7 ms·

the paradox of the deeply conservative anti-federal government types who work for the government - directly or as a fed contractor Those are the people who hav

the paradox of the deeply conservative anti-federal government types who work for the government - directly or as a fed contractor Those are the people who have a realistic, first hand understanding of the government innerworkings. Also, a contradiction between believing that allocation of capital would be more efficient under a less centrally-influenced system, and being willing to accept higher pay and benefits from one of the central institutions only exists if you believe that individuals should strive for public good even at great personal expense. Which strikes me more as a moral view taken by nationalists than libertarians.

wpietri 13y ago
I think what your proposed cognitive model of anti-government government workers is missing is something Upton Sinclair pointed at: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I've worked for financial trading companies and for advertisers before, but I can't do that work anymore because I think those industries mainly make the world worse. Not won't do it, but can't. The daily conflict between my principles and my actions would be too painful. Cognitive dissonance is really uncomfortable. I don't think most people can live with the cognitive dissonance of being an anti-government government worker. Not without falling into what user omegaham correctly identifies as doublethink. And I think that would be especially true of the libertarians I have known. If I were to generalize about them, I'd say that on average they're unusually thoughtful and unusually principled. Most people don't even try for a coherent political philosophy. I just don't know a lot of people who will think that deeply and then be totally ok not living by those principles.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>And I think that would be especially true of the libertarians I have known. If I were to generalize about them, I'd say that on average they're unusually thoughtful and unusually principled. Most people don't even try for a coherent political philosophy. Libertarianism will look like a "coherent political philosophy" only if you're a young white kid from an affluent family.
  - fedups 13y ago
    This is the most original and convincing argument against libertarianism that I've heard.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's about as original and convincing as saying that "liberalism is a 'coherent political philosophy' only if you are a poor inner-city black kid whose parents are on welfare". They make for witty-sounding quips, but both are ad-hominems[0] that do little to actually address and argue against the tenets of either philosophy. [0] (In before someone points out that this is not a true ad-hominem because it attacks a stereotype (and a straw man at that) rather than a specific individual).
      - wpietri 13y ago
        This definitely isn't an ad hominem, and it isn't even analogous to one. Enraged_camel is implying that libertarianism is missing something that is easy to miss if you have led a relatively comfortable and unchallenging life. The criticism is oblique rather than explicit, but that doesn't make it anything like an ad hominem, because ad hominems are essentially distracting with irrelevancy.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Yeah, I certainly think people in the libertarian end of the pool tend to value coherence more than completeness. But the conflict between coherence and completeness is much smaller for people who have led very comfortable lives. So that would fit.
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    Or someone from a former soviet block country, or Cuban/Venezuelan expats.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Libertarianism will look like a "coherent political philosophy" only if you're a young white kid from an affluent family. Or, anybody else.
bradleyjg 13y ago
Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. On the theoretical side it goes back to the whole Trotskyism/Stalinism debate.
- glenra 13y ago
  > Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. Okay, I give up: What are you expecting to find upon doing that? Most libertarians I know are in favor of free movement of labor and open immigration in general. The current Libertarian Party Platform includes this bit: "Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders." (source: http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.lp.org/platform )
- nickff 13y ago
  >"Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor." Are you trying to imply that libertarians are inconsistent? There are plenty of libertarians who believe in open borders, Bryan Caplan being one prime example.[1][2] On the other hand, it is also perfectly self-consistent to believe that citizens of a country are entitled to liberties which are not guaranteed to foreigners. [1] http://openborders.info/bryan-caplan/ http://openborders.info/bryan-caplan/ [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.htm...
- baddox 13y ago
  > Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. I self-identify as a libertarian (with qualifications, if you want details). If you try talking to me about free movement of labor, I think you'll find that I advocate it fully.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. Just about every self-professed libertarian I know (and I know a lot) support total freedom of movement of labor. Many of them actually oppose the very idea of nation-states and national borders in general.
cgore 13y ago
I think a lot of people seem to be confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Libertarians typically do see roles for SOME government, and those roles are typically the military, judges, roads, police, and the like. Not other things though, so no Social Security, no Obamacare, no National Endowment for the Arts, and no space program (other than for space weapons, so get rid of NASA and establish some sort of "US Star Force.") So with that world view, working at a defense contractor isn't a conflict at all, instead, it is the one "true and legitimate" reason for government in their eyes.
- bane 13y ago
  My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution. It's not really a viewpoint I totally agree with, but people who are really deep students of the philosophy come across as pretty internally consistent in their viewpoint. I think their's a good place for this type of politic. But I'm afraid far too many people who self-identify with it, don't understand it deeply enough or the implications of the ideas.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitutionalist argument is mostly an outer limit on their support for government programs. They also believe that the federal government shouldn't do many things that it is expressly empowered to do in the Constitution.
- fivethree 13y ago
  Libertarians view of government is, 'I want to be allowed to do whatever I want while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do.' It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought.
  - glenra 13y ago
gnarbarian 13y ago
As a federal/state contractor myself. That's what happened to me. My job has driven me to a libertarian viewpoint over a period of years after seeing inefficiency and wastefulness of the organizations I deal with. This is across many state and federal departments. And I do make an effort to push them toward more cost effective technologies and processes but the sad truth is they don't want to hear it because they prefer to waste money on oracle licenses and aligning text on reports nobody will ever read, than have their budget reduced. There really ought to be incentives/bonuses built in for employees in govt who can successfully cut their budget and perform the same job at the same level of quality. We would instantly see a drastic reduction in the cost of our government.
- craigyk 13y ago
  The thing is... you'd likely see inefficiency and wastefulness in most private sector jobs as well. Almost guaranteed. There are some types of services, like crucial infrastructure, where failure is not an option, hence government, hence sacrificing efficiency in favor of dependability.
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    Except that I also work in the private sector as well. I have both private and public clients. It's MUCH MUCH worse in government. Also if you're seen as wasteful at a large company you're more likely to be shown the door. The larger the organization the more room there is for waste within its ranks. No organizations are larger than the government.
    - zecho 13y ago
      Speaking as a government employee, not a contractor, we are actually more efficient than my previous private sector jobs. But then again, we have a "build it don't buy it" culture here with a lot of love for open source throughout our services and really only use consultants on ultra specific jobs, due to head count caps from our legislature. Sure there's some union cruft here and there but I've seen similar dead weight in the private sector. Perhaps you should consider consulting for less well-funded segments of the Government? The constraints make for ingenious solutions.

