5 ms·

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

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.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?
      - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
        defrost 3y ago
        On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html
    - em-bee 3y ago
      Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  That argument only works if you're actually measuring those effects and those are the only effects impacting the decision to make it mandatory or not, and those effects are more negatively impactful than other effects caused by other things. In other words, if you want to make seatbelts mandatory as a result of that reasoning, you must first: - set a threshold for impact that is applicable to everything - demonstrate that you are applying the threshold everywhere (and not just arbitrarily) - demonstrate that the effects you mention exist - that the effects are more impactful than the threshold - that there is no other way to reduce the impact below the threshold without such a mandate (or that the mandate is the least oppressive way to do it) Sadly, none of this has been done, so there is no justification for the mandate
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Not disagreeing, but that's true for any political decision ever, unfortunately that includes the "sadly, none of this has been done" statement as well. Writing the above has distilled a previously nebulous feeling: Politics is emotion, not facts.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Seatbelts also make it easier to maintain control during a sudden sharp swerve, which can reduce the chances that a sudden swerve to avoid something in your lane will turn into an out of control excursion into other lanes. That's probably sufficient to justify a mandate for the driver and possibly front seat passengers (since a sharp swerve toward the passenger side could cause an unbelted front seat passenger to hit the driver).
  - mcv 3y ago
    [dead]
hackerlight 3y ago
It's premised on a distorted understanding of the world they live in, the spherical cow of politics and economics. Externalities don't exist, discontent leading to populism isn't a thing that can happen, endogenous bargaining disputes can't exist, tragedy of the commons isn't a thing that can happen. It's why a lot of young technical-minded people are attracted to it. You need to be quite smart to understand the premises of libertarianism, but simultaneously, insufficiently educated in fields like history and economics to grok why it'd be a set of failed ideas in the actual real world. High idealism, low wisdom. A lot of modern right-libertarian thinkers realize their ideology will never get voted in, so they're turning to neoreactionary thought and are doing away with any pretence of wanting democracy.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  You stated it much better than I. There are some things I appreciate about Javier Milei (e.g. rejection of Communism, which has been disastrous), but it seems like he ignores the half of economics he doesn't agree with such as saying "market failures are impossible". That's an obviously false statement as negative externalities do most certainly exist and politics is a real thing. The only thing I can think of is that they're okay with the problems getting REALLY bad and then letting the market try to fix them, which is just dumb. If you made antibiotics super cheap and available to all and they became even more overused, millions could die from antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Sure that might spur some new developments, but it's no guarantee. We might just be back in the dark ages prior to having effective treatments for common ailments. But hey...at least the market isn't infringed on (sarcasm). I do understand their frustration with the beauracracy of government and how parasitic it can be.
- acdha 3y ago
  > It's why a lot of young technical-minded people are attracted to it. You need to be quite smart to understand the premises of libertarianism, but simultaneously, insufficiently educated in fields like history and economics to grok why it'd be a set of failed ideas in the actual real world. The other thing I’d add to your excellent comment is basically another social science gap (media studies) where it’s easy to read things which provide that quick hit of smug satisfaction and not ask how, for example, Reason has an entire business running stories about excessive government regulation and there are entire groups funded to generate academic-style publications supporting that mission. If you’re a 20 year old techie, you probably spend a lot more time sharing the “look at this idiot thing someone at the EPA did” post than checking the sources to learn what really happened, or that the writer gets a paycheck funded by donations from that industry.
kcplate 3y ago
I think too many people equate libertarians (actually the classic liberals) with the Libertarian Party. There is a huge difference. It’s why you often see folks pointing out the small vs capital L when identifying as libertarian. The LP is full of nut jobs and for 3/4 of them the only political problem they want to solve is the legalization of weed. The libertarians who don’t identify with the party tend to be pragmatists with a preference to try maximize personal liberty as much as possible, but realize that the maximum may not be obtainable due to the nature of managing a diverse society.

