3 ms·

One of the essential problems with libertarian philosophy is that it starts from the premise that there are two meaningful actors: the individual and the state.

One of the essential problems with libertarian philosophy is that it starts from the premise that there are two meaningful actors: the individual and the state. This makes it extremely hard to conceptualize and introduce a third actor, like corporations, which means corporations need to be lumped in with either the individual or the state. Libertarians who are sympathetic with corporations will tend to lump them in with the individual, talking about the state imposing itself upon them. Those less sympathetic will tend to lump them in with the state, talking about their undue influence on political theater.

smokeyj 13y ago
> One of the essential problems with libertarian philosophy is that it starts from the premise that there are two meaningful actors: the individual and the state. ..you should really get a better grasp on libertarian philosophy before making statements like this. If there were any two groups libertarians would lump people in, it's violent and non-violent actors. Libertarians don't recognize the rights of corporations, governments, dictators, despots, etc. Actions are evaluated at the individual level -- which is apparently a radical new concept. Libertarianism isn't a philosophy about government, it's a philosophy about human action in general, all of which is empirically evident. It's waaayyy more principled than a political philosophy, which seems to drive many people nuts.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > ..you should really get a better grasp on libertarian philosophy before making statements like this. There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. > Actions are evaluated at the individual level -- which is apparently a radical new concept. If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people. Which means you can't talk about governments and corporations at all. So what's the incorrect statement here? I get that you're proud of your philosophy, but why is it that every time someone represents it to me, they open gaping wide holes large enough to fly a planet through?
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    > There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. > If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people. Obviously I'm here to argue the opposite :) Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. This is like saying a microeconomics has nothing to contribute to macroeconomics, wherein reality macroeconomics is simply the resultant of microeconomic activity. Trying to understand economics from a strictly macro perspective leaves you with.. modern numerology. > So what's the incorrect statement here? False dichotomy ;) > I get that you're proud of your philosophy, but why is it that every time someone represents it to me, they open gaping wide holes large enough to fly a planet through? Many self-proclaimed libertarians don't understand the logical conclusion of the philosophy and do a poor job of representing it. With people like Glenn Beck claiming to be libertarian, I can see where you're coming from. If I could try to convey the essence of what I, and many other self-proclaimed libertarians view the philosophy as -- it's a framework for analyzing human action. Much like game theory, it doesn't tell you what the game is or how to play. It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. I wasn't saying libertarianism isn't valid. I was saying that making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect, mine as much as yours. > Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? This isn't a "libertarianism makes sense" claim you're making; this is a "libertarians are so awesome" claim. Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. > False dichotomy ;) You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. > It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be. To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. These are two hugely different things, not least because philosophies are normative. Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. That isn't a "framework for analyzing human action"; that's an assertion that "freedom is important and we should not impinge on it". This is a really significant deviation from your claims. Or I guess you could disagree with all this. Are you sure you're a libertarian? You haven't brought up freedom or liberty at all. You kinda sound like an economist.
snitko 13y ago
This is what you've been told. Libertarians don't start from this premise and that's not even the point. Yes some people are irrational, but most are not, otherwise it would be impossible to conduct business at all. Even if we assume that government fixes some of the things caused by irrational behavior, it inevitably screws many others, because actors in a government are no more rational than the general population. But the point of the libertarianism is that governments have incentives in the wrong place. Expecting a politician not to lie and act in the interest of the public without ever looking back at those who actually pay him (corporate interests) is like locking a gentleman and a lady in an apartment for 4 years and expect nothing to happen.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Hold on. Why is the rationality of people even relevant here? > But the point of the libertarianism is that governments have incentives in the wrong place. Is not what smokeyj down there thinks. His claim, freely paraphrased, is that libertarianism is about minimizing violence in order to maximize human freedom. I don't think he would accept that there's a class of people called "politician" which you could make such sweeping generalizations about. That wouldn't be an individual-level evaluation. Or, for that matter, a class of people divided by gender.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Oh, my apologies, I misread. I thought you were bringin up that usual argument that libertarians think all people are rational... But answering your question, no libertarians don't necessarily assume there's just a state and everyone else. However they emphasize state so much because of its violent and deceiving nature. Corporations are there to make money. It's explicit, everyone knows this. May not be pretty and corporations may be greedy from someone's standpoint of view (although, what is greed, really?), but they don't lie. And everyone also has the freedom to buy or not to buy certain things they offer. State, on the other hand, pretends to serve public interests, but actually serves private interests. It also extracts taxes from people with a threat of force and then pretends it gives things for free! But who's gonna build the roads, they say! So, in a nutshell, this combination of force and deceit makes state a very undesirable institution.

