What convinced you of Libertarianism?

KyussBishop

Spun off from a separate thread:
In the last couple of weeks I've been reading up a lot on Libertarianism, and reading/participating in debates on it here; one thing that I find extremely curious about it, is how people come to adopt Libertarian views.

I'm starting to get really obsessively fascinated with this on a psychological level now; for people who support Libertarianism, I'm really really curious at what point they switched over and became convinced? (or even just, at what point they decided they accepted parts of the theory, specifically the economic parts)

Particularly, how well did you understand the economics of it, and the controversial nature of those economics, and the economic crisis with how it might present analogous problems for Libertarian economics?


I'm quite impressed with the insidious nature of Libertarian principles, I'm starting to see in much better detail, how it lures people in and sells it to them, and can do that for fairly smart people too; it's really clever how well it's packaged.

The majority of the controversial parts of Libertarianism seem to be tied up in its economic theory, and I think this is what is tripping people up, because most people don't have a good understanding of economics, and even less people have an expert understanding of it.

What is so clever about this, is that you don't need a good understanding of economics to have a basic understanding of Libertarianism, and when you learn more (beyond a basic understanding) about Libertarianism it indoctrinates you into its particular school of economics.


Still, and this is the important bit, it only ever teaches you the economic theory, and it treats that theory as empirical and irrefutable, but the theory has not been tested(!!!!).

This might seem like a small point, that it just has not been tested, but think about that; the sensible starting point when considering a new political or economic theory is skepticism, and looking for proof, before you accept it and believe it.

What Libertarianism arguments have managed to do, is not just convince people of Libertarian principles, but it has removed that skepticism and has people accepting it will work in the absence of proof. Basically, it is touting theory as fact, but so cleverly that people have accepted that.

It's most remarkable really, when you consider how Libertarianism doesn't just alter peoples political and economic views, but it also alters their moral views on a fundamental level, in an extreme way which can be viewed as rather cold and callous.


I wonder, if many Libertarian proponents hit the 'reset button' so to speak, and started off again from a position of skepticism and demanding of proof, researching everything themselves and not taking anyones word for granted, would they still hold the same views?

Since the core of Libertarianisms faults is in the economics, I think anyone trying to understand it and develop either support or opposition of it, in a principled way, needs to study and learn as much as they can about economics first.

Most importantly, study the current economic crisis and all that lead to it, and see what similar problems would manifest in a Libertarian economy; I know there is a lot of debating here (on this forum in general) about that, but I think this is something you can't take anybodies word for because it is so complicated, you need to research it yourself and understand it 100% (need to become an expert really, and this is what trips people up because it is such a high learning curve).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Okey, that's a perfectly consistent and logical bottom-up approach, and it is a great ideal to strive for, to create a society where those rights are inalienable; however, that is the ideal and the theory, the problems arise when you put it into practice, which is what my post is focusing on.

While I have some disagreements (more uncertainties at the moment as I don't know enough yet) about the moral foundations of Libertarianism, if it would work, and could empirically be shown to cause less harm than alternatives, I would be 100% for it.


So that is the point of my questions, not whether the theory and principals therein have a fully logical and sound structure (lets assume they do), but whether they will work in practice, and whether they are more harmful or less harmful than alternatives.

We have to be pragmatic, yes? Libertarianism can say "these rights/principals must be inalienable/unbreached no matter what", but if enforcing that in an unwavering way is demonstrably more harmful and/or leads to a system where other freedoms are eroded in unexpected ways, there needs to be a balance achieved, right?

So like, I'm trying to be as pragmatic as possible here; my questions in the original post don't apply to whether the theory is sound, but whether people look for problems with Libertarianism's practical implementation.

So, taking my post from a pragmatic/practical/implementation-oriented "would this work in practice" point of view, what would be your answers to those questions? (particularly interested, in your knowledge of the economic and possible practical problems therein, once you became convinced)


As for emotional appeal, describing it as cold/callous etc:
Okey, I'm being judgmental there I admit, and I don't yet have enough knowledge on the topic to back up those judgements with an impenetrable argument.

However, it does seem to me that Libertarianism does not leave much room or obligation for emotion; if someone else is in pain or suffering, and you are directly aware of that and take time to examine that persons plight, that has a biological emotional appeal that is hard-wired, which makes you care about that person (this is empirically demonstrated).

If you ignore that persons plight though, and refuse to look at their suffering, this will not trigger that emotional appeal; this is why wars in far off places don't create as much emotional appeal, people don't have as much a connection with those suffering, so aren't as interested and thus ignore those peoples plight.

Libertarianism, in my personal view if its practical implementation is carried out, would cause a lot of people harm, and would allow people to say "my self-interest is more important than their suffering" i.e. would encourage ignoring other peoples suffering through it's base principle of morality as self-interest.
Just as many Libertarian supporters seem quite intelligent, but still miss the fundamental leap-of-faith required in supporting it (in my opinion anyway), I would say many Libertarian supporters are quite emphatic and emotional, but don't quite see how could and callous it could be in practical implementation.

If it could be empirically shown that Libertarianism does not work in its unwavering form, that it does cause avoidable suffering, and that some sacrifice of its principals is required in order to maintain a more just society with less suffering, that would make a persons support of Libertarianism seem quite cold and unemphatic, in their knowledge (or refusal to acknowledge) its faults and the harm they could cause.

KyussBishop

Actually, an interesting additional question, for Libertarian supporters:
What potential problems do Libertarian supporters see in Libertarian economics?
Any ways a Libertarian economic system could cause widespread harm through financial exploits or negligence?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right, yes; I'm focusing on the consequential outcome primarily, and I think that ties back into the moral foundation of Libertarianism as well (i.e. when upholding certain moral rights, and they adversely affect other moral rights when put into practice, you may be forced to find a compromise).

My definition of Libertarian economics, would primarily be free market economics, without a central bank, and without any regulation; that's the understanding I get of it from other topics.

