3 ms·

This is just my humble opinion, but actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. It's possible to think that

by mpyne 13y ago

This is just my humble opinion, but actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. It's possible to think that the state has grown too powerful without subscribing to libertarian ideals, but it's pretty hard to introduce libertarian absolutes into the grainy gray of the real world without bending the principles... at which point it has stopped being libertarian. E.g., consider http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism

bcrescimanno 13y ago
How much stock can I really put into an article that begins by stating that libertarianism exists to benefit affluent, white men? Moreover, presenting a single reductio ad absurdum argument does not identify the concept as "self-assassinating."
- mpyne 13y ago
  The article didn't begin by saying that libertarianism was created or allowed to exist to benefit rich white men. It does imply that libertarianism benefits rich white men (which is why rich white men would predominantly support it...), but the article doesn't make the claim that libertarianism was created for that purpose. Perhaps you should try a critical analysis of what the article actually says instead of a cursory skimming of what you assume the article says, before you decide how much stock you can place in it?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Libertarianism does disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Being white only matters when you happen to live in a country where wealthy people are disproportionately white, which as it turns out is exactly the situation we have in America. It really is not that much of a stretch.
jessaustin 13y ago
...actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. The reason I'm anarchist is not that I've enjoyed my time in Somalia and I'd like the USA to become that, only more temperate. The reason is that the only changes we can make to our polity that could conceivably be good for the people are in an anarchist direction. If the nation commits to anarchism and starts the slow process of making its laws and practices more just and humanist, less total and oppressive, in twenty years I'll probably find that I've become more moderate and open to other directions for societal change. But we're in a hole here. When people advocate that we stop digging and start climbing, it is nonresponsive to point out that the air at 50,000 feet is too thin to breathe.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. Well, political philosophies that deliberately avoid making everything bright-line ideological concerns are usually pretty flexible (and accordingly easier to defend). Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken? Even if you do find a set of guidelines that seem appropriate now, they may not be appropriate in the future. Even the Revolutionary Commune in Paris wasn't above simply executing the enemies of the revolution, after all.
  - john_b 13y ago
    > "Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken?" The point of political philosophies is to make and support assertions as to what the Right Thing is, within a given social context. Because different political philosophies exist, different sets of Right Things are proposed by the adherents of each. As you mentioned, less "moderate" political philosophies usually trade ideological malleability for ideological clarity in an attempt to provide a stronger and more consistent argument for its own set of Right Things at the expense of less philosophically inclined voters. If everyone could agree on what The Right Thing is, we wouldn't have rigid political philosophies because they would serve no purpose. If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics. Well that's the thing. Anyone with experience with programming can see that it's quite clear that even a system with incredibly rigid guidelines can, when formed into complex interconnections, take a form that is both unpredictable and does things that are wrong. So the answer cannot be more rigidity. Instead, we need risk management, and the willingness to forgo rigid determinants in the quest for optimal solutions, since they won't always produce optimal solutions anyways. Yes, our non-rigid heuristics will likely themselves produce non-optimal solutions, but that's OK too since it's easier to adjust and adapt. Not every startup turns a profit for a VC either, but that doesn't invalidate entrepreneurial risk-taking.

by mpyne 13y ago

bcrescimanno 13y ago

How much stock can I really put into an article that begins by stating that libertarianism exists to benefit affluent, white men? Moreover, presenting a single reductio ad absurdum argument does not identify the concept as "self-assassinating."

mpyne 13y ago
The article didn't begin by saying that libertarianism was created or allowed to exist to benefit rich white men. It does imply that libertarianism benefits rich white men (which is why rich white men would predominantly support it...), but the article doesn't make the claim that libertarianism was created for that purpose. Perhaps you should try a critical analysis of what the article actually says instead of a cursory skimming of what you assume the article says, before you decide how much stock you can place in it?
betterunix 13y ago
Libertarianism does disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Being white only matters when you happen to live in a country where wealthy people are disproportionately white, which as it turns out is exactly the situation we have in America. It really is not that much of a stretch.

jessaustin 13y ago

...actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. The reason I'm anarchist is not that I've enjoyed my time in Somalia and I'd like the USA to become that, only more temperate. The reason is that the only changes we can make to our polity that could conceivably be good for the people are in an anarchist direction. If the nation commits to anarchism and starts the slow process of making its laws and practices more just and humanist, less total and oppressive, in twenty years I'll probably find that I've become more moderate and open to other directions for societal change. But we're in a hole here. When people advocate that we stop digging and start climbing, it is nonresponsive to point out that the air at 50,000 feet is too thin to breathe.

mpyne 13y ago
> No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. Well, political philosophies that deliberately avoid making everything bright-line ideological concerns are usually pretty flexible (and accordingly easier to defend). Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken? Even if you do find a set of guidelines that seem appropriate now, they may not be appropriate in the future. Even the Revolutionary Commune in Paris wasn't above simply executing the enemies of the revolution, after all.
- john_b 13y ago
  > "Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken?" The point of political philosophies is to make and support assertions as to what the Right Thing is, within a given social context. Because different political philosophies exist, different sets of Right Things are proposed by the adherents of each. As you mentioned, less "moderate" political philosophies usually trade ideological malleability for ideological clarity in an attempt to provide a stronger and more consistent argument for its own set of Right Things at the expense of less philosophically inclined voters. If everyone could agree on what The Right Thing is, we wouldn't have rigid political philosophies because they would serve no purpose. If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics. Well that's the thing. Anyone with experience with programming can see that it's quite clear that even a system with incredibly rigid guidelines can, when formed into complex interconnections, take a form that is both unpredictable and does things that are wrong. So the answer cannot be more rigidity. Instead, we need risk management, and the willingness to forgo rigid determinants in the quest for optimal solutions, since they won't always produce optimal solutions anyways. Yes, our non-rigid heuristics will likely themselves produce non-optimal solutions, but that's OK too since it's easier to adjust and adapt. Not every startup turns a profit for a VC either, but that doesn't invalidate entrepreneurial risk-taking.