wpietri 13y ago

I think what your proposed cognitive model of anti-government government workers is missing is something Upton Sinclair pointed at: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I've worked for financial trading companies and for advertisers before, but I can't do that work anymore because I think those industries mainly make the world worse. Not won't do it, but can't. The daily conflict between my principles and my actions would be too painful. Cognitive dissonance is really uncomfortable. I don't think most people can live with the cognitive dissonance of being an anti-government government worker. Not without falling into what user omegaham correctly identifies as doublethink. And I think that would be especially true of the libertarians I have known. If I were to generalize about them, I'd say that on average they're unusually thoughtful and unusually principled. Most people don't even try for a coherent political philosophy. I just don't know a lot of people who will think that deeply and then be totally ok not living by those principles.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>And I think that would be especially true of the libertarians I have known. If I were to generalize about them, I'd say that on average they're unusually thoughtful and unusually principled. Most people don't even try for a coherent political philosophy. Libertarianism will look like a "coherent political philosophy" only if you're a young white kid from an affluent family.
- fedups 13y ago
  This is the most original and convincing argument against libertarianism that I've heard.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's about as original and convincing as saying that "liberalism is a 'coherent political philosophy' only if you are a poor inner-city black kid whose parents are on welfare". They make for witty-sounding quips, but both are ad-hominems[0] that do little to actually address and argue against the tenets of either philosophy. [0] (In before someone points out that this is not a true ad-hominem because it attacks a stereotype (and a straw man at that) rather than a specific individual).
    - wpietri 13y ago
      This definitely isn't an ad hominem, and it isn't even analogous to one. Enraged_camel is implying that libertarianism is missing something that is easy to miss if you have led a relatively comfortable and unchallenging life. The criticism is oblique rather than explicit, but that doesn't make it anything like an ad hominem, because ad hominems are essentially distracting with irrelevancy.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Yeah, I certainly think people in the libertarian end of the pool tend to value coherence more than completeness. But the conflict between coherence and completeness is much smaller for people who have led very comfortable lives. So that would fit.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  Or someone from a former soviet block country, or Cuban/Venezuelan expats.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Libertarianism will look like a "coherent political philosophy" only if you're a young white kid from an affluent family. Or, anybody else.