So, since Libertarianism economics has not been tried in-earnest, it does not seem to have any empirical evidence backing up that it will work; my curiosity is centering around that at the moment.

Basically, the logical way to approach a new political or economic theory is to start with skepticism and demand proof, but (as explained in my first post), Libertarian proponents seem to have accepted the theory and state it will work without any associated empirical evidence.

This to me is fascinating, because of how controversial the economic theory is, and how much skepticism people usually apply to it; so that's why I'm curious:
At what point did Libertarian proponents decide they were convinced of Libertarianism?
How well did they understand the economics when they became convinced?
How well did they understand the potential problems in Libertarian economics? (especially in light of the economic crisis, which many say has analogous problems)


I'm wondering also, how many people started learning of Libertarianism before they understood the economics, and then decided they were convinced of it?
I wonder if that removed their skepticism and insistence on burden of proof of its economic principals, and if it instead reversed the burden of proof for them, so that to change their mind it would have to be disproved (which would go against logic)

If that's the case for some people, I find it really fascinating, because of how it can disarm people's skepticism and get people supporting Libertarianism, where they might not have otherwise.

Permabear wrote: »

I don't exactly understand what you mean here, because it's absolutely not the case that libertarians can't be kind, sympathetic, or generous. They simply object to being coerced into generosity, which, of course, then ceases to be generosity and becomes a bureaucratized obligation and imposition.

A certain caricature comes up practically every time libertarianism is discussed on Boards — that of the fat-cat libertarian who strolls down the street kicking starving orphans and trampling over the sick and elderly. Again, it's an emotive argument, not a logical one.

Ya I agree, that caricature of Libertarian supporters of greedy fat-cats etc. is pretty unhelpful; while I do suspect that some of the very high-up Libertarian proponents in the US may be this way, I don't think that's generally the case with Libertarians.


I don't think Libertarians in general are lacking in emotion or anything, I'd say they're the same as the rest of the population, I just think that from the consequentialist viewpoint, if Libertarian principals end up being very harmful to society instead of helping it prosper, they may be very emphatic people but the result of their actions would be very unemotional and cold.

Libertarian principals also seem to promote morals which would seem to allow moral justification for sociopathic profit-seeking, in spite of societal harm it may cause (I don't say Libertarians think this way, it just provides an excuse for those that do).
It also has a high potential of proliferating selfish/self-interested viewpoints throughout society, which could become self-reinforcing and make selfish unemotional behavior more and more acceptable and the norm.

I don't think you can have a principled objection to that kind of behavior in a Libertarian society, and there are many cases where you would not have a legal recourse against it, e.g. if there is a mono/oligopoly in a market essential for living, and they are destroying your ability to live financially with high prices.
You'd have to wait for another company or rich individuals to come along and save you basically.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

So, since Libertarianism economics has not been tried in-earnest, it does not seem to have any empirical evidence backing up that it will work; my curiosity is centering around that at the moment.

Basically, the logical way to approach a new political or economic theory is to start with skepticism and demand proof, but (as explained in my first post), Libertarian proponents seem to have accepted the theory and state it will work without any associated empirical evidence.

I think many libertarians would question whether economics is even a 'science' in the first instance. For example, the Mises Institute just posted this article on the problems of mathematical modelling.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarian principals also seem to promote morals which would seem to allow moral justification for sociopathic profit-seeking, in spite of societal harm it may cause (I don't say Libertarians think this way, it just provides an excuse for those that do).
It also has a high potential of proliferating selfish/self-interested viewpoints throughout society, which could become self-reinforcing and make selfish unemotional behavior more and more acceptable and the norm.

Another staple (in my opinion) of the classic liberal and libertarian tradition is that of shunning such aggregated terms as "the good of society". Libertarians would view society in terms of the individual actors of which it comprises. Rather than try to articulate something which I'm still learning about, here is an interesting quote from Ayn Rand on the subject:

"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

I'm just trying to point out the assumptions of your valid questions are assumptions which libertarians would reject -- maybe drop a level deeper!

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

sociopathic profit-seeking, in spite of societal harm it may cause (I don't say Libertarians think this way, it just provides an excuse for those that do).

This one always puzzles me. If it were not for profit and people seeking to make a profit there would be nothing for the government to tax and the whole social-democratic system would implode. Productive enterprise is the motor that drives everything in the both the free voluntary part of the economy and the state which feeds from it.

How do you reconcile this contradiction? That profit-seeking is sociopathic and harmful but also pays for the social-democratic state and its supposedly positive programs?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Valmont wrote: »

This one always puzzles me. If it were not for profit and people seeking to make a profit there would be nothing for the government to tax and the whole social-democratic system would implode. Productive enterprise is the motor that drives everything in the both the free voluntary part of the economy and the state which feeds from it.

How do you reconcile this contradiction? That profit-seeking is sociopathic and harmful but also pays for the social-democratic state and its supposedly positive programs?

Simple. Qualified, regulated profit-seeking has its place, particularly in the productive industries, but when it comes to health, justice, education, culture, social services, and the provision of public goods in general - areas that are orientated towards vindicating basic human rights, it isn't an adequate paradigm.

On a more philosophical level, self interest explains some human behaviour, but not all of it. A world where everyone purely pursues their own interest would be a nasty, brutish place, but thankfully it's one that has never, and will never exist in reality.

While we're at it, I suppose I'm something of an apostate libertarian in a sense. When I first finished college, I was looking at doing a research post-grad in the general area of law and cultural evolution, really looking hard for a model by which a functional system of law and social organisation could be achieved with little or no government intervention. Of course, I was approaching it from a leftist angle, partially because I'm from a pretty modest background, so naturally gravitated towards the left, and partially because socialism was the "ism" du jour back in my day.

I spent a couple of months doing background reading with a view to putting together a research proposal, but I was struck by the abject failure of many of the leading thinkers - primarily in the law and economics rubric - to solve the "puzzle of altruism", to read self-interest in to behaviours that were clearly not self-interested in the slightest. To bend reality to fit their assumptions about human nature.

