7 ms·

And this may also be one (not the only) reason libertarianism seems to be so popular on HN. It assumes a relatively small set of basic axioms (like Nozick's sel

And this may also be one (not the only) reason libertarianism seems to be so popular on HN. It assumes a relatively small set of basic axioms (like Nozick's self-ownership principle, supremacy of markets) and thus ostensibly appears to be an elegant, self-consistent system. (That's actually debatable, hence the "ostensibly.") In general the article demonstrates what PG was saying in his article on identity. A lot of economic theory is difficult/impossible to test empirically, so there's plenty of room for all sorts of nonsense like ideology/identity/etc... to enter into one's economic world view.

dantheman 18y ago
Also, it's a basic freedom issue. The desired end results of a given economic policy are debatable, so even if we knew what the exact outcome of any given policy would be there would still be debate about what we should do. Personally, I am not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy so a lot of economic policies are off the table from the start, even if they would in the end generate more wealth -- wealth is not the end all be all. The reason people are so passionate about it is because the ideas people are expressing will have a real effect on them, often at the point of gun. Someone advocating higher taxes is in effect taking what is yours, someone advocating nationalization is one again advocating taking what is yours. Someone advocating setting minimum/maximum prices is directly controlling how much stuff you can have.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Personally, I am not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy I'm a "means produce the ends" kind of guy. For example, I'm pretty sure that a system which uses coercive means will have coercive ends. FWIW, many people disagree with that specific example - they insist that their system that uses coercion will not end up being coercive.
  - dantheman 18y ago
    as far as means produce ends -- a counter example could be some sort of slavery; the means are horrible but they might produce the ends one wants.. of course it also depends on the timescale we are looking at 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc
    - anamax 18y ago
      Do you have an example where something that depended on slavery as a means ended up good? (It's easy to find things that depended on slavery that produced what someone wanted.) Yes, there are examples of societies that had slavery and became "good" (for some reasonable definition of "good"), but I'd argue that their "good end" was not dependent upon their slavery means.
      - anamax 18y ago
        Is that question so beyond the pale that it should be downmodded instead of answered or explained away?
      - dantheman 18y ago
        I'd say that those owning slaves did so because it enhanced their quality of life -- therefore it was good for them. So pretty much any society that had slavery the ends were good for those in control, for some measure of good (they may have had a higher standard of living but they lost their humanity etc)
        anamax 18y ago
        I think that we're talking about different "good"s. Here are some examples. I understand that using heroin feels really good. However, the effects of using heroin are (stereotypically) bad over all. A Somali warlord has it much better than the average Somali. However, a warlord culture is, on the whole, a disaster. Are there examples of slave cultures that were as productive as same-era free cultures? (Not that productive is the only measure of good, but ....)
randallsquared 18y ago
I would imagine that most economic libertarians are such because they believe the economy, like the weather, to be too complex to feasibly manage. Of course, the weather may eventually be manageable with enough computing power, but the economy is unlikely to be, because the complexity of individual units is increased (more or less) proportionately to the computing power of the managers, in any semi-free society.
- cx01 18y ago
  Libertarians are against managing the econonomy because this would infringe on the individuals property rights.
  - pelle 18y ago
    That is the original reason, but randallsquared is absolutely right that Libertarian economists from for example the Austrian school of economics believe that complex systems can not be micro managed by a small group of experts.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I would agree that this is another reason, but given that I'm a libertarian for more than one or two reasons, I would suggest that there a great many reasons why people are libertarian (some of which apply to both economic and personal libertarianism, and some of which, like my statement above, only apply to one or the other). There are even some libertarians who don't believe in natural rights or natural law at all. One of the things that makes me fairly confident in my libertarianism is the observation that you can derive it from a number of arguments which don't depend on each other.
  - davidw 18y ago
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Property rights are one of the foundations of a modern, successful capitalist economy. De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" is a great read about some of the problems that occur when there are no property rights. However, they are one component in an economy, not the component. And, sadly, there is no clear, easy line dividing collective rights from individual rights, although we have a vague idea where it is (communism was a colossal failure, being way too much about collective stuff, and ignoring individuals). By way of example, in Libertopia, perhaps it would be ok if I ran my own high-explosives & toxic sludge storage business in my apartment? Back in the real world, other people's rights to not be exposed to risk they didn't sign up for trump my property rights. Supposedly, in Libertopia, 'contract law' would take care of things, but in practical terms, how are you going to set up contracts so that you pay the people N meters away M amount for the risk they're taking by being around your munitions storage facility / smoking lounge? It's simply too complicated, and far easier to just have a local law that says "ok, this is not a part of town for munitions dumps".

