11 ms·

This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-ve

This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-versa)." The Culture is absolutely about the former and absolutely not about the latter.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-versa)." Not quite. It confuses freedom with ownership, and thus reasons, "I can only become free by acquiring ownership of more and more of the world around me", with the ultimate conclusion "I can only be free by owning others before they own me." (That's baked in from the start, since the proprietarian ethic was originally designed for a slave society!)
meric 12y ago
Which one of these values, when in-grained into society, offers the most utility: "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law." "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, out of the goodness of my heart." And that's what "Anti-Libertarianists" don't get.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law." In a democratic society, the laws are, broadly speaking, an expression of the voice of the people. The laws of my country of residence require that I give a significant amount of my income, plus 25% VAT on anything I buy. That's a societal choice, and the popular consensus is that it is a fine system, and the lesser inequality and better social services resulting from it make it entirely worth it.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Your "argument" doesn't answer isomorphic's point, nor makes any sense even on its own. The second option of your false choice is, if anything, an ideal of anarchism (which is what some people in the past or outside of America mean by "libertarianism"), not American Libertarianism. Private property, perhaps the most sacred of American Libertarian tenets, is entirely dependent on being enshrined by law and enforced by violence. Another most sacred American Libertarian tenet is the notion of personal responsibility and credit, that each of us in a free market is solely and entirely to blame for our poverty and deserve all the profit and wealth we obtain, that in a free society society is not responsible for our personal condition nor us for society's. How does the importance you give to "when in-grained into society" in your straw-man setup jive with that? Perhaps the important distinction you missed is "American Libertarianism", as opposed to libertarianism in general, which runs the gamut from Ayn Randian worship of selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights to libertarian socialism and Libertarian Marxism.
  - meric 12y ago
    I did not note the "American" part of "American Libertarianism". I'll walk back to the anarchy camp. Public benefits can be shared more efficiently and more benevolently by a government around the corner than by one thousands of kilometres away hiding behind lines of police, security guards and lobbyists. I'm just going to leave this here. "Footage shows homeless black man Milton Hall being shot at 46 times by police in the US" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-shows-homeless-black-man-milton-hall-being-shot-at-46-times-by-police-in-the-us-9826453.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-sho...
- pjc50 12y ago
  2) turns very readily into "I pretend to be all about giving to fellow human beings while not actually doing it" or "I give my employees 80 hour weeks so they can earn more, am I not generous?"
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Also "I'm all about giving to the right kind of fellow human being", which excludes $currently_demonized_minorities.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Purchase utility, not warm fuzzies: enshrine moral obligations in law.
- dghf 12y ago
  You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act short-sightedly)." Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that. But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.: - a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it - a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency - civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications - public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business) - public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more) - some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades) These cost money. The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.
  - wlievens 12y ago
    Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.
    - meric 12y ago
      if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
      - wlievens 12y ago
- XorNot 12y ago
  You're putting the motivation before the result.
  - meric 12y ago
    Results come from motivations, as the fruit springs from the tree.
    - henrikgs 12y ago
      That seems overly simplistic. Sometimes it's easier to get motivated if you have already seen the results or what the taxes/regulations can do. It's much easier to be motivated to pay taxes for public health care when you have seen it first hand, and not just listened to a politicans pipe dream.
      - meric 12y ago
        It's even easier if the person needing help for health care is someone who you relate to intimately, like your best friend/parent/brother/child. Where in a country of low taxes you'd be able to afford to provide care for your close ones out of the goodness of your heart, in a country of heavy taxation, it's much harder for you to do this. The inefficiency of government benefits and subsidies inflates the cost of health care on one hand, while inability for policies to customise benefits per patient means often benefits are distributed unfairly. Where in a communist nation the government reduces inequality by making everyone poor, a nation that taxes heavily to provide universal benefits reduces inequality (of family connections) by making everyone face their problems alone, with only the help of a regular bank deposit from the government as well as the occasional union with a family member. It divides us from a strong network with many connections between each node to one of spoke and hub, where the spoke is an individual and the hub the state. Sometimes you might feel lonely and have no one to turn to, even as you have dozens and dozens of friends. This is why.