Then I read a few papers in cross-cultural anthropology, behavioural economics, and behavioural science, and realised that the assumption on which the whole edifice is constructed, homo economicus, the rational, self-interested actor, has no basis in reality. Well, not quite true, apparently only economists and psychopaths have been shown to behave in this way.

I also realised that these approaches were blind to cultural learning, and its profound effects on human behaviour. I did dig in to the Dawkins worshipping "memetics" literature for a while, but it's clearly featherweight stuff.

That put an end to it for me, I ended up going for a social sciences / criminology post-grad instead a few years later, became a Michel Foucault fanboy and had another epiphany - these approaches have no adequate rationalisation for power relations in society, aside from a trite anti government stance. The whole issue is overlooked, knowingly or otherwise.

Valmont wrote: »

"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

And since libertarian approaches have no adequate means of even conceptualising unequal power relations between these individuals, never mind ameliorating their worst effects, in practice the act of removing restraints, safety nets, and social protections would to be to give precedence to the interests of those individuals in society possessed of a privileged position from the outset, in the pursuit of their self-interest, where there can be no intervention by a third party to prevent their exploiting less powerful sections of society.

Granted, I didn't realise that Hayek and the Chicago School were libertarian poster boys until relatively recently, hadn't even heard of Ayn Rand until maybe 3-4 years ago. "Libertarianism" as a political concept was unknown to me at the time - the right-wing think tanks in the mode of the Cato Institute and von Mises hadn't taken off, at the time, and the widespread use of the internet as a soap box for these ideas was much less prevalent.

The difference, as I see it is that libertarianism provides definitive answers, where Foucault opens up whole new ways of looking at the world, and understanding it. Many more questions than answers in Foucault, he seeks to expand the reader's understanding rather than to delimit it, as I feel libertarian type approaches do.

Personally, I have an absolute aversion to any "ism" that proposes itself as the One True Answer, I don't believe that any such thing exists in 2012, and I doubt very much that human intellectual history will ever see an empirically valid All Encompassing Theory of Everything.

Another irony I see is that much libertarian thought has its genesis in thinkers whose key orientation, above all else, was opposition to Soviet Communism - Hayek, Rand, etc. I think, perhaps, that this is why they were placed on a pedestal in a cold war context, that perhaps the substance of their works didn't quite merit.

Another anti-communist Russian emigré, Isaiah Berlin, wrote a well-known essay in this era, Two Concepts of Liberty, on the dangers of positive liberty, taking the view, in simple terms, that it's exceptionally dangerous to believe that one has the answer to all human problems, because this is likely to justify all kinds of unspeakable behaviour and injustice in the name of that ideology. He was talking about communism, but I think libertarians should take note:

http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf

KyussBishop

Hmm I find it interesting that some of my questions are being evaded by turning them into "Us vs Them" type arguments, while avoiding the core issues.

Valmont wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All the different economic theories and models, while they are all based on a method of 'modelling' which can arguably not be scientific or empirical, they can still be empirically tested, and these models can be split into components, with those individual parts tested.

Some 'components' of almost every economic theory, have been tested in reality, thus there is a base of past experience i.e. 'data', which can be researched to try and determine the effectiveness of these 'components' and how effective the overall theories may be.

Do people agree with this? (it seems pretty straight forward to me, just basic scientific method; consider the models/theories as 'hypothesis' that need to be tested)

This is a far more important question: If you don't agree with this, do you reject the application of scientific method in trying to determine if these theories may work in the first place?
The reason that question is important, is that if that is the case (you reject scientific method, primarily attempts at falsification), you are verging upon an almost religious belief.

Valmont wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Libertarian principals also seem to promote morals which would seem to allow moral justification for sociopathic profit-seeking, in spite of societal harm it may cause (I don't say Libertarians think this way, it just provides an excuse for those that do).
It also has a high potential of proliferating selfish/self-interested viewpoints throughout society, which could become self-reinforcing and make selfish unemotional behavior more and more acceptable and the norm.

Another staple (in my opinion) of the classic liberal and libertarian tradition is that of shunning such aggregated terms as "the good of society". Libertarians would view society in terms of the individual actors of which it comprises. Rather than try to articulate something which I'm still learning about, here is an interesting quote from Ayn Rand on the subject:

"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

I'm just trying to point out the assumptions of your valid questions are assumptions which libertarians would reject -- maybe drop a level deeper!

Well, I'm staying at a consequentialist level because I'm less interested in the theory, and more interested in how well the theory would work in practice.

Lets suppose for a moment (and this is purely hypothetical, for seeing how far you would go, I don't say this is what would happen) that Libertarian principles created a society with an enormously rich elite, no middle class, and an enormously poor underclass who were exploited by the rich elite and could barely afford to live; I'm not saying that will happen, I'm just positing that as a "what if" for my question.

If taking the Libertarian 'self-interest' morals to their to their logical conclusion resulted in that, would you still support those morals? Should, in your view, private interests in that society still be paramount compared to the public interest?

This is a very important question, because it allows me to see how far you are willing to enforce Libertarian principles, if they end up being harmful.

Valmont wrote: »

This one always puzzles me. If it were not for profit and people seeking to make a profit there would be nothing for the government to tax and the whole social-democratic system would implode. Productive enterprise is the motor that drives everything in the both the free voluntary part of the economy and the state which feeds from it.

How do you reconcile this contradiction? That profit-seeking is sociopathic and harmful but also pays for the social-democratic state and its supposedly positive programs?

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I define sociopathic profit seeking, as seeking maximum profit even when knowing it is harming a great number of people (e.g. making them financially unable to survive), especially (but not limited to cases) when those people don't have an alternative choice but to seek your service and pay the ruinous fees.

Libertarianism seems to promote morals which would view that as justifiable and acceptable; I don't say Libertarian supporters think this way, sociopathic profit seeking (as described above) just seems to be compatible with these morals.

