2 ms·

> But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. Right, but again, m

by walterk 18y ago

> But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. Right, but again, my point is that pushing for libertarian-motivated policies for no reason other than that they agree with libertarian ideology doesn't always make sense given the ecology of non-libertarian policies they have to interact with. It can make things worse. If there's to be any pushing towards an ideal, it has to be done in a way that ensures the stability of the modified system. If it doesn't, those making the push are justifiably responsible for the problems that arise.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
Look, clearly people should use their best judgment when making decisions and I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But you’re pushing compromise as an ideal and that’s just wrong. An ideal is an ideal and compromise is what people do to make their ideals compatible and create an actual system of government. So what you want comes out in the process because, as you said, a society run by politicians is going to be interventionist by its very nature and people with Libertarian ideas are going to have to compromise. But if the people with Libertarian ideals don’t come to the table firm in their own beliefs they end up compromising even more than they normally would. Which (bringing it back to the housing bubble) is exactly how we ended up in this situation. People with libertarian views were willing to compromise to the point where what actually got implemented is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the result was disaster.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- netcan 18y ago
  There is a problem with the type of ideal you describe. If (as previous comments suggest) libertarian ideal is something that only works in its entirety, then introducing a 'libertarian law' outside of a libertarian system is damaging. It may be a step towards the completion of you ideal in a very general way, but if it doesn't get you closer to it, doesn't improve the intermediary state etc. etc. , then it's not a good law.

by walterk 18y ago

TomOfTTB 18y ago

Look, clearly people should use their best judgment when making decisions and I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But you’re pushing compromise as an ideal and that’s just wrong. An ideal is an ideal and compromise is what people do to make their ideals compatible and create an actual system of government. So what you want comes out in the process because, as you said, a society run by politicians is going to be interventionist by its very nature and people with Libertarian ideas are going to have to compromise. But if the people with Libertarian ideals don’t come to the table firm in their own beliefs they end up compromising even more than they normally would. Which (bringing it back to the housing bubble) is exactly how we ended up in this situation. People with libertarian views were willing to compromise to the point where what actually got implemented is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the result was disaster.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
netcan 18y ago
There is a problem with the type of ideal you describe. If (as previous comments suggest) libertarian ideal is something that only works in its entirety, then introducing a 'libertarian law' outside of a libertarian system is damaging. It may be a step towards the completion of you ideal in a very general way, but if it doesn't get you closer to it, doesn't improve the intermediary state etc. etc. , then it's not a good law.