3 ms·

This is why everyone hates libertarians, it's an extremely modest ideology. The presumption of knowledge & power (hubris) is the basis for so much human sufferi

This is why everyone hates libertarians, it's an extremely modest ideology. The presumption of knowledge & power (hubris) is the basis for so much human suffering. Unfortunately it will never be defeated.

bumby 4y ago
Devil’s advocate: People like libertarianism as an abstract ideology but not as a practical one. In a practical sense, it may require access to good information, across all domains, to be acted upon by rational agents capable of synthesizing all that information into a decision. That may work with a yeoman farmer society, but is incongruent with modernity. Creation of institutions like a government and regulatory bodies may be the natural reaction to facing the complexities of modern society. As an example, I don't have the sufficient knowledge or information to assess the air-worthiness of an airplane and even if I did, fear may bias my decision toward the irrational. Instead, public institutions like the FAA create a system of regulations to standardize that decision. Same with electrical codes, drug quality, and a bunch of other common risks. People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. Even if they could, assuming people are rational may ironically be an extremely irrational assumption.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. The issue is that groups (at any size, and worse when turned into hard-to-change institutions) have their own unique disadvantages even beyond the flaws & shortcomings of the individuals that make up the group. And it's precisely that inaccessible, dispersed knowledge that's crucial to operating an economy. Complexity if anything overwhelms government. They're usually far too slow & old to even begin to effectively regulate complex aspects of society.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Your first paragraph is true irrespectively so I don’t know how it’s a case for or against either side. “People are people” isn’t adding much. However, systems can be put in place to mitigate (or amplify, depending on their implementation) these shortcomings. I’d argue bad institutions make things worse, while good institutions make things better. FWIW, I don't consider institutions to be limited to government; they can be groups like corporations as well. >inaccessible, dispersed knowledge I think the distinction is I don’t consider this a good thing. Opaque information hinders an economy; I don’t know how you can claim the opposite. I’d also argue inaccessible information is often at odds with dispersion of knowledge. For example, written knowledge wasn't dispersed until it became more accessible through the moveable type printing press. Making information inaccessible is just a way of hoarding power; that's generally not good for an economy (with some notable exceptions).
staticman2 4y ago
I thought libertarians claim that all the world's economic problems are the result of the world not being sufficiently libertarian? What's modest about that?
- taolegal 4y ago
  It's self-contradicting in the sense that libertarianism in essence is like a politician saying "I want the power to minimize power, even my own." Practically no politician says that. It's a modest position.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I'll try a different tack than the OP. What percentage would you assign to libertarianism likely leading to better outcomes? If it's a relatively high percentage, it's not a modest position.

bumby 4y ago

Devil’s advocate: People like libertarianism as an abstract ideology but not as a practical one. In a practical sense, it may require access to good information, across all domains, to be acted upon by rational agents capable of synthesizing all that information into a decision. That may work with a yeoman farmer society, but is incongruent with modernity. Creation of institutions like a government and regulatory bodies may be the natural reaction to facing the complexities of modern society. As an example, I don't have the sufficient knowledge or information to assess the air-worthiness of an airplane and even if I did, fear may bias my decision toward the irrational. Instead, public institutions like the FAA create a system of regulations to standardize that decision. Same with electrical codes, drug quality, and a bunch of other common risks. People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. Even if they could, assuming people are rational may ironically be an extremely irrational assumption.

taolegal 4y ago
> People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. The issue is that groups (at any size, and worse when turned into hard-to-change institutions) have their own unique disadvantages even beyond the flaws & shortcomings of the individuals that make up the group. And it's precisely that inaccessible, dispersed knowledge that's crucial to operating an economy. Complexity if anything overwhelms government. They're usually far too slow & old to even begin to effectively regulate complex aspects of society.
- bumby 4y ago
  Your first paragraph is true irrespectively so I don’t know how it’s a case for or against either side. “People are people” isn’t adding much. However, systems can be put in place to mitigate (or amplify, depending on their implementation) these shortcomings. I’d argue bad institutions make things worse, while good institutions make things better. FWIW, I don't consider institutions to be limited to government; they can be groups like corporations as well. >inaccessible, dispersed knowledge I think the distinction is I don’t consider this a good thing. Opaque information hinders an economy; I don’t know how you can claim the opposite. I’d also argue inaccessible information is often at odds with dispersion of knowledge. For example, written knowledge wasn't dispersed until it became more accessible through the moveable type printing press. Making information inaccessible is just a way of hoarding power; that's generally not good for an economy (with some notable exceptions).

staticman2 4y ago

I thought libertarians claim that all the world's economic problems are the result of the world not being sufficiently libertarian? What's modest about that?

taolegal 4y ago
It's self-contradicting in the sense that libertarianism in essence is like a politician saying "I want the power to minimize power, even my own." Practically no politician says that. It's a modest position.
- bumby 4y ago
  I'll try a different tack than the OP. What percentage would you assign to libertarianism likely leading to better outcomes? If it's a relatively high percentage, it's not a modest position.