More so, as I said in my previous post, Libertarianism seems like it may promote selfish/self-interested viewpoints throughout society, in a self-reinforcing way that would make unemotional attitudes and behaviour more acceptable and normal (likely even actively discouraging emotional behaviour/attitudes such as compassion/empathy, outside of your immediate social sphere).

Permabear wrote:

But somehow, we have had functioning markets for millennia. Some of the earliest writings in existence are financial records from ancient societies.

That just says we've had "markets" for millenia; how many of those societies have not had a suffocatingly poor underclass?

PermaBear wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

Basically, the logical way to approach a new political or economic theory is to start with skepticism and demand proof, but (as explained in my first post), Libertarian proponents seem to have accepted the theory and state it will work without any associated empirical evidence.

And socialists, communists, and the many variants thereof differ ... how? Waving a copy of Das Kapital seems to be adequate enough proof for many on the far left. How many Occupy aficionados demanded proof that free-market capitalism was the source of their problems? They didn't — they just assumed it.

So do you agree or not, that you should start from a skeptical point of view, and say "prove this works" before accepting a theory?

Do you think Libertarian economics will work or do you think it should or might work? Do you leave any room for doubt? What potential problems do you see in Libertarian economics? (every economic system has problems after all, yes?)

What strikes me is what seems like the total absence of a skeptical mindset; the unmovable insistence that one sides ideology is right, leaving no doubt, and how things turn into "Us vs Them" type arguments.

Permabear wrote:

I think it's reasonable to presume that libertarians tend to have a better-than-average understanding of economics, because it's not possible to read very far in libertarian thought without encountering it.

Yes but I can't dig into this if I presume, I'm starting to think that many Libertarian supporters did not initially have a good understanding of economics (especially real world problems in economics), and thus accepted Libertarian economics without any skepticism.

So that's why I'm curious about these questions:
At what point did Libertarian proponents decide they were convinced of Libertarianism?
How well did they understand the economics when they became convinced?
How well did they understand the potential problems in Libertarian economics? (especially in light of the economic crisis, which many say has analogous problems)

Permabear wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

I don't think Libertarians in general are lacking in emotion or anything, I'd say they're the same as the rest of the population, I just think that from the consequentialist viewpoint, if Libertarian principals end up being very harmful to society instead of helping it prosper, they may be very emphatic people but the result of their actions would be very unemotional and cold.

Do you have an analysis of which ideologies have wreaked the most damage on society over the last century or so? I'd strongly suspect that communism, socialism, and nationalism would top the list. How and where have libertarians been "very harmful to society," as a matter of interest?

More "Us vs Them", and you ignored the point of what I was saying, conveniently hiding behind the fact that Libertarianism hasn't been tried in earnest to say "How and where have libertarians been 'very harmful to society,' as a matter of interest?".

Come on now, you did see that it was a "what if" supposition; if Libertarianism ends up being very harmful to society, Libertarian's may be very emphatic people, but the end result of their actions would be very cold and unemotional.

In fact, your pointing out of other ideologies, nationalism/communism and the historic harm they caused in the last century, shows historic examples of how lots of good, emphatic peoples ideological views, resulted in disaster, which kind of bolsters what I said.

Permabear wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

I don't think you can have a principled objection to that kind of behavior in a Libertarian society, and there are many cases where you would not have a legal recourse against it, e.g. if there is a mono/oligopoly in a market essential for living, and they are destroying your ability to live financially with high prices.

I don't think we have to look very far to find state-sponsored monopolies crippling societies with high prices. And yet we don't have any legal recourse there, do we?

More "Us vs Them"; I acknowledge that is a problem with states, can you acknowledge what I said is a potential problem with Libertarianism?

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

Simple. Qualified, regulated profit-seeking has its place, particularly in the productive industries, but when it comes to health, justice, education, culture, social services, and the provision of public goods in general - areas that are orientated towards vindicating basic human rights, it isn't an adequate paradigm.

I don't agree with that view, and neither do most people, in fact. The food industry (which I presume you consider to be making a basic human right) is run exclusively for profit. Much of healthcare is run for profit too -- private doctors' practices are a small example, while the whole pharmaceutical industry is a large one. The same applies to the justice system. Just because the judges aren't in it for profit doesn't mean it isn't largely based on a profit motive.

More generally, most people who are employed by government to provide "free" services are partly (perhaps primarily) motivated by money. A government employed healthcare consultant wouldn't do it for free. Does this lessen his contribution?

benway wrote: »

On a more philosophical level, self interest explains some human behaviour, but not all of it. A world where everyone purely pursues their own interest would be a nasty, brutish place, but thankfully it's one that has never, and will never exist in reality.

Do you consider the overall contribution to society of Cadbury's - a self-interested company - to be "brutish"? (Are children going to be exploited tomorrow?!) How about Pixar - are they "brutish", too?

benway wrote: »

I spent a couple of months doing background reading with a view to putting together a research proposal, but I was struck by the abject failure of many of the leading thinkers - primarily in the law and economics rubric - to solve the "puzzle of altruism", to read self-interest in to behaviours that were clearly not self-interested in the slightest. To bend reality to fit their assumptions about human nature.

I don't find the "puzzle" that puzzling. People enjoy being altruistic. It makes them feel good -- they make others happy, make what they consider a positive contribution to society at large, and can have some pride in themselves for what they've achieved. How is doing what makes one happy not self-interested?

I think your problem is that you've started from the premise that self-interest is necessarily in some sense bad. This is not the case (self-interest being necessarily bad isn't saying self-interest is always good, mind). I presume you're now looking at a computer screen made by a large self-interested manufacturer. Is the result of this bad or "brutish"? Like it or not, your ability to interact with me like this is mostly facilitated by technological contributions by self-interested companies who have made technology so cheap as to be accessible to anyone with €350 to spare.

benway wrote: »

The difference, as I see it is that libertarianism provides definitive answers, where Foucault opens up whole new ways of looking at the world, and understanding it. Many more questions than answers in Foucault, he seeks to expand the reader's understanding rather than to delimit it, as I feel libertarian type approaches do.

