8 ms·

"I asked what the poles of the oscillation were. “It’s uh—it’s the, uh—it’s the—it’s um—it’s probably, uh—it’s probably just that it’s not that—well, the pro-se

"I asked what the poles of the oscillation were. “It’s uh—it’s the, uh—it’s the—it’s um—it’s probably, uh—it’s probably just that it’s not that—well, the pro-seat-belt argument is that it’s safer, and the anti-seat-belt argument is that if you know that it’s not as safe you’ll be a more careful driver.” He made a left turn and fastened his seat belt. “Empirically, it’s actually the safest if you wear a seat belt and are careful at the same time, so I’m not even going to try to debate this point.”" This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago
"They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities." First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit. There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying. If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- qdog 14y ago
  Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life). There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall. Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
  - bjorn2404 14y ago
    "get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist. From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles. The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
- leot 14y ago
  Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position. To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
  - hindsightbias 14y ago
    The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue.
    - nazgulnarsil 14y ago
      the day a liberal realizes the government is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue. I can play this game too! You should maybe try one day a week where you don't act like a condescending prick. You might find it liberating.
      - guelo 14y ago
        Why a liberal? Conservatives also believe in government.
        sp332 14y ago
        Actually, I think the idea is that conservatives are distrustful of government and are keen to limit its power and influence in their lives.
        nazgulnarsil 14y ago
        unless the head honcho is wearing a jesus t-shirt. Sorry, I don't actually mean to be so snarky, I just hate democracy so much.
        14y ago
- Retric 14y ago
  The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy. PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    > PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state. I see this pattern in actual experience: "PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with [crime-ridden, lack-of-self-control-prone] areas vs [peaceful, quiet, classy] areas in the same state."
dantheman 14y ago
The libertarian argument against seat belt legislation is that it was pre-optimization. We are locked into a design, and there is very little experimentation. By deviating from the bare minimum you expose yourself to risk.
MaxGabriel 14y ago
I don't think that paragraph has anything to do with libertarianism. It's about whether you should wear your seat belt or not. On one side are the safety improvements, on the other is the Peltzman effect (that safety improvements cause us to act more dangerously). Thiel is debating with himself because the most rational option (seat belt+careful) may not be the most pragmatic (because in practice he will still be less careful). In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing. If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently. edit, grammar mistake.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Florin_Andrei 14y ago
> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities. Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person. The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.
- calinet6 14y ago
  This is anecdotal, but the one hardcore libertarian I knew fit this stereotype perfectly. We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Plenty of libertarians have all sorts of empathy in my experience... it's just a matter of priority of principles. If I see someone in pain or who is hungry, I do feel for them, and hurt for them. I've been dirt poor myself, so I know how it feels. But I still wouldn't say that there hunger or pain justifies create a system that violates my rights to attempt to correct the injustices in the world. The bottom line, for most libertarians, is that - at the end of the day - we demand to live our lives free from the use of coercive aggression / force, or fraud to manipulate our choices or to control us and our property. Now, sure, some libertarians are non-empathetic assholes who don't give a shit about their fellow man. But that's a tautology when applied to any group. But nothing about being libertarian means you have to be an asshole, or an uncaring robot or any of those things.
- pemulis 14y ago
  Saying that people who disagree with you politically must be mentally ill is ignorant and obnoxious. You follow it up by saying "there's no point in clarifying it" because there's no way you could possibly defend your opinion. If you assume your political opponents are crazy, there's no need to try to understand them. They're just cold, unthinking, unfeeling robots, right? Or they're Looney Toons, they have no grounding in reality, right? If that's the case, debating them is pointless, and there's no need to consider challenges to your own viewpoint. Assuming that people who think differently are crazy is just a way to justify intellectual laziness. And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.
cpher 14y ago
This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of socialism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities. FTFY.
- calinet6 14y ago
  Could not agree more. A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

"They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities." First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit. There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying. If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
qdog 14y ago
Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life). There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall. Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
- bjorn2404 14y ago
  "get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist. From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles. The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
leot 14y ago
Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position. To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
- hindsightbias 14y ago
  The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue.
  - nazgulnarsil 14y ago
    the day a liberal realizes the government is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue. I can play this game too! You should maybe try one day a week where you don't act like a condescending prick. You might find it liberating.
    - guelo 14y ago
      Why a liberal? Conservatives also believe in government.
      - sp332 14y ago
        Actually, I think the idea is that conservatives are distrustful of government and are keen to limit its power and influence in their lives.
        nazgulnarsil 14y ago
        unless the head honcho is wearing a jesus t-shirt. Sorry, I don't actually mean to be so snarky, I just hate democracy so much.
        14y ago
Retric 14y ago
The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy. PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  > PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state. I see this pattern in actual experience: "PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with [crime-ridden, lack-of-self-control-prone] areas vs [peaceful, quiet, classy] areas in the same state."

dantheman 14y ago

The libertarian argument against seat belt legislation is that it was pre-optimization. We are locked into a design, and there is very little experimentation. By deviating from the bare minimum you expose yourself to risk.

MaxGabriel 14y ago

I don't think that paragraph has anything to do with libertarianism. It's about whether you should wear your seat belt or not. On one side are the safety improvements, on the other is the Peltzman effect (that safety improvements cause us to act more dangerously). Thiel is debating with himself because the most rational option (seat belt+careful) may not be the most pragmatic (because in practice he will still be less careful). In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing. If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently. edit, grammar mistake.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Florin_Andrei 14y ago

> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities. Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person. The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.

calinet6 14y ago
This is anecdotal, but the one hardcore libertarian I knew fit this stereotype perfectly. We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Plenty of libertarians have all sorts of empathy in my experience... it's just a matter of priority of principles. If I see someone in pain or who is hungry, I do feel for them, and hurt for them. I've been dirt poor myself, so I know how it feels. But I still wouldn't say that there hunger or pain justifies create a system that violates my rights to attempt to correct the injustices in the world. The bottom line, for most libertarians, is that - at the end of the day - we demand to live our lives free from the use of coercive aggression / force, or fraud to manipulate our choices or to control us and our property. Now, sure, some libertarians are non-empathetic assholes who don't give a shit about their fellow man. But that's a tautology when applied to any group. But nothing about being libertarian means you have to be an asshole, or an uncaring robot or any of those things.
pemulis 14y ago
Saying that people who disagree with you politically must be mentally ill is ignorant and obnoxious. You follow it up by saying "there's no point in clarifying it" because there's no way you could possibly defend your opinion. If you assume your political opponents are crazy, there's no need to try to understand them. They're just cold, unthinking, unfeeling robots, right? Or they're Looney Toons, they have no grounding in reality, right? If that's the case, debating them is pointless, and there's no need to consider challenges to your own viewpoint. Assuming that people who think differently are crazy is just a way to justify intellectual laziness. And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.

cpher 14y ago

This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of socialism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities. FTFY.

calinet6 14y ago
Could not agree more. A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.