smokeyj 13y ago

> One of the essential problems with libertarian philosophy is that it starts from the premise that there are two meaningful actors: the individual and the state. ..you should really get a better grasp on libertarian philosophy before making statements like this. If there were any two groups libertarians would lump people in, it's violent and non-violent actors. Libertarians don't recognize the rights of corporations, governments, dictators, despots, etc. Actions are evaluated at the individual level -- which is apparently a radical new concept. Libertarianism isn't a philosophy about government, it's a philosophy about human action in general, all of which is empirically evident. It's waaayyy more principled than a political philosophy, which seems to drive many people nuts.

saraid216 13y ago
> ..you should really get a better grasp on libertarian philosophy before making statements like this. There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. > Actions are evaluated at the individual level -- which is apparently a radical new concept. If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people. Which means you can't talk about governments and corporations at all. So what's the incorrect statement here? I get that you're proud of your philosophy, but why is it that every time someone represents it to me, they open gaping wide holes large enough to fly a planet through?
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. > If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people. Obviously I'm here to argue the opposite :) Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. This is like saying a microeconomics has nothing to contribute to macroeconomics, wherein reality macroeconomics is simply the resultant of microeconomic activity. Trying to understand economics from a strictly macro perspective leaves you with.. modern numerology. > So what's the incorrect statement here? False dichotomy ;) > I get that you're proud of your philosophy, but why is it that every time someone represents it to me, they open gaping wide holes large enough to fly a planet through? Many self-proclaimed libertarians don't understand the logical conclusion of the philosophy and do a poor job of representing it. With people like Glenn Beck claiming to be libertarian, I can see where you're coming from. If I could try to convey the essence of what I, and many other self-proclaimed libertarians view the philosophy as -- it's a framework for analyzing human action. Much like game theory, it doesn't tell you what the game is or how to play. It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. I wasn't saying libertarianism isn't valid. I was saying that making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect, mine as much as yours. > Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? This isn't a "libertarianism makes sense" claim you're making; this is a "libertarians are so awesome" claim. Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. > False dichotomy ;) You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. > It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be. To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. These are two hugely different things, not least because philosophies are normative. Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. That isn't a "framework for analyzing human action"; that's an assertion that "freedom is important and we should not impinge on it". This is a really significant deviation from your claims. Or I guess you could disagree with all this. Are you sure you're a libertarian? You haven't brought up freedom or liberty at all. You kinda sound like an economist.

snitko 13y ago

This is what you've been told. Libertarians don't start from this premise and that's not even the point. Yes some people are irrational, but most are not, otherwise it would be impossible to conduct business at all. Even if we assume that government fixes some of the things caused by irrational behavior, it inevitably screws many others, because actors in a government are no more rational than the general population. But the point of the libertarianism is that governments have incentives in the wrong place. Expecting a politician not to lie and act in the interest of the public without ever looking back at those who actually pay him (corporate interests) is like locking a gentleman and a lady in an apartment for 4 years and expect nothing to happen.

saraid216 13y ago
Hold on. Why is the rationality of people even relevant here? > But the point of the libertarianism is that governments have incentives in the wrong place. Is not what smokeyj down there thinks. His claim, freely paraphrased, is that libertarianism is about minimizing violence in order to maximize human freedom. I don't think he would accept that there's a class of people called "politician" which you could make such sweeping generalizations about. That wouldn't be an individual-level evaluation. Or, for that matter, a class of people divided by gender.
- snitko 13y ago
  Oh, my apologies, I misread. I thought you were bringin up that usual argument that libertarians think all people are rational... But answering your question, no libertarians don't necessarily assume there's just a state and everyone else. However they emphasize state so much because of its violent and deceiving nature. Corporations are there to make money. It's explicit, everyone knows this. May not be pretty and corporations may be greedy from someone's standpoint of view (although, what is greed, really?), but they don't lie. And everyone also has the freedom to buy or not to buy certain things they offer. State, on the other hand, pretends to serve public interests, but actually serves private interests. It also extracts taxes from people with a threat of force and then pretends it gives things for free! But who's gonna build the roads, they say! So, in a nutshell, this combination of force and deceit makes state a very undesirable institution.