Everyone thinks they have the definitive answer. You're currently arguing for a mixed-economy which you claim will provide best for society. That is your "definitive answer". Just because ideas put forward by libertarians or communists are far from the status quo doesn't make them any more dogmatic, as you claim.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The point is that these kinds of services must be available to everyone, regardless of their position in society, or ability to pay.

A consultant wouldn't do it for free, because he wouldn't be able to feed himself or his family if he did. For sure, material gain is a profound motivating factor, but, again, it's not the answer to all human behaviour.

For example, I know people who have the qualifications and the ability to make large amounts of money in the private sector, but who have chosen to work for NGOs and voluntary agencies in the humanitarian sector, organisations like FLAC, making much less money. I also know people who've left massively well-paid corporate jobs to do this kind of work, knowing that they're cutting their potential lifetime earnings by 75%, at a conservative estimate. Not very rational, is it? But that's people for you.

Granted, I'm probably more focussed on the rights-based approach than most - from spending time working in a third-world country, I've seen how effective invocations of basic human rights can be against government corruption and inefficiency, as well as private sector corruption and inefficiency.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Do you consider the overall contribution to society of Cadbury's - a self-interested company - to be "brutish"? (Are children going to be exploited tomorrow?!) How about Pixar - are they "brutish", too?

Missed my Hobbes reference, obviously? The Hobbesian" state of nature" was a self-serving war or all against all, where men's life would be, "poor, nasty, solitary, brutish and short". In his view, this was why men appointed a sovereign, the Leviathan, to maintain order.

Libertarians suggest that abolishing the Leviathan will not lead to a war of all against all, but they retain the Hobbesian "state of nature" as their core assumption about human motivation.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't find the "puzzle" that puzzling. People enjoy being altruistic. It makes them feel good -- they make others happy, make what they consider a positive contribution to society at large, and can have some pride in themselves for what they've achieved. How is doing what makes one happy not self-interested?

Altruism is only a puzzle if you start from the assumption that all human behaviour is self-interested. If you look at the "puzzle of altruism" literature, or the "evolution of co-operation" stuff, you'll see the knots that scholars have tied themselves in trying to make observable behaviours fit the assumptions.

My point is that it's the assumption that's flawed - homo economicus has no basis in reality. And with him goes much of the edifice of neo-classical economics.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think your problem is that you've started from the premise that self-interest is necessarily in some sense bad.

So, no. That's not the case. It's just that self-interest is an inadequate explanation for all human behaviour. It certainly explains some of it, but it has its limits, just like market thinking.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Everyone thinks they have the definitive answer. You're currently arguing for a mixed-economy which you claim will provide best for society. That is your "definitive answer". Just because ideas put forward by libertarians or communists are far from the status quo doesn't make them any more dogmatic, as you claim.

A patchwork of ideas and approaches, deriving from various ideological strains, subject to revision as the facts come in hardly constitutes a "definitive answer".

But, from the work I've done, the things I've seen, my life experience, and hence my personal biases, I am convinced that Libertariamism, in any kind of pure form is unworkable. Of that much I'm certain.

Beyond that, I'm a pragmatist. My days of subscribing wholeheartedly to "isms" are long behind me.

I fully accept that the market and the profit motive are exceptionally useful in the allocation of resources in the productive industries, and should be allowed to operate freely in so far as possible, subject to rational safeguards, based on historical experience.

In general, I think that hierarchies are A Bad Thing, entrenched privilege is A Bad Thing, and that inequality is A Bad Thing. I think that a more equal society, where everyone was free from exploitation and free to actualise their potential, in so far as possible, would be much preferable.

I think that many libertarians want something similar, but I think that their preferred solution would lead to the exact opposite.

Permabear wrote:

In other words, it's business as usual in the political theory forum.

I'm not sure that's the case, Kyussbishop is making a valid point, in my view. There seems to be a tendency to put Keynes and Hayek on the x axis, socialism and capitalism on the y axis, and take that the be the sum of human intellectual endeavour. From where I see it, quite of a few responses to previous posts have been no better than, "yeah, well communism is worse", rather than justifying your own position in any depth.

Now, if it's a thing that the Libertarians are going to give it a bit of "it's my ball, and I'm going home" when the going gets tough, that really would be business as usual in the political theory forum.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I hate this smiley but really :rolleyes: you're deciding to ignore all my questions and arguments, based on a few overly-descriptive adjectives, which you label as "anti-libertarian rhetoric".
I wasn't even applying the majority of those quoted terms to Libertarian's, so that's pretty dishonest (if people doubt, please search those terms to see where I used them).

I will admit that in my first post, I was judgmental, and I acknowledged that in my second post; for the rest of my posts though, while I have pretty strong opinions, I've done my best to keep all of my arguments reasoned and fair, and I am genuinely looking for answers to the questions I put forward.

It really does seem quite disingenuous, that you misrepresent my posts like that, and (as it appears to me) use that as a way of avoiding my arguments and questions; there are some really important questions in my posts (I do find it really curious though, and wonder what motivates that evasion of my questions/arguments).


If doubting, I really want people to read back through my posts there, and see that I never (or rarely) make any definitive statements about Libertarianism, I usually qualify my stuff with 'might', and mainly present 'what if' situations to see how far people would apply their Libertarian principles (i.e. to see where they draw the line).

So, seeing that, people should be able to easily see how dishonest it is to misrepresent me as all-out attacking Libertarian's with rhetoric etc.; I'm genuinely curious about Libertarian views, and especially how they came about for people individually (would be really interesting to see some of my questions answered; I don't think any have been).


In summary, it's very disappointing altogether that this keeps getting stuck in "Us vs Them" type arguments; really, I do my best not to make definitive statements about Libertarian policies, so that I can try and avoid this dichotomy.
However, even the merest suggestion that there might be a problem with Libertarian policies, causes the debate to get thrown into the usual ideological defensiveness.

