4 ms·

That "sense of fair play" only applies when "fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Die hard

That "sense of fair play" only applies when "fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Die hard libertarians in my circle of acquaintances have argued against stores hiding away tobacco products to discourage smoking as irrational, because they see making as much profit as possible as the only rational objective. When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. Since they are irrational, their arguments can be dismissed out of hand. It is an extremely arrogant worldview. Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
The commitment to fair play was found to be correlated with testosterone. It's only my speculation that this is what draws men to libertarianism. >"fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Do you have any kind of scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis, or is it just speculation based on intuition and observations of personal acquaintances? >>When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. It's tautological that a person will view beliefs that they personally view as rational/right, as rational/right. This is irrespective of their political ideology. As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan. I personally don't see how the person opposing this sort of mandate is arrogant, while the person advocating for it is not. But I guess these issues are subjective. >>Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant. From what I recall, the study found that libertarians are less likely to pay attention and give weight to peripheral cues that appeal to emotion, and be more focused on substance.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  > "As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan." If you were talking about the original socialist libertarianism, then you would have had a point. Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Regulations exist for a reason and the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? We absolutely cannot trust powerful people and corporations to do the right thing, since they do not feel the consequences themselves and thus actively do not care, because that would eat into their profits. Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Altruism is completely orthogonal to libertarianism. The only consistent property of libertarian policies is that they protect and preserve the right to voluntary interaction. How people choose to voluntarily associate is in no way a concern of what's defined as libertarianism. In other words, one can believe and promote a society based on compassion, sharing and collectivism, or a society based on self-sufficiency and only profit-motivated interaction, and be equally libertarian. >>the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? There are a multitude of types of regulations, and not all of them violate the non-aggression moral principle that libertarianism holds as inviolable. Environmental regulations generally do not violate the right to free association, and can indeed protect rights, so are generally consistent with libertarianism. Moreover, regulations have a multitude of effects, and not all of them positive. To quantify their net effect on human welfare requires far more evidence than the single data point you've provided. It requires a comprehensive and methodological accounting of their entire impact. >>Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed. Voluntarism does not imply a lack of laws. Voluntaryism can only be enforced with laws and a state to back it. There is a distinction between laws that protect people's right to their life, liberty and property, and laws that violate it.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

The commitment to fair play was found to be correlated with testosterone. It's only my speculation that this is what draws men to libertarianism. >"fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Do you have any kind of scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis, or is it just speculation based on intuition and observations of personal acquaintances? >>When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. It's tautological that a person will view beliefs that they personally view as rational/right, as rational/right. This is irrespective of their political ideology. As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan. I personally don't see how the person opposing this sort of mandate is arrogant, while the person advocating for it is not. But I guess these issues are subjective. >>Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant. From what I recall, the study found that libertarians are less likely to pay attention and give weight to peripheral cues that appeal to emotion, and be more focused on substance.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
> "As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan." If you were talking about the original socialist libertarianism, then you would have had a point. Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Regulations exist for a reason and the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? We absolutely cannot trust powerful people and corporations to do the right thing, since they do not feel the consequences themselves and thus actively do not care, because that would eat into their profits. Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Altruism is completely orthogonal to libertarianism. The only consistent property of libertarian policies is that they protect and preserve the right to voluntary interaction. How people choose to voluntarily associate is in no way a concern of what's defined as libertarianism. In other words, one can believe and promote a society based on compassion, sharing and collectivism, or a society based on self-sufficiency and only profit-motivated interaction, and be equally libertarian. >>the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? There are a multitude of types of regulations, and not all of them violate the non-aggression moral principle that libertarianism holds as inviolable. Environmental regulations generally do not violate the right to free association, and can indeed protect rights, so are generally consistent with libertarianism. Moreover, regulations have a multitude of effects, and not all of them positive. To quantify their net effect on human welfare requires far more evidence than the single data point you've provided. It requires a comprehensive and methodological accounting of their entire impact. >>Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed. Voluntarism does not imply a lack of laws. Voluntaryism can only be enforced with laws and a state to back it. There is a distinction between laws that protect people's right to their life, liberty and property, and laws that violate it.