5 ms·

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Be

by snitko 14y ago

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a lot of people will, I'm sure, continue thinking that is the way to go. Update: also, let me ask you, cos I'm not sure, why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian?

mbetter 14y ago
> why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian? Every time I argue with a libertarian, it's an endless series of "No True Scotsman" arguments.
- baddox 14y ago
  That's odd. Can you give me an example of a common libertarian No True Scotsman argument?
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Well, it's not really a pure free market system, so it doesn't count.
    - Steko 14y ago
      Herbert Hoover was a huge activist big government Keynesian.
    - vitno 14y ago
      you do realize that is a valid argument though, right? The core concept of the no true scotsman argument is the wishy-washy definition of what is being debated. He isn't a true scotsman because a true scotsman would wear a kilt! something like that. If the definition of scotsman is "wears a kilt" the same way a libertarian would say "pure free market" then it is totally valid.
      - mbetter 14y ago
        He may wear a kilt, but he doesn't play the bagpipes, so he's no true Scotsman.
    - praxeologist 14y ago
      Probably referring to you calling the US health care system free market...
- dconway 14y ago
  I could just as easily say that whenever one argues with a non-libertarian, he or she lays out an endless series of straw men. See how that works? "Your argument doesn't accurately represent my viewpoint" is what both No True Scotsman and straw men are about. So rather than opting out of an argument by calling "logical fallacy" on someone, why not clear up the definitions and be sure of what each other are talking about?
timr 14y ago
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw (...let's be clear that I'm not calling libertarians pigs. The point is that you can't change a dedicated person's mind via argument, and neither I nor Shaw found the effort enjoyable or productive.)
- snitko 14y ago
  Ok, sure. Let's not argue then. I have a question though (and it's not intended to spark an argument), I'm just curious to know, how and why do you think people become libertarians?
  - Klinky 14y ago
    By reading Atlas Shrugged and having an egocentric view of the world.
  - mbetter 14y ago
    Because having a simple and logically consistent system to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation absolves one of the responsibility to make complicated moral decisions on their own merits. I understand libertarianism and I very much appreciate that it is built on a foundation of reason. However, being an imperfect being, a wise man tempers his reason with empiricism.
    - Gormo 14y ago
      > Because having a simple and logically consistent system to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation absolves one of the responsibility to make complicated moral decisions on their own merits. But libertarians are the ones who want to take direct moral responsibility for their circumstances; it's statists who seek to outsource that responsibility to distant formal institutions or systems of pre-defined abstract rules.
      - mbetter 14y ago
        You may want to take direct moral responsibility for your circumstances, but that would be very dishonest. Whether you like it or not, you are part of a society and the very existence of society makes your circumstances possible.
scarmig 14y ago
Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument. There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers of violence in a given geographic area, or a monopoly? Both can be Pareto-efficient, so that provides no guidance. Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value. Competing suppliers, however, have no such incentive: if one cultivates a client, there's no reason for the others not to swoop in and extract the surplus. It's a race to the economic bottom. If economic well-being and surplus are good, then having a competitive market in violence is bad. Okay, so we have a monopoly supplier of violence. What then, though? How do we structure it internally? Well, the way it arises will be the way it's structured, regardless of what we might like in an imaginary world. And that will be some group of agents who have to negotiate contracts with each other and with the customers who are exchanging labor in exchange for violence. What remains is squeezing out the information and liquidity gaps that make every market inefficient. People should have a clear set of rules that they can assume will be okay with the monopoly violence supplier: then they will not miscalculate when they do something thinking it will not cause violent reprisals. That's what we call rule of law. That says nothing about what the contract is, though: it may be "everyone pays a flat fee," it may be commission based, it may be commission based on a sliding scale. Who should decide that? Well, you ultimately don't want internal factions to splinter off to compete with the original monopoly (after all, we like the monopoly! At least at the margins.) So you've got to set up an corporate structure where no large enough group of customers feel that they could have a better deal with another supplier in the market. Everyone needs equal input. We've tended to solve that problem with majority vote.
- baddox 14y ago
  > Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value Could you explain this claim? I wouldn't agree with it if you we're talking about fulfilling the demand of other sectors (like music or food), so I'm curious why it would apply to violence.

