3 ms·

> the libertarian creed -the churlish assumption that 'rules are the arbitrary imposition of those with power' and that somehow breaking them is more likely goo

by pdonis 6mo ago

> the libertarian creed -the churlish assumption that 'rules are the arbitrary imposition of those with power' and that somehow breaking them is more likely good than not This is certainly churlish, but it's not at all "the libertarian creed". People who break rules just for the sake of breaking them aren't libertarians, they're idiots. I agree there are lots of those around, and that many, if not most, people who crow about "breaking rules" are doing it for selfish or irresponsible or self-aggrandizing reasons. But those people aren't libertarians. The libertarian creed is that there are different kinds of rules, and you treat them in different ways. And one key part of that is precisely the "moral concern" that you talk about. Libertarianism includes the non-aggression principle: don't violate other people's rights. (Some, including me, would say that's a bedrock tenet of libertarianism.) If breaking a rule would do that, you don't break the rule. And indeed lots of the rules we have in place in our society are there for that very reason--because breaking them would mean violating someone's rights. That doesn't just include obvious cases like the laws against things like murder. It includes rules about fiduciary responsibility when you're taking care of other people's money (someone mentioned Paypal upthread). And it includes norms that aren't codified into rules, like "don't take your users' data without their consent or even knowledge, and then sell it for profit". Doing it at scale to billions of people, as tech giants do, doesn't change that, and "libertarian creed" isn't a get out of jail free card.

iamnothere 6mo ago
You said it better than I would have. GP has a misunderstanding of libertarianism and perhaps of the concept of liberty. Libertarians (small-l libertarians, colloquially) don’t break norms “just because”, they do it only in specific circumstances based on a calculus. Everyone’s calculus is different, but the usual reasoning would focus on possible infringement of others’ rights when breaking the norm and the seeming validity/grounding of the norm. And perhaps the risk tolerance of the individual and likely consequences. GP seems to be taking about anarchists (and a particular species of anarchist at that). There is indeed some overlap but libertarians are not allergic to norms. “Rights” themselves are a norm.
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  "don’t break norms “just because”, they do it only in specific circumstances based on a calculus." No - I didn't suggest 'just because', and Libertarians reject norms not 'on a specific basis' - they reject the nature of the limiting impetus on their expression. Norms are by by default bad and can only be justified in a narrow sense. Critically, there is no moral impetus but the expression of one self. There is no 'greater good', 'community good', or even 'greater morality' beyond selfish desire. Rules and norms are only seen through that lens. Yes - 'rights' can be viewed as norms under most libertarian thought but only to the extent it supposedly protects individual will. These ideas are useful tool, especially when concerned with materially oppressive systems (such as those Ayn Rand lived through in Soviet Union) but morally and practically bereft or at least lacking outside of more authoritarian systems.
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > they reject the nature of the limiting impetus on their expression. Says who? The non-aggression principle is a limit on "expression"--you can't "express" something that violates someone else's rights. I think the correct word to describe what you're actually thinking of is "libertine", not "libertarian".
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > Ayn Rand Is hardly an example of what you're describing. She explicitly supported property rights and the non-aggression principle. It's interesting, though, that she refused to identify herself as a libertarian because she saw those who did as anarchists. So she apparently had the same kind of misconception about libertarianism that you do.
    - iamnothere 5mo ago
      Not to mention that objectivism and libertarianism are not synonymous. “Libertarian” isn’t even a great label considering that it lumps in everyone from Hoppeans (“libertarian” fascists) to Georgist UBI proponents to minarchists to Tea Partiers to Glenn Greenwald. You’re not going to find a lot of common ground across those demographics except for a desire to maximize some definition of individual liberty, in a general sense, and a shared distaste for government intervention.

by pdonis 6mo ago

iamnothere 6mo ago

You said it better than I would have. GP has a misunderstanding of libertarianism and perhaps of the concept of liberty. Libertarians (small-l libertarians, colloquially) don’t break norms “just because”, they do it only in specific circumstances based on a calculus. Everyone’s calculus is different, but the usual reasoning would focus on possible infringement of others’ rights when breaking the norm and the seeming validity/grounding of the norm. And perhaps the risk tolerance of the individual and likely consequences. GP seems to be taking about anarchists (and a particular species of anarchist at that). There is indeed some overlap but libertarians are not allergic to norms. “Rights” themselves are a norm.

bluegatty 5mo ago
"don’t break norms “just because”, they do it only in specific circumstances based on a calculus." No - I didn't suggest 'just because', and Libertarians reject norms not 'on a specific basis' - they reject the nature of the limiting impetus on their expression. Norms are by by default bad and can only be justified in a narrow sense. Critically, there is no moral impetus but the expression of one self. There is no 'greater good', 'community good', or even 'greater morality' beyond selfish desire. Rules and norms are only seen through that lens. Yes - 'rights' can be viewed as norms under most libertarian thought but only to the extent it supposedly protects individual will. These ideas are useful tool, especially when concerned with materially oppressive systems (such as those Ayn Rand lived through in Soviet Union) but morally and practically bereft or at least lacking outside of more authoritarian systems.
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > they reject the nature of the limiting impetus on their expression. Says who? The non-aggression principle is a limit on "expression"--you can't "express" something that violates someone else's rights. I think the correct word to describe what you're actually thinking of is "libertine", not "libertarian".
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > Ayn Rand Is hardly an example of what you're describing. She explicitly supported property rights and the non-aggression principle. It's interesting, though, that she refused to identify herself as a libertarian because she saw those who did as anarchists. So she apparently had the same kind of misconception about libertarianism that you do.
  - iamnothere 5mo ago
    Not to mention that objectivism and libertarianism are not synonymous. “Libertarian” isn’t even a great label considering that it lumps in everyone from Hoppeans (“libertarian” fascists) to Georgist UBI proponents to minarchists to Tea Partiers to Glenn Greenwald. You’re not going to find a lot of common ground across those demographics except for a desire to maximize some definition of individual liberty, in a general sense, and a shared distaste for government intervention.