dantheman 18y ago

Also, it's a basic freedom issue. The desired end results of a given economic policy are debatable, so even if we knew what the exact outcome of any given policy would be there would still be debate about what we should do. Personally, I am not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy so a lot of economic policies are off the table from the start, even if they would in the end generate more wealth -- wealth is not the end all be all. The reason people are so passionate about it is because the ideas people are expressing will have a real effect on them, often at the point of gun. Someone advocating higher taxes is in effect taking what is yours, someone advocating nationalization is one again advocating taking what is yours. Someone advocating setting minimum/maximum prices is directly controlling how much stuff you can have.

anamax 18y ago
> Personally, I am not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy I'm a "means produce the ends" kind of guy. For example, I'm pretty sure that a system which uses coercive means will have coercive ends. FWIW, many people disagree with that specific example - they insist that their system that uses coercion will not end up being coercive.
- dantheman 18y ago
  as far as means produce ends -- a counter example could be some sort of slavery; the means are horrible but they might produce the ends one wants.. of course it also depends on the timescale we are looking at 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc
  - anamax 18y ago
    Do you have an example where something that depended on slavery as a means ended up good? (It's easy to find things that depended on slavery that produced what someone wanted.) Yes, there are examples of societies that had slavery and became "good" (for some reasonable definition of "good"), but I'd argue that their "good end" was not dependent upon their slavery means.
    - anamax 18y ago
      Is that question so beyond the pale that it should be downmodded instead of answered or explained away?
    - dantheman 18y ago
      I'd say that those owning slaves did so because it enhanced their quality of life -- therefore it was good for them. So pretty much any society that had slavery the ends were good for those in control, for some measure of good (they may have had a higher standard of living but they lost their humanity etc)
      - anamax 18y ago
        I think that we're talking about different "good"s. Here are some examples. I understand that using heroin feels really good. However, the effects of using heroin are (stereotypically) bad over all. A Somali warlord has it much better than the average Somali. However, a warlord culture is, on the whole, a disaster. Are there examples of slave cultures that were as productive as same-era free cultures? (Not that productive is the only measure of good, but ....)

randallsquared 18y ago

I would imagine that most economic libertarians are such because they believe the economy, like the weather, to be too complex to feasibly manage. Of course, the weather may eventually be manageable with enough computing power, but the economy is unlikely to be, because the complexity of individual units is increased (more or less) proportionately to the computing power of the managers, in any semi-free society.

cx01 18y ago
Libertarians are against managing the econonomy because this would infringe on the individuals property rights.
- pelle 18y ago
  That is the original reason, but randallsquared is absolutely right that Libertarian economists from for example the Austrian school of economics believe that complex systems can not be micro managed by a small group of experts.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I would agree that this is another reason, but given that I'm a libertarian for more than one or two reasons, I would suggest that there a great many reasons why people are libertarian (some of which apply to both economic and personal libertarianism, and some of which, like my statement above, only apply to one or the other). There are even some libertarians who don't believe in natural rights or natural law at all. One of the things that makes me fairly confident in my libertarianism is the observation that you can derive it from a number of arguments which don't depend on each other.
- davidw 18y ago
  This is exactly what I'm talking about. Property rights are one of the foundations of a modern, successful capitalist economy. De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" is a great read about some of the problems that occur when there are no property rights. However, they are one component in an economy, not the component. And, sadly, there is no clear, easy line dividing collective rights from individual rights, although we have a vague idea where it is (communism was a colossal failure, being way too much about collective stuff, and ignoring individuals). By way of example, in Libertopia, perhaps it would be ok if I ran my own high-explosives & toxic sludge storage business in my apartment? Back in the real world, other people's rights to not be exposed to risk they didn't sign up for trump my property rights. Supposedly, in Libertopia, 'contract law' would take care of things, but in practical terms, how are you going to set up contracts so that you pay the people N meters away M amount for the risk they're taking by being around your munitions storage facility / smoking lounge? It's simply too complicated, and far easier to just have a local law that says "ok, this is not a part of town for munitions dumps".