by snitko 14y ago

mbetter 14y ago

> why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian? Every time I argue with a libertarian, it's an endless series of "No True Scotsman" arguments.

baddox 14y ago
That's odd. Can you give me an example of a common libertarian No True Scotsman argument?
- saraid216 14y ago
  Well, it's not really a pure free market system, so it doesn't count.
  - Steko 14y ago
    Herbert Hoover was a huge activist big government Keynesian.
  - vitno 14y ago
    you do realize that is a valid argument though, right? The core concept of the no true scotsman argument is the wishy-washy definition of what is being debated. He isn't a true scotsman because a true scotsman would wear a kilt! something like that. If the definition of scotsman is "wears a kilt" the same way a libertarian would say "pure free market" then it is totally valid.
    - mbetter 14y ago
      He may wear a kilt, but he doesn't play the bagpipes, so he's no true Scotsman.
  - praxeologist 14y ago
    Probably referring to you calling the US health care system free market...
dconway 14y ago
I could just as easily say that whenever one argues with a non-libertarian, he or she lays out an endless series of straw men. See how that works? "Your argument doesn't accurately represent my viewpoint" is what both No True Scotsman and straw men are about. So rather than opting out of an argument by calling "logical fallacy" on someone, why not clear up the definitions and be sure of what each other are talking about?

timr 14y ago

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw (...let's be clear that I'm not calling libertarians pigs. The point is that you can't change a dedicated person's mind via argument, and neither I nor Shaw found the effort enjoyable or productive.)

snitko 14y ago
Ok, sure. Let's not argue then. I have a question though (and it's not intended to spark an argument), I'm just curious to know, how and why do you think people become libertarians?
- Klinky 14y ago
  By reading Atlas Shrugged and having an egocentric view of the world.
- mbetter 14y ago
  Because having a simple and logically consistent system to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation absolves one of the responsibility to make complicated moral decisions on their own merits. I understand libertarianism and I very much appreciate that it is built on a foundation of reason. However, being an imperfect being, a wise man tempers his reason with empiricism.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > Because having a simple and logically consistent system to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation absolves one of the responsibility to make complicated moral decisions on their own merits. But libertarians are the ones who want to take direct moral responsibility for their circumstances; it's statists who seek to outsource that responsibility to distant formal institutions or systems of pre-defined abstract rules.
    - mbetter 14y ago
      You may want to take direct moral responsibility for your circumstances, but that would be very dishonest. Whether you like it or not, you are part of a society and the very existence of society makes your circumstances possible.

scarmig 14y ago

Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument. There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers of violence in a given geographic area, or a monopoly? Both can be Pareto-efficient, so that provides no guidance. Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value. Competing suppliers, however, have no such incentive: if one cultivates a client, there's no reason for the others not to swoop in and extract the surplus. It's a race to the economic bottom. If economic well-being and surplus are good, then having a competitive market in violence is bad. Okay, so we have a monopoly supplier of violence. What then, though? How do we structure it internally? Well, the way it arises will be the way it's structured, regardless of what we might like in an imaginary world. And that will be some group of agents who have to negotiate contracts with each other and with the customers who are exchanging labor in exchange for violence. What remains is squeezing out the information and liquidity gaps that make every market inefficient. People should have a clear set of rules that they can assume will be okay with the monopoly violence supplier: then they will not miscalculate when they do something thinking it will not cause violent reprisals. That's what we call rule of law. That says nothing about what the contract is, though: it may be "everyone pays a flat fee," it may be commission based, it may be commission based on a sliding scale. Who should decide that? Well, you ultimately don't want internal factions to splinter off to compete with the original monopoly (after all, we like the monopoly! At least at the margins.) So you've got to set up an corporate structure where no large enough group of customers feel that they could have a better deal with another supplier in the market. Everyone needs equal input. We've tended to solve that problem with majority vote.

baddox 14y ago
> Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value Could you explain this claim? I wouldn't agree with it if you we're talking about fulfilling the demand of other sectors (like music or food), so I'm curious why it would apply to violence.