bradleyjg 13y ago

Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. On the theoretical side it goes back to the whole Trotskyism/Stalinism debate.

glenra 13y ago
> Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. Okay, I give up: What are you expecting to find upon doing that? Most libertarians I know are in favor of free movement of labor and open immigration in general. The current Libertarian Party Platform includes this bit: "Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders." (source: http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.lp.org/platform )
nickff 13y ago
>"Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor." Are you trying to imply that libertarians are inconsistent? There are plenty of libertarians who believe in open borders, Bryan Caplan being one prime example.[1][2] On the other hand, it is also perfectly self-consistent to believe that citizens of a country are entitled to liberties which are not guaranteed to foreigners. [1] http://openborders.info/bryan-caplan/ http://openborders.info/bryan-caplan/ [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.htm...
baddox 13y ago
> Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. I self-identify as a libertarian (with qualifications, if you want details). If you try talking to me about free movement of labor, I think you'll find that I advocate it fully.
mindcrime 13y ago
Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. Just about every self-professed libertarian I know (and I know a lot) support total freedom of movement of labor. Many of them actually oppose the very idea of nation-states and national borders in general.

cgore 13y ago

I think a lot of people seem to be confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Libertarians typically do see roles for SOME government, and those roles are typically the military, judges, roads, police, and the like. Not other things though, so no Social Security, no Obamacare, no National Endowment for the Arts, and no space program (other than for space weapons, so get rid of NASA and establish some sort of "US Star Force.") So with that world view, working at a defense contractor isn't a conflict at all, instead, it is the one "true and legitimate" reason for government in their eyes.

bane 13y ago
My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution. It's not really a viewpoint I totally agree with, but people who are really deep students of the philosophy come across as pretty internally consistent in their viewpoint. I think their's a good place for this type of politic. But I'm afraid far too many people who self-identify with it, don't understand it deeply enough or the implications of the ideas.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitutionalist argument is mostly an outer limit on their support for government programs. They also believe that the federal government shouldn't do many things that it is expressly empowered to do in the Constitution.
fivethree 13y ago
Libertarians view of government is, 'I want to be allowed to do whatever I want while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do.' It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought.
- glenra 13y ago

gnarbarian 13y ago

As a federal/state contractor myself. That's what happened to me. My job has driven me to a libertarian viewpoint over a period of years after seeing inefficiency and wastefulness of the organizations I deal with. This is across many state and federal departments. And I do make an effort to push them toward more cost effective technologies and processes but the sad truth is they don't want to hear it because they prefer to waste money on oracle licenses and aligning text on reports nobody will ever read, than have their budget reduced. There really ought to be incentives/bonuses built in for employees in govt who can successfully cut their budget and perform the same job at the same level of quality. We would instantly see a drastic reduction in the cost of our government.

craigyk 13y ago
The thing is... you'd likely see inefficiency and wastefulness in most private sector jobs as well. Almost guaranteed. There are some types of services, like crucial infrastructure, where failure is not an option, hence government, hence sacrificing efficiency in favor of dependability.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  Except that I also work in the private sector as well. I have both private and public clients. It's MUCH MUCH worse in government. Also if you're seen as wasteful at a large company you're more likely to be shown the door. The larger the organization the more room there is for waste within its ranks. No organizations are larger than the government.
  - zecho 13y ago
    Speaking as a government employee, not a contractor, we are actually more efficient than my previous private sector jobs. But then again, we have a "build it don't buy it" culture here with a lot of love for open source throughout our services and really only use consultants on ultra specific jobs, due to head count caps from our legislature. Sure there's some union cruft here and there but I've seen similar dead weight in the private sector. Perhaps you should consider consulting for less well-funded segments of the Government? The constraints make for ingenious solutions.