It removes any possibility of an honest discussion really, it's like people want the discussion to stay entrenched in ideological viewpoints; it would be much more interesting if people were open to discussion, and if I could get to and understand the formation/core of peoples views.

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

The point is that these kinds of services must be available to everyone, regardless of their position in society, or ability to pay.

Much like the food industry? By the way, is that your "definitive" opinion?

benway wrote: »

For example, I know people who have the qualifications and the ability to make large amounts of money in the private sector, but who have chosen to work for NGOs and voluntary agencies in the humanitarian sector, organisations like FLAC, making much less money. I also know people who've left massively well-paid corporate jobs to do this kind of work, knowing that they're cutting their potential lifetime earnings by 75%, at a conservative estimate. Not very rational, is it? But that's people for you.

This paragraph exposes, again, flawed premises in your argument. Here you are assuming that the most rational thing to do in any situation is to make as much money as possible. Where did you get this bizarre idea?!

I graduate in a year's time and if I wanted I could get employment that, two years in, would have a 6-figure salary. It's the last thing I would ever want to do. Is that irrational? Of course it's not. I know that the kind of life that would entail is not worth the money, for me. I have rationally decided to prioritize other things.

benway wrote: »

Missed my Hobbes reference, obviously?

Yes, I did miss the reference, as I haven't read the Leviathan. No need to be rude about it.

benway wrote: »

Altruism is only a puzzle if you start from the assumption that all human behaviour is self-interested. If you look at the "puzzle of altruism" literature, or the "evolution of co-operation" stuff, you'll see the knots that scholars have tied themselves in trying to make observable behaviours fit the assumptions.

I proposed a solution, that says that people derive happiness from altruism, and so that it can be reconciled with human self-interest. You have ignored this.

benway wrote: »

A patchwork of ideas and approaches, deriving from various ideological strains, subject to revision as the facts come in hardly constitutes a "definitive answer".

You have certain beliefs about rights - for instance, that "these kinds of services must be available to everyone". You have certain beliefs about the role of government - that it must intervene in certain circumstances and that it should in others. You believe that there are certain ends that the government should "pragmatically" pursue.

Whether or not your beliefs form a "patchwork", or whether you think you're being pragmatic, the point is that your political outlook is based on strong premises such as what rights people have and what the role of government is. What you define as "pragmatism" is merely you having beliefs about the role of government that aren't wholly restrictive and that allow you to pack more beliefs in when you want. That does not make your views any "better". They're still views and they're still highly biased.

The notion that the "radical centrist" "pragmatists" have moral superiority because they're flexible about certain things is a nonsense, in my opinion. I think it shows a complete lack of awareness of the nature of human subjectivity. As you said, there is no one-fool-proof solution to everything - and that includes "pragmatism".

KyussBishop

Okey, since Permabear has stepped out and (I presume) won't even acknowledge the questions/arguments anymore (a common thing I'm noticing; whenever anything difficult comes up, ignoring it, brushing it under the carpet and refusing to have an honest discussion), or acknowledge his dishonest misrepresentation of my posts, I'll repeat my questions and the arguments motivating them, to try and address the original topic.


First the easy questions:
At what point in your learning about Libertarianism, did you decide you were convinced?
How well did you understand the economics at that point?
How well did you understand the potential problems in Libertarian economics? (what potential problems do you currently see also?)
Also, how well did you understand the economic crisis at that point, and the problems that caused it? (and controversy over how some of those problems might be analogous to Libertarian economics)


Libertarianism as an untested theory:
Libertarianism, specifically its economics (which I focus on here), is a theory which has not yet been tried in earnest and put into practice, which means it has no empirical evidence to back it up at the moment.

Normally, the logical way to approach encountering a new political/economic theory, is to start with skepticism and demand proof, but a lot of Libertarian supporters seem to have accepted it and say it will work, even in the absence of evidence to support that.
This triggers my curiosity, and is what motivates the 'easy questions' I posted in the section above; in previous posts I've wondered whether Libertarian arguments may have side-stepped peoples skepticism, but I'll omit detailing that here.

Another important point regarding this, is that even if general economic models are arguably not scientific, they can still be empirically tested to see if they can be falsified.

This leads me to some other questions:
Do you agree with the above?
An extremely important question: If you do not agree with the above, do you reject the scientific method (specifically attempts at testing/falsification), in trying to determine if these theories work?


How far would you apply Libertarianism, if it turned out to be harmful?:
Just to disclaimerize this before putting it forward:
In the hypothetical situation I paint out below, I do not say Libertarianism would end up like this, I am painting a deliberately extreme situation, to see if people think Libertarian principles should still be applied in that situation. This is solely to test the limits of peoples views, I do not say things would end up this way.

If the application of Libertarian principles, created a society where a small number of people imposed unavoidable financial hardship on the rest of society, such that the rest of society could not afford to survive, would you still support Libertarian principles in such a society? (and think they should remain paramount in that society, compared to the idea of a greater public interest?)

I do not say that will happen, I just want to see, if Libertarianism didn't work out, where people would draw the line and say "ok, if it caused that situation, that would be too extreme".


Ideological arguments:
I'd ask that people try to avoid arguments against me which amount to "Us vs Them" type arguments, because these generally tend to deflect questions and prevent honest discussion.

Some examples would be:
Rebutting arguments/questions with "but 'x' or 'y' is worse than Libertarianism"; this usually just straight-out avoids addressing a specific argument/question.

"You're anti-Libertarian, therefore your arguments are invalid or dishonest": I'm earnestly trying to get Libertarian's perspective on a lot of issues; if any of what I say comes up as offensively anti-Libertarian, please point it out to me.
I am skeptical and critical of Libertarianism, but this isn't a valid reason to dismiss what I say (I try to be as fair and reasoned in my arguments as possible). If this was a valid reason to dismiss what people say, nobody would post except to agree with one another, which would be a bit silly.

