3 ms·

This thread's lack of comments by libertarians is striking. It gives the impression that some of them (I don't know who) are not opposed to government taxes and

This thread's lack of comments by libertarians is striking. It gives the impression that some of them (I don't know who) are not opposed to government taxes and spending in principle, as they often claim, but to government taxes and spending on things they don't like -- which isn't a principle or argument, it's just a self-centered complaint. It reminds me of people who talk about freedom as a principle, but what they mean is freedom for themselves.

Daishiman 11y ago
Because liberatrians are self-centered, they just look for a moral narrative to justify it to others.
- dnautics 11y ago
  Socialists are self-centered. They demand things that they want from other people. To the extent that they want government to pay to take care of others, it's because they don't want to reach into their own pockets and pay help out themselves and "rich people" are seen as a collective resource to which somehow they are morally entitled to. Libertarians, by contrast, are permissive to selfishness, which means they tolerate, say objectivists, but when they act in pro-social fashion they mean it because its their time and their money they're putting forward. Perhaps I experience selection bias, but I know many libertarians who volunteer to build homes for the needy, feed the poor, and have set up organizations to support homeless camps. By contrast, a smaller fraction of the liberals I know would ever do such things; that's the provenance of the state.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    No, it's because, honestly, educated people who understand how governments work know that economies of scale are necessary to implement effective policies that help the poor. Charity is nice and all, but most charity is tremendously inefficient, and cannot, sustainably, work on the sorts of multi-decade efforts that are needed by people with real issues to create effective change. It's great that people volunteer on home building and feeding, but again: if you want to end child malnutrition, have effective school lunches in poor areas. There's not enough volunteers in the planet to do that effectively.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > Charity is nice and all, but most charity is tremendously inefficient Have you ever even been to a welfare office? A paragon of inefficiency.
mempko 11y ago
Exactly. On the one hand they condem the government for spending and on the other salivate at the business 'genius' of Musk.
coliveira 11y ago
Libertarianism is fundamentally about self interest. If the government is doing something in their interest, you can be pretty sure that they won't complain.
brandonmenc 11y ago
Libertarian (mostly) here - I don't think Musk or anyone else should be getting subsidies or sweet loan deals. If the government wants to run a federally funded research lab for say, battery tech, fine. But I'm not on board with them picking the winning businesses, and putting the public's money at risk in the process.
dnautics 11y ago
Because it's a pointless argument. The government is so involved in the economy that marking the point of entry for subsidies is arbitrary and losing game for libertarians, because a progovernment argument can get as no true Scotsman on any libertarian position
- dnautics 11y ago
  For example take this jerk Bolden who turned the nasa-spacex relationship into a measuring contest http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars-without-its-help-1698709523 http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars-without... Now we know what he means, that he thinks there's no way that musk will sink the acrued capital of spacex and go to mars. But even if he's wrong and elon does just that he's already won the argument because spacex is a government contractor and there has been government help nevermind that spaceX has saved NASA so much money

Daishiman 11y ago

Because liberatrians are self-centered, they just look for a moral narrative to justify it to others.

dnautics 11y ago
Socialists are self-centered. They demand things that they want from other people. To the extent that they want government to pay to take care of others, it's because they don't want to reach into their own pockets and pay help out themselves and "rich people" are seen as a collective resource to which somehow they are morally entitled to. Libertarians, by contrast, are permissive to selfishness, which means they tolerate, say objectivists, but when they act in pro-social fashion they mean it because its their time and their money they're putting forward. Perhaps I experience selection bias, but I know many libertarians who volunteer to build homes for the needy, feed the poor, and have set up organizations to support homeless camps. By contrast, a smaller fraction of the liberals I know would ever do such things; that's the provenance of the state.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  No, it's because, honestly, educated people who understand how governments work know that economies of scale are necessary to implement effective policies that help the poor. Charity is nice and all, but most charity is tremendously inefficient, and cannot, sustainably, work on the sorts of multi-decade efforts that are needed by people with real issues to create effective change. It's great that people volunteer on home building and feeding, but again: if you want to end child malnutrition, have effective school lunches in poor areas. There's not enough volunteers in the planet to do that effectively.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > Charity is nice and all, but most charity is tremendously inefficient Have you ever even been to a welfare office? A paragon of inefficiency.

mempko 11y ago

Exactly. On the one hand they condem the government for spending and on the other salivate at the business 'genius' of Musk.

coliveira 11y ago

Libertarianism is fundamentally about self interest. If the government is doing something in their interest, you can be pretty sure that they won't complain.

brandonmenc 11y ago

Libertarian (mostly) here - I don't think Musk or anyone else should be getting subsidies or sweet loan deals. If the government wants to run a federally funded research lab for say, battery tech, fine. But I'm not on board with them picking the winning businesses, and putting the public's money at risk in the process.

dnautics 11y ago

Because it's a pointless argument. The government is so involved in the economy that marking the point of entry for subsidies is arbitrary and losing game for libertarians, because a progovernment argument can get as no true Scotsman on any libertarian position

dnautics 11y ago
For example take this jerk Bolden who turned the nasa-spacex relationship into a measuring contest http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars-without-its-help-1698709523 http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars-without... Now we know what he means, that he thinks there's no way that musk will sink the acrued capital of spacex and go to mars. But even if he's wrong and elon does just that he's already won the argument because spacex is a government contractor and there has been government help nevermind that spaceX has saved NASA so much money