They're just tools of arbitrary application It's a box that fits anything you'd like

by nickff 6y ago

kristopolous 6y ago

> A government is an organization explicit, implicit, loose, tight, chartered, unchartered, natural? > granted by whom, to whom, under what authority, given by what, enforced by what and applicable to what and whom > a monopoly (or oligopoly) determined and defined by whom? enforced by whom? > on the legitimate same question > use of arbitrary, restrained, indefinite, transparent, accountable, proportionate? what are we talking about here? > force define force. is it physical force? psychological? threats? persuasion? What about the physical force in the seizing of property? > in a designated defined by whom? universally acknowledged? how? by what mechanism? where? > geographic physical? virtual? what types of legal fictions? > area contiguous? porous? uniform in space and in time? I can use that and make it apply to just about anything by answering those questions differently. That's why it's utterly arbitrary. I've read your authors - they use superficial theoretical chalkboard constructed non-realities to scaffold up their taxonomies. It's not real. That's why this style of libertarianism has exactly zero agreed upon historical examples. Because they aren't describing reality. Their supposedly "concrete" definitions conveniently move and morph based on the context. The liberals look at europe and say "yeah, that's pretty much what we mean" The socialists look at cuba, ussr, and china and say "well, ok, we want things to be less brutal, but ok, yes this matches our definition (shameface)" The anarchist look at the paris commune of 1871, the Seattle general strike of 1919, occupy wall street, etc and say "yes, this is what we mean". The (honest) conservatives look at the middle east and turkey and say "yes, this is what we want, only with a different religion and more equality of opportunity" But the libertarians are just there with their chalkboard because there is no agreed reality that undergirds it. The largest consensus I've found is Friedman's "The Miracle of Chile", which took place under a literal dictatorship, but because their terms are arbitrarily defined, this isn't actually a problem. A military police state that seized people in their sleep and rolled tanks through the street somehow gets shoe-horned into the examples section ... that's how free-floating the categories are. There's a different form of libertarianism that doesn't have such issues: "When a choice need be made, always tend towards individual freedom". This one, although not free from issues, can't fall victim to the deck-stacking category dance and purely arbitrary construction of the force/monopoly/government style.

nickff 6y ago
If you'd like answers to all the questions in the first half of your post, I suggest you read Huemer's book.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Yes, there are answers, many many many answers by different people, that conflict and are mutually exclusive. That's the whole point. The Heritage Foundation does this all the time. Depending on whose paying the bills they will use the exact same arguments to draw different sets of conclusions on the exact same topics. They're just tools of arbitrary application It's a box that fits anything you'd like