Taking hypothetical situations I present in my arguments, and presenting them as my point of view towards Libertarianism. Usually I disclaimerize the hell out of these, so it's not an honest way to portray what I said.

SeanW

In response to the OP, I got into libertarianism primarily because I grew up, but as a lot of people go towards the Right when they go through their twenties, instead of going from the left to the Religious/Family Values/Aggressive world view Right, I went primarily towards a Centre-Libertarian position.

I see the amount of harm being done by governments as a routine, how government power often works to harm the people government is supposed to serve, and I don't want that.

Primarily in the social sphere I support libertarian policies of freedom combined with personal responsibility, because I think freedom works. In the social sphere I seem to be one of the few people that can see the similarities between the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and the massive social cost - borne by all of us - of the idiotic "War on Drugs" of today.

Gay marriage? According to the religious right, these two:

threaten all of us with the total collapse of society, moral standards or something. I'm a little light on the details, but then again, I suspect so too are the Religious-Right. I think the RSA has little mandate but to make motorists lives miserable with regulation, especially the young and the poor.

I've seen Ron Paul being one of the few, if only politicians in the U.S. to consistently oppose that nation's foreign wars, runaway police state laws, stupid drug laws and aggressive world view, because American values like his are what made the U.S. great in the firstplace, throughout its history.

I'm not quite so convinced about the financial side, but I see value in Austrian economics and the behaviour of many local and national governments is the best advertisement of all for limiting the power of government as a rule. But in particular I see the value of gold-backed currency or some other "hard" or "honest" currency because it helps the poor and middle class - it makes sense to be responsible and save for your future rather than go wild on borrowings when the currency has real, defined, fixed value. Ireland had a paper currency with interest rates decided by the big economies of Europe for those economies and if it cause a bubble here (which it did) it didn't matter at the time.

In short I became a libertarian because I have always wanted justice for everyone and for people to "live and let live." Libertarianism does this to a much greater extent than any other philosophy.

benway

Really don't want to get into another one of these quote for quote, back and forth things, but seeing as you insist ...

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This paragraph exposes, again, flawed premises in your argument. Here you are assuming that the most rational thing to do in any situation is to make as much money as possible. Where did you get this bizarre idea?!

It's the core assumption in neoclassical, including Austrian, economics, and most libertarian thought - the rational, self interested, utility maximiser. Rationally, you should maximise your utility, i.e. maximise your earnings.

We both know that real life human beings don't behave like that. This is precisely the point, it is a bizarre idea.

Yes, I did miss the reference, as I haven't read the Leviathan. No need to be rude about it.

What's rude about pointing out that our missed it, then explaining it?

I proposed a solution, that says that people derive happiness from altruism, and so that it can be reconciled with human self-interest. You have ignored this.

Yeah, probably should've addressed it alright. You seem to be assuming that I'm talking about "selfishness" purely in a moral sense. It's more on a practical basis that it's at issue.

The thing is, there's a strong evolutionary undertow to much libertarian thinking, particularly the Chicago School - why should we help others ... or why should we engage in behaviours that tend to reduce our evolutionary "fitness" in order to improve others' evolutionary "fitness"? Simply put, what's in it for your genes to do this?

Many answers have been suggested - kin selection, group selection, but I don't think any of them fit.

I agree that altruism feels good. In my view, that's because we're adapted for social living, and accordingly disposed to empathise with one another, and to assist each other, even in circumstances where, strictly speaking, there's nothing in it for us, other than that feeling.

Of course feelings are to be regarded with suspicion are they not?

That, to me, reflects the narrowness of the libertarian understanding of human nature - it's all about rational, self-interested actors. Altruism is A Bad Thing, feelings are irrational. Selfishness is everything, per the Randroids.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

The notion that the "radical centrist" "pragmatists" have moral superiority because they're flexible about certain things is a nonsense, in my opinion. I think it shows a complete lack of awareness of the nature of human subjectivity. As you said, there is no one-fool-proof solution to everything - and that includes "pragmatism".

Oh, but I'm not claiming moral superiority, where did you get that from? Anyway, you're not really getting what I mean by pragmatism, it seems. It's taking the most useful bits from wherever you may find them, and most importantly keeping an open mind. It's about the acknowledgment that there the One True Answer doesn't exist. No offence, but I think you're a little confused here.

And yes, of course I have certain beliefs and certain biases, based on my life experience ... as you may have gathered. I agree with libertarians, in the enlightenment tradition, that we can know the world, and understand it, although I probably regard human reason to be a more limited faculty than many libertarians do. But I don't see where I've denied being biased and subjective ... in fact, I've positively acknowledged the fact.

Point is, my views don't fit neatly into any one "ism", and I really do wonder about people who subscribe to these grand philosophies ... hook, line and sinker.

For example, I tend to agree with certain libertarian social views, like those SeanW pointed to. But I regard these to be the sugar coating to a regressive and unworkable pill, if the philosophy is to be swallowed whole.

Chuck Stone

Valmont wrote: »

Productive enterprise is the motor that drives everything in the both the free voluntary part of the economy and the state which feeds from it.

This presumes that there is a free economy that exists outside the realm of the mixed economy that we all live in which is untrue.

If we call the 'free voluntary part of the economy' the white economy and the un-free part the black economy you will note that there is no such thing as a white economy there are only shades of grey.

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

It's the core assumption in neoclassical, including Austrian, economics, and most libertarian thought - the rational, self interested, utility maximiser. Rationally, you should maximise your utility, i.e. maximise your earnings.

Once again, where did you get this bizarre idea that maximizing your utility is equivalent to maximizing your earnings?! There's far more to utility than money. The CEO who decides that their time would be better spent in an NGO for half the salary is maximizing their utility - because they feel that the good they do for the NGO is better than the money they lose.

benway wrote: »

The thing is, there's a strong evolutionary undertow to much libertarian thinking, particularly the Chicago School - why should we help others ... or why should we engage in behaviours that tend to reduce our evolutionary "fitness" in order to improve others' evolutionary "fitness"? Simply put, what's in it for your genes to do this?