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.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
      - defrost 3y ago
        On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html
  - em-bee 3y ago
    Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.
johngladtj 3y ago
That argument only works if you're actually measuring those effects and those are the only effects impacting the decision to make it mandatory or not, and those effects are more negatively impactful than other effects caused by other things. In other words, if you want to make seatbelts mandatory as a result of that reasoning, you must first: - set a threshold for impact that is applicable to everything - demonstrate that you are applying the threshold everywhere (and not just arbitrarily) - demonstrate that the effects you mention exist - that the effects are more impactful than the threshold - that there is no other way to reduce the impact below the threshold without such a mandate (or that the mandate is the least oppressive way to do it) Sadly, none of this has been done, so there is no justification for the mandate
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Not disagreeing, but that's true for any political decision ever, unfortunately that includes the "sadly, none of this has been done" statement as well. Writing the above has distilled a previously nebulous feeling: Politics is emotion, not facts.
- tzs 3y ago
  Seatbelts also make it easier to maintain control during a sudden sharp swerve, which can reduce the chances that a sudden swerve to avoid something in your lane will turn into an out of control excursion into other lanes. That's probably sufficient to justify a mandate for the driver and possibly front seat passengers (since a sharp swerve toward the passenger side could cause an unbelted front seat passenger to hit the driver).
- mcv 3y ago
  [dead]

hackerlight 3y ago

It's premised on a distorted understanding of the world they live in, the spherical cow of politics and economics. Externalities don't exist, discontent leading to populism isn't a thing that can happen, endogenous bargaining disputes can't exist, tragedy of the commons isn't a thing that can happen. It's why a lot of young technical-minded people are attracted to it. You need to be quite smart to understand the premises of libertarianism, but simultaneously, insufficiently educated in fields like history and economics to grok why it'd be a set of failed ideas in the actual real world. High idealism, low wisdom. A lot of modern right-libertarian thinkers realize their ideology will never get voted in, so they're turning to neoreactionary thought and are doing away with any pretence of wanting democracy.

7thaccount 3y ago
You stated it much better than I. There are some things I appreciate about Javier Milei (e.g. rejection of Communism, which has been disastrous), but it seems like he ignores the half of economics he doesn't agree with such as saying "market failures are impossible". That's an obviously false statement as negative externalities do most certainly exist and politics is a real thing. The only thing I can think of is that they're okay with the problems getting REALLY bad and then letting the market try to fix them, which is just dumb. If you made antibiotics super cheap and available to all and they became even more overused, millions could die from antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Sure that might spur some new developments, but it's no guarantee. We might just be back in the dark ages prior to having effective treatments for common ailments. But hey...at least the market isn't infringed on (sarcasm). I do understand their frustration with the beauracracy of government and how parasitic it can be.
acdha 3y ago
> It's why a lot of young technical-minded people are attracted to it. You need to be quite smart to understand the premises of libertarianism, but simultaneously, insufficiently educated in fields like history and economics to grok why it'd be a set of failed ideas in the actual real world. The other thing I’d add to your excellent comment is basically another social science gap (media studies) where it’s easy to read things which provide that quick hit of smug satisfaction and not ask how, for example, Reason has an entire business running stories about excessive government regulation and there are entire groups funded to generate academic-style publications supporting that mission. If you’re a 20 year old techie, you probably spend a lot more time sharing the “look at this idiot thing someone at the EPA did” post than checking the sources to learn what really happened, or that the writer gets a paycheck funded by donations from that industry.

kcplate 3y ago

I think too many people equate libertarians (actually the classic liberals) with the Libertarian Party. There is a huge difference. It’s why you often see folks pointing out the small vs capital L when identifying as libertarian. The LP is full of nut jobs and for 3/4 of them the only political problem they want to solve is the legalization of weed. The libertarians who don’t identify with the party tend to be pragmatists with a preference to try maximize personal liberty as much as possible, but realize that the maximum may not be obtainable due to the nature of managing a diverse society.