    - lmm 12y ago
      If that's true then the free market - motivated by greed - must be the most evil institution imaginable. As Adam Smith put it, it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
- yequalsx 12y ago
  The out of the goodness of my heart ignores the inefficiency of such a system. Government funded programs are much more efficient at ensuring a clean environment, good roads, universal education, universal healthcare, etc. Also it ignores human nature and the free rider problem.
  - meric 12y ago
    Maximising efficiency isn't sufficient to build a harmonious society. Taking efficiency to the level of absurdity - it would be most efficient to put all non-productive individuals into a coma and pump them full of feel-good hormones, so that there's more roads, more education and more healthcare for those who are productive so they can pay more taxes to give more universal healthcare, education and roads. I'm not saying that I'm against government funded programs, only saying your argument of the inefficiency of human goodness is not a valid one, when talking about building a society that maximises a utility measure that includes material as well as emotional wellbeing.
wpietri 12y ago
Ooh, that's well put. My explanation of it, which I think is closely related, is that they're very focused on a peculiar kind of freedom, freedom from the power of the state. Freedom from want, freedom from ignorance, disease, malnutrition, freedom from oligarchy: all ignored. It all comes across to me as a dressed-up version of "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!!!" Plus a fair bit of "I've got mine, so fuck you". It make me a bit sad, because the first Libertarians I met, now decades ago, seemed to be very different. They showed me the Nolan Chart [1] and I thought: yes! This is brilliant! Finally I understand why I don't feel comfortable with the left-right spectrum! I don't know if they changed or I did, but what I see of modern Libertarianism seems to me to be a fundamentalist, reptilian form of what I learned about back then. If I have to choose between freedom from food-borne illness and the freedom of kitchen workers not to wash after they wipe, it seems like an easy choice to me. [1] http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php
- ep103 12y ago
  That's because at its heart, libertarianism started with a number of good ideas. It was more or less born as American political scientists et all learned about the limits of governmental regulation, regulatory capture, and the limits and downsides of the American system of labor union negotiation and membership, and attempted to find a better alternative. I think the problem, and this is just a personal theory, is that many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets to be effective. Take carbon emissions for a quick (and not completely accurate) example. I've had conversations with libertarians that have argued that carbon emissions should not be fined, capped, traded, or in any way regulated. Basically, when the people care enough about the environment, they will vote effectively with their dollars. Crazily enough, this could actually work, but it needs help. Either carbon emissions would have to be valued (so that companies had to pay to emit carbon, most likely via a tax), or all products would be required to state how much carbon was emitted in that item's production, as well as educated as to what that meant, so they could make an informed decision. In reality, the first idea will be picked up and heavily trumpeted by the energy industry (no government taxation!), but the follow up ideas will be completely ignored or torpedoed. As a result, you end up with the type of modern American Libertarianism you describe. The more this sort of selective trumpeting occurs, the more self-describing libertarians will self-select membership, and the more radical the group may become. That nolan chart is a great example. When I first saw it, it was and still is a great way of introducing people to various types of political theories. But the example you linked is horrendous. The questions underneath the economic freedom section are incredibly misleading, and the result of decades of selective trumpeting. They are NOT the same questions I was shown when I was originally shown the nolan chart all those years ago.
bobcostas55 12y ago
Well, the trick is that he side-steps the latter by having friendly demi-gods provide everything. Humans in the Culture universe don't owe each other shit, because the Minds already provide it all.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>This is because American Libertarianism conflates the two ideas "I should be free to do almost anything I want" with "I owe nothing to other humans (and vice-versa)." Not quite. It confuses freedom with ownership, and thus reasons, "I can only become free by acquiring ownership of more and more of the world around me", with the ultimate conclusion "I can only be free by owning others before they own me." (That's baked in from the start, since the proprietarian ethic was originally designed for a slave society!)

