4 ms·

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, other

by 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.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > Corporations are there to make money. See, I find this claim suspect. Yes, the reality is that corporations exist to make money. But I'd argue that it's bad corporations that exist to make money; corporations ought to exist in order to provide value. But then again, that's what marketing is, no? It's about the corporations claiming to provide value without actually doing so. Isn't that as bad a deceit as that you claim for the state? No business fails to lie, even if their lies are no larger than those of their competitors and they have to do it to stay in business. We all know it and accept it, but we also all know that public roads aren't free and are paid for by taxes. I don't think I've ever heard someone "pretend to give it for free". > 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. Can you point me to a libertarian who doesn't focus on the state? Take, for instance, feminism. Feminism is ridiculously multifarious, with hugely different groups going after hugely different instances of patriarchy. That's hard to deny, regardless of whether or not you agree with feminists. Libertarianism has existed longer than feminism has (depending on how you count), but I've never heard a libertarian discuss the implications of their philosophy on the conduct of something other than the state. It's not as if there aren't a wealth of opportunities. Groupthink is a major problem, but libertarians don't concern themselves with that. They don't call it a moral failure. You don't see libertarians talk about bullies except as analogies. Is there any kind of libertarian movement trying to address schoolyard bullying? I haven't seen it. Your words say that the state is just one problematic actor out of many. Your actions say that the state is the only actor that matters to you.
    - snitko 13y ago
      You may want to check out Stefan Molyneux, he's a libertarian (ancap, actually) and he addresses a lot of the things that are not directly related to state. He talks a lot about children and bullying too.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        I'll take a look. His Wikipedia page is kinda... thin, and I get the sense he hasn't done much besides host a radio show.

by snitko 13y ago

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.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Corporations are there to make money. See, I find this claim suspect. Yes, the reality is that corporations exist to make money. But I'd argue that it's bad corporations that exist to make money; corporations ought to exist in order to provide value. But then again, that's what marketing is, no? It's about the corporations claiming to provide value without actually doing so. Isn't that as bad a deceit as that you claim for the state? No business fails to lie, even if their lies are no larger than those of their competitors and they have to do it to stay in business. We all know it and accept it, but we also all know that public roads aren't free and are paid for by taxes. I don't think I've ever heard someone "pretend to give it for free". > 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. Can you point me to a libertarian who doesn't focus on the state? Take, for instance, feminism. Feminism is ridiculously multifarious, with hugely different groups going after hugely different instances of patriarchy. That's hard to deny, regardless of whether or not you agree with feminists. Libertarianism has existed longer than feminism has (depending on how you count), but I've never heard a libertarian discuss the implications of their philosophy on the conduct of something other than the state. It's not as if there aren't a wealth of opportunities. Groupthink is a major problem, but libertarians don't concern themselves with that. They don't call it a moral failure. You don't see libertarians talk about bullies except as analogies. Is there any kind of libertarian movement trying to address schoolyard bullying? I haven't seen it. Your words say that the state is just one problematic actor out of many. Your actions say that the state is the only actor that matters to you.
  - snitko 13y ago
    You may want to check out Stefan Molyneux, he's a libertarian (ancap, actually) and he addresses a lot of the things that are not directly related to state. He talks a lot about children and bullying too.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      I'll take a look. His Wikipedia page is kinda... thin, and I get the sense he hasn't done much besides host a radio show.