3 ms·

>Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong There is a utilitarian branch of libertarianism that argues that free markets are bes

>Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong There is a utilitarian branch of libertarianism that argues that free markets are best for society. It does not predict that free markets eliminate economic fluctuations, only that society will be better off with free markets over the long term. This branch of libertarianism is filled with many of the libertarian economists. Also, I don't think those libertarians would see our credit markets pre-crash as being a shining model of libertarianism.

earthboundkid 18y ago
Yeah, I personally think that the moral argument against government intervention is bunk. That said, I do think there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for markets and against regulation. To me, this seems like the basic position of eg. Reason Magazine, Wil Wilkinson, etc.
walterk 18y ago
Being something of a utilitarian myself, I see intervention being necessary when market incentives are not aligned with what's best for society. I've never seen anybody make a convincing case that such misalignments do not exist, or that a free market is always able to account for them more efficiently than the state. EDIT: Feel free to make such a case or link to one. I'd like to be proven wrong.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  David Friedman is a utilitarian libertarian anarchist, son of the famous Milton Friedman. In "The Machinery of Freedom" he makes his case for an anarchist society. He does not claim that markets are always better without state intervention. His claim is subtly different: that a society without a state is better off than a society with one. He leaves open the possibility that the state might be better at some things than the market, but he argues that the drawbacks of a state outweigh the possible benefits. David's son, Patri, runs the anarcho-capitalist Seasteading Institute, which aims to create seastead societies on the ocean (think "Water World", without the suck). He believes that seasteads will be more resistant to government monopoly, since a group of people who did not like their government could simply float to a different one. Given the results so far, other libertarians encourage the Friedmans to breed as much as possible.
  - boethian 18y ago
    I know I'm reviving a long ago post, but I was wondering.. was Milton Friedman completely utilitarian? Were there any instances in which he would support freedom, let's say, even though it might make people worse off?
  - walterk 18y ago
    Added to my wishlist. Any other works you'd recommend? With respect to the seastead societies, which I've heard about, I think it's certainly plausible that they'll "work", given sufficient diversity of available governments, and hence, appropriately homogenous small-scale populations. But in a geopolitlcal landscape ruled by nation-states, I would be truly wary of breaking down powerful liberal democracies like the US into anything resembling these things. It's rather unclear to me how you could mobilize a sufficient defense against nationalist military forces. I recall reading in my undergrad days about similar small, voluntarily formed communities. (One of them, for instance, eschewed all laws and use of coercion, relying on subtle and not so subtle forms of ostracization to keep people in line.) But it occurred to me that these communities were entirely dependent on having a larger, more powerful neighboring entity around to protect them, and I have to believe these seastead societies are subject to the same dependency.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      The Seasteading Institute has thought of all the common criticisms of their approach and tried to answer them. Whether you think they succeed is up to you. Here's the FAQ: http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/faq http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/faq Here's the book-length treatment: http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.html http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.ht... By the way, Patri's group has raised $500,000 from Peter Thiel to pursue their ideas. If you live in the bay area, you can attend social meetings of the Seasteading Institute, though I'm not sure what goes on there. Patri has very avant garde facial hair.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
netcan 18y ago
You're both right. And this is something that is not emphasised enough. But as with most thorough ideologies, religions & such, their proponents tend to believe that they are the right course of action no matter what angle you look at them from. So from many libertarians' view, it is correct even if you are a consequentialist, utilitarian. etc. I have yet to meet a libertarian that suggests that even though the economic policies are bad for society in a utilitarian sense, they are still morally obliged to support them. Libertarianism is therefore associated with it's utilitarian arguments. They are in every way bar the most theoretical, the foundation of libertarianism.

earthboundkid 18y ago

Yeah, I personally think that the moral argument against government intervention is bunk. That said, I do think there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for markets and against regulation. To me, this seems like the basic position of eg. Reason Magazine, Wil Wilkinson, etc.

walterk 18y ago

Being something of a utilitarian myself, I see intervention being necessary when market incentives are not aligned with what's best for society. I've never seen anybody make a convincing case that such misalignments do not exist, or that a free market is always able to account for them more efficiently than the state. EDIT: Feel free to make such a case or link to one. I'd like to be proven wrong.

Prrometheus 18y ago
David Friedman is a utilitarian libertarian anarchist, son of the famous Milton Friedman. In "The Machinery of Freedom" he makes his case for an anarchist society. He does not claim that markets are always better without state intervention. His claim is subtly different: that a society without a state is better off than a society with one. He leaves open the possibility that the state might be better at some things than the market, but he argues that the drawbacks of a state outweigh the possible benefits. David's son, Patri, runs the anarcho-capitalist Seasteading Institute, which aims to create seastead societies on the ocean (think "Water World", without the suck). He believes that seasteads will be more resistant to government monopoly, since a group of people who did not like their government could simply float to a different one. Given the results so far, other libertarians encourage the Friedmans to breed as much as possible.
- boethian 18y ago
  I know I'm reviving a long ago post, but I was wondering.. was Milton Friedman completely utilitarian? Were there any instances in which he would support freedom, let's say, even though it might make people worse off?
- walterk 18y ago
  Added to my wishlist. Any other works you'd recommend? With respect to the seastead societies, which I've heard about, I think it's certainly plausible that they'll "work", given sufficient diversity of available governments, and hence, appropriately homogenous small-scale populations. But in a geopolitlcal landscape ruled by nation-states, I would be truly wary of breaking down powerful liberal democracies like the US into anything resembling these things. It's rather unclear to me how you could mobilize a sufficient defense against nationalist military forces. I recall reading in my undergrad days about similar small, voluntarily formed communities. (One of them, for instance, eschewed all laws and use of coercion, relying on subtle and not so subtle forms of ostracization to keep people in line.) But it occurred to me that these communities were entirely dependent on having a larger, more powerful neighboring entity around to protect them, and I have to believe these seastead societies are subject to the same dependency.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    The Seasteading Institute has thought of all the common criticisms of their approach and tried to answer them. Whether you think they succeed is up to you. Here's the FAQ: http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/faq http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/faq Here's the book-length treatment: http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.html http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.ht... By the way, Patri's group has raised $500,000 from Peter Thiel to pursue their ideas. If you live in the bay area, you can attend social meetings of the Seasteading Institute, though I'm not sure what goes on there. Patri has very avant garde facial hair.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago

netcan 18y ago

You're both right. And this is something that is not emphasised enough. But as with most thorough ideologies, religions & such, their proponents tend to believe that they are the right course of action no matter what angle you look at them from. So from many libertarians' view, it is correct even if you are a consequentialist, utilitarian. etc. I have yet to meet a libertarian that suggests that even though the economic policies are bad for society in a utilitarian sense, they are still morally obliged to support them. Libertarianism is therefore associated with it's utilitarian arguments. They are in every way bar the most theoretical, the foundation of libertarianism.