meric 12y ago

Which one of these values, when in-grained into society, offers the most utility: "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law." "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, out of the goodness of my heart." And that's what "Anti-Libertarianists" don't get.

mercurial 12y ago
> "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law." In a democratic society, the laws are, broadly speaking, an expression of the voice of the people. The laws of my country of residence require that I give a significant amount of my income, plus 25% VAT on anything I buy. That's a societal choice, and the popular consensus is that it is a fine system, and the lesser inequality and better social services resulting from it make it entirely worth it.
eevilspock 12y ago
Your "argument" doesn't answer isomorphic's point, nor makes any sense even on its own. The second option of your false choice is, if anything, an ideal of anarchism (which is what some people in the past or outside of America mean by "libertarianism"), not American Libertarianism. Private property, perhaps the most sacred of American Libertarian tenets, is entirely dependent on being enshrined by law and enforced by violence. Another most sacred American Libertarian tenet is the notion of personal responsibility and credit, that each of us in a free market is solely and entirely to blame for our poverty and deserve all the profit and wealth we obtain, that in a free society society is not responsible for our personal condition nor us for society's. How does the importance you give to "when in-grained into society" in your straw-man setup jive with that? Perhaps the important distinction you missed is "American Libertarianism", as opposed to libertarianism in general, which runs the gamut from Ayn Randian worship of selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights to libertarian socialism and Libertarian Marxism.
- meric 12y ago
  I did not note the "American" part of "American Libertarianism". I'll walk back to the anarchy camp. Public benefits can be shared more efficiently and more benevolently by a government around the corner than by one thousands of kilometres away hiding behind lines of police, security guards and lobbyists. I'm just going to leave this here. "Footage shows homeless black man Milton Hall being shot at 46 times by police in the US" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-shows-homeless-black-man-milton-hall-being-shot-at-46-times-by-police-in-the-us-9826453.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footage-sho...
pjc50 12y ago
2) turns very readily into "I pretend to be all about giving to fellow human beings while not actually doing it" or "I give my employees 80 hour weeks so they can earn more, am I not generous?"
- mercurial 12y ago
  Also "I'm all about giving to the right kind of fellow human being", which excludes $currently_demonized_minorities.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Purchase utility, not warm fuzzies: enshrine moral obligations in law.
dghf 12y ago
You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act short-sightedly)." Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that. But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.: - a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it - a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency - civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications - public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business) - public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more) - some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades) These cost money. The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.
- wlievens 12y ago
  Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.
  - meric 12y ago
    if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
    - wlievens 12y ago
XorNot 12y ago
You're putting the motivation before the result.
- meric 12y ago
  Results come from motivations, as the fruit springs from the tree.
  - henrikgs 12y ago
    That seems overly simplistic. Sometimes it's easier to get motivated if you have already seen the results or what the taxes/regulations can do. It's much easier to be motivated to pay taxes for public health care when you have seen it first hand, and not just listened to a politicans pipe dream.
    - meric 12y ago
      It's even easier if the person needing help for health care is someone who you relate to intimately, like your best friend/parent/brother/child. Where in a country of low taxes you'd be able to afford to provide care for your close ones out of the goodness of your heart, in a country of heavy taxation, it's much harder for you to do this. The inefficiency of government benefits and subsidies inflates the cost of health care on one hand, while inability for policies to customise benefits per patient means often benefits are distributed unfairly. Where in a communist nation the government reduces inequality by making everyone poor, a nation that taxes heavily to provide universal benefits reduces inequality (of family connections) by making everyone face their problems alone, with only the help of a regular bank deposit from the government as well as the occasional union with a family member. It divides us from a strong network with many connections between each node to one of spoke and hub, where the spoke is an individual and the hub the state. Sometimes you might feel lonely and have no one to turn to, even as you have dozens and dozens of friends. This is why.
  - lmm 12y ago
    If that's true then the free market - motivated by greed - must be the most evil institution imaginable. As Adam Smith put it, it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
yequalsx 12y ago
The out of the goodness of my heart ignores the inefficiency of such a system. Government funded programs are much more efficient at ensuring a clean environment, good roads, universal education, universal healthcare, etc. Also it ignores human nature and the free rider problem.
- meric 12y ago
  Maximising efficiency isn't sufficient to build a harmonious society. Taking efficiency to the level of absurdity - it would be most efficient to put all non-productive individuals into a coma and pump them full of feel-good hormones, so that there's more roads, more education and more healthcare for those who are productive so they can pay more taxes to give more universal healthcare, education and roads. I'm not saying that I'm against government funded programs, only saying your argument of the inefficiency of human goodness is not a valid one, when talking about building a society that maximises a utility measure that includes material as well as emotional wellbeing.

wpietri 12y ago

Ooh, that's well put. My explanation of it, which I think is closely related, is that they're very focused on a peculiar kind of freedom, freedom from the power of the state. Freedom from want, freedom from ignorance, disease, malnutrition, freedom from oligarchy: all ignored. It all comes across to me as a dressed-up version of "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!!!" Plus a fair bit of "I've got mine, so fuck you". It make me a bit sad, because the first Libertarians I met, now decades ago, seemed to be very different. They showed me the Nolan Chart [1] and I thought: yes! This is brilliant! Finally I understand why I don't feel comfortable with the left-right spectrum! I don't know if they changed or I did, but what I see of modern Libertarianism seems to me to be a fundamentalist, reptilian form of what I learned about back then. If I have to choose between freedom from food-borne illness and the freedom of kitchen workers not to wash after they wipe, it seems like an easy choice to me. [1] http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php

ep103 12y ago
That's because at its heart, libertarianism started with a number of good ideas. It was more or less born as American political scientists et all learned about the limits of governmental regulation, regulatory capture, and the limits and downsides of the American system of labor union negotiation and membership, and attempted to find a better alternative. I think the problem, and this is just a personal theory, is that many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets to be effective. Take carbon emissions for a quick (and not completely accurate) example. I've had conversations with libertarians that have argued that carbon emissions should not be fined, capped, traded, or in any way regulated. Basically, when the people care enough about the environment, they will vote effectively with their dollars. Crazily enough, this could actually work, but it needs help. Either carbon emissions would have to be valued (so that companies had to pay to emit carbon, most likely via a tax), or all products would be required to state how much carbon was emitted in that item's production, as well as educated as to what that meant, so they could make an informed decision. In reality, the first idea will be picked up and heavily trumpeted by the energy industry (no government taxation!), but the follow up ideas will be completely ignored or torpedoed. As a result, you end up with the type of modern American Libertarianism you describe. The more this sort of selective trumpeting occurs, the more self-describing libertarians will self-select membership, and the more radical the group may become. That nolan chart is a great example. When I first saw it, it was and still is a great way of introducing people to various types of political theories. But the example you linked is horrendous. The questions underneath the economic freedom section are incredibly misleading, and the result of decades of selective trumpeting. They are NOT the same questions I was shown when I was originally shown the nolan chart all those years ago.

bobcostas55 12y ago

Well, the trick is that he side-steps the latter by having friendly demi-gods provide everything. Humans in the Culture universe don't owe each other shit, because the Minds already provide it all.