5 ms·

Just goes to show that you can be 16 or 68 — there will always be opportunities to grow out of a libertarian phase of life :)

hayst4ck 3y ago
Timothy Snyder calls this dream that people are in the Politics of inevitability. The politics of inevitability is a rough awakening for believers of any ideology. These are all things you will find people believing in the wild: Good outcomes for yourself is an inevitable consequence of a free market. Equitable outcomes are an inevitable consequence of liberal policies. Peace is an inevitable consequence of trade. Democracy is an inevitable consequence of being an American. Morality is an inevitable consequence of being a christian. Democracy and Liberalization are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Rule of Law is an inevitable consequence of having a constitution. Freedom is an inevitable consequence of gun ownership. You can pick your ideology/identity, and there is a good chance that there is a belief of an inevitable outcome of it, an outcome determined primarily by following the ideology, not doing the actions required by it. People are waking up to the idea that outcomes are a result of actions, not beliefs. Democracy is not a belief you have, its a set of actions you perform. Democracy is not something you are, it is something you do. You can only be a libertarian (the ideology, not the identity) until you understand the collective action problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem).
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  > Democracy is an inevitable consequence of being an American. Morality is an inevitable consequence of being a christian Ehhhh
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    hayst4ck is pointing out how the belief is believed to work, not how the reality works. I was similarly cross-eyed at those statements until the point was made: > outcomes are a result of actions, not beliefs Just because someone identifies as Christian it doesn't make their actions moral - even though they themselves may believe that. Their actions have to be moral in order for the outcome to be that they are moral.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      I fixed it to be a little less jarring (I hope).
    - reaperman 3y ago
      My understanding is that ethics are shared across a culture but morality is an individual judgment? So their actions could be moral to them, and also immoral to you. But the ethics of their actions would not be subject to much personal interpretation (within your/their culture).
7thaccount 3y ago
I commented on here recently about my own personal issues with Libertarianism. There's definitely some things that ring true (government is inefficient and too much government can lead to authoritarianism and massive human suffering), but their beliefs typically go too far IMO and they treat a huge amount of grey areas as if everything is black and white. Regulation freaking stinks, but is necessary in a lot of cases. We're much better off with the EPA and FDA than without them despite their significant flaws. They seem to ignore the fact that our actions have consequences, and thus your freedom can encroach on my freedom.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Jillette even called out seatbelts seemingly as something he believes should be personal choice rather than mandated - in an "it affects the person making the choice, it doesn't affect other people" way. I might be on a bit of a stretch here, but the after-effects of a car crash involving people not wearing seatbelts could be quite a fair bit worse for witnesses and bystanders than if seatbelts were worn. Being at fault for a car crash where someone is killed because they weren't wearing their seatbelt will weigh psychologically no matter the logic. First responders dealing with a non-seatbelted puddle of recently-functioning-human. Public roads are public. To the nth degree, however, everything is interconnected, so everything we do can affect everyone else. Government gets the (what should be) unenviable job of choosing where to draw that line.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    also healthcare cost if you do survive, or social security for those left behind. it's the same thing with smoking. even ignoring how it affects bystanders it does raise the cost of healthcare
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others. For the public good, it's valid to have the regulations that say the manufacturer must include seat belts and that they must actually meet a testing standard, and even that kids and others who are not responsible for themselves must be protected from the random judgement of parents until the kids reach an age of taking over responsibility for themselves. But that's it. There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous to everyone outside the car, similar to how bicycle helmets have an element of actually increased risk from a reduction in care taken by both cyclists and drivers.

hayst4ck 3y ago

Timothy Snyder calls this dream that people are in the Politics of inevitability. The politics of inevitability is a rough awakening for believers of any ideology. These are all things you will find people believing in the wild: Good outcomes for yourself is an inevitable consequence of a free market. Equitable outcomes are an inevitable consequence of liberal policies. Peace is an inevitable consequence of trade. Democracy is an inevitable consequence of being an American. Morality is an inevitable consequence of being a christian. Democracy and Liberalization are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Rule of Law is an inevitable consequence of having a constitution. Freedom is an inevitable consequence of gun ownership. You can pick your ideology/identity, and there is a good chance that there is a belief of an inevitable outcome of it, an outcome determined primarily by following the ideology, not doing the actions required by it. People are waking up to the idea that outcomes are a result of actions, not beliefs. Democracy is not a belief you have, its a set of actions you perform. Democracy is not something you are, it is something you do. You can only be a libertarian (the ideology, not the identity) until you understand the collective action problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem).

schwartzworld 3y ago
> Democracy is an inevitable consequence of being an American. Morality is an inevitable consequence of being a christian Ehhhh
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  hayst4ck is pointing out how the belief is believed to work, not how the reality works. I was similarly cross-eyed at those statements until the point was made: > outcomes are a result of actions, not beliefs Just because someone identifies as Christian it doesn't make their actions moral - even though they themselves may believe that. Their actions have to be moral in order for the outcome to be that they are moral.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I fixed it to be a little less jarring (I hope).
  - reaperman 3y ago
    My understanding is that ethics are shared across a culture but morality is an individual judgment? So their actions could be moral to them, and also immoral to you. But the ethics of their actions would not be subject to much personal interpretation (within your/their culture).

7thaccount 3y ago

I commented on here recently about my own personal issues with Libertarianism. There's definitely some things that ring true (government is inefficient and too much government can lead to authoritarianism and massive human suffering), but their beliefs typically go too far IMO and they treat a huge amount of grey areas as if everything is black and white. Regulation freaking stinks, but is necessary in a lot of cases. We're much better off with the EPA and FDA than without them despite their significant flaws. They seem to ignore the fact that our actions have consequences, and thus your freedom can encroach on my freedom.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Jillette even called out seatbelts seemingly as something he believes should be personal choice rather than mandated - in an "it affects the person making the choice, it doesn't affect other people" way. I might be on a bit of a stretch here, but the after-effects of a car crash involving people not wearing seatbelts could be quite a fair bit worse for witnesses and bystanders than if seatbelts were worn. Being at fault for a car crash where someone is killed because they weren't wearing their seatbelt will weigh psychologically no matter the logic. First responders dealing with a non-seatbelted puddle of recently-functioning-human. Public roads are public. To the nth degree, however, everything is interconnected, so everything we do can affect everyone else. Government gets the (what should be) unenviable job of choosing where to draw that line.
- em-bee 3y ago
  also healthcare cost if you do survive, or social security for those left behind. it's the same thing with smoking. even ignoring how it affects bystanders it does raise the cost of healthcare
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others. For the public good, it's valid to have the regulations that say the manufacturer must include seat belts and that they must actually meet a testing standard, and even that kids and others who are not responsible for themselves must be protected from the random judgement of parents until the kids reach an age of taking over responsibility for themselves. But that's it. There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous to everyone outside the car, similar to how bicycle helmets have an element of actually increased risk from a reduction in care taken by both cyclists and drivers.