That still doesn't address my point, that people can be altruistic because it makes them feel good and so that altruism is compatible with self-interest.

There's a problem with us continuing this discussion and that's your belief that

self-interest = making the most money = screwing people over = have no feelings for others

I think this is totally bizarre, and when applied to this discussion it's a complete strawman. Being rational is about making yourself as happy as you can within your limited power. Thankfully, for many people making themselves happy is equivalent to making others happy too. It has nothing at all to do with maximizing earnings. I think you need to reconsider your beliefs here.

benway wrote: »

It's taking the most useful bits from wherever you may find them, and most importantly keeping an open mind. It's about the acknowledgment that there the One True Answer doesn't exist. No offence, but I think you're a little confused here.

The applicability of certain "useful bits" is based on political premises. If you believe that the government should give grants to the GAA, you might think it's just a "useful bit", but you're actually assuming

1. That the government has a role in promoting culture.
2. That the government has a role in promoting a particular brand of "Irish culture".
3. That the government has a right to levy taxes on citizens who don't engage with the GAA in order to give money to the GAA

Those are large assumptions. You're not ideological or belief free at all. It's just that in "pragmatism" the political assumptions are somewhat hidden down the causal chain, and are so not apparent to many people.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Once again, where did you get this bizarre idea that maximizing your utility is equivalent to maximizing your earnings?!

I think you should take neoclassical economics 101 before pushing this much further. Core assumptions:

1. People have rational preferences among outcomes.
2. Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.
3. People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

Of course, utility doesn't necessarily have to have a monetary value ... but given that these approaches privilege mathematical rigour over real world applicability, it generally does.

That still doesn't address my point, that people can be altruistic because it makes them feel good and so that altruism is compatible with self-interest.

There's a problem with us continuing this discussion and that's your belief that

self-interest = making the most money = screwing people over = have no feelings for others

I'll thank you not to ascribe beliefs to me that I do not hold - seems to me that you're quite comfortable with building and beating on straw men yourself.

Seems that we agree that people, in the real world, enjoy behaving altruistically. Whether there's a selfish motive behind it is irrelevant,we can take this up on another thread - although I would add that this is an instance where you seem to be making an appeal to emotion yourself.

The point is that most doctrinaire libertarian, and mainstream economic thought holds that people shouldn't behave altruistically at all. Go look at, say, "The Virtues of Selfishness" by the Randroids or that Market for Liberty thing if you don't believe me.

You're not ideological or belief free at all.

Where have I ever said that I was? Honestly, I think you'd be better advised to engage fully with the ideas here rather than just trying overly hard, and failing, to "win" some imaginary head to head argument - this isn't what it's about.

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

Of course, utility doesn't necessarily have to have a monetary value ... but given that these approaches privilege mathematical rigour over real world applicability, it generally does.

Eh, what? For the past few posts you've been claiming that libertarians consider rationalism and "human best practice" to be the maximization of monetary earnings ... is this your way of retracting that?

Or, if you want to insist that libertarians and economists believe that to be the case, I really don't care. Altruism, in my mind, is fully reconcilable with the "rational man hypothesis" - and if Ayn Rand disagrees, that's her problem, not mine.

benway wrote: »

Where have I ever said that I was? Honestly, I think you'd be better advised to engage fully with the ideas here rather than just trying overly hard, and failing, to "win" some imaginary head to head argument - this isn't what it's about.

benway - in fairness, your "pragmatism" speel has been a clear attempt to portray yourself as somehow intellectually superior to libertarians because you pick bits and bobs from here and there. I was pointing out that your pragmatism is as based as much on ideology as libertarianism, and hence that your sense of intellectual superiority is unjustified.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

That still doesn't address my point, that people can be altruistic because it makes them feel good and so that altruism is compatible with self-interest.

There's a problem with us continuing this discussion and that's your belief that

self-interest = making the most money = screwing people over = have no feelings for others

I think this is totally bizarre, and when applied to this discussion it's a complete strawman. Being rational is about making yourself as happy as you can within your limited power. Thankfully, for many people making themselves happy is equivalent to making others happy too. It has nothing at all to do with maximizing earnings. I think you need to reconsider your beliefs here.

Not jumping into the wider discussion between you and benway, just picking at this specific point:
Altruism is compatible with self interest, but focusing on self-interest alone as the highest priority itself, is free from any negative connotations by Libertarian principals (that's the impression I get anyway, if wrong, am interested in detailed info on how that's not the case).

Also, random point regarding business: Many (not all) business's put shareholders as their highest priority (even though arguably they should be one of the lower priorities, compared to customers/workers and others, but that's yet another discussion), and shareholders often focus on short-term profits, which tends to make many business's focus primarily on profits.

Anyway, continuing (am not applying above random point here): You may still have a market where nearly all business owners follow altruistic personal principals, but at the same time where a tiny number, in key areas of the market, follow self-interest to the point of exploitation and form mono/oligopolies (just to disclaimerize, I'm not saying all self interest is like that, I'm just positing a disproportionate effect from a small few).

So, self interest != (is not equal to) making the most money != screwing people over != having no feelings for others, but all of those things appear to be principally and socially acceptable by 'morals of self-interest' viewpoint.

That means you have benign and even helpful self interest, but you also have extreme and harmful self interest.


As I explained in my other posts, if the extreme and harmful variant of self interest becomes more acceptable, people have a justification for acting that way, and it is much more difficult (if possible at all) to criticize their actions in a principled way.

If that becomes acceptable, that means it is more likely for the extreme-variant of these attitudes to proliferate throughout society, and it could become self-reinforcing to the extent that compassion/empathy outside your immediate social circle is dissuaded.

Not saying that would happen, it just seems perfectly compatible with the "morals as self-interest" principals, and I can see a path to that happening (even if it's difficult to determine how likely it is to happen).

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater: As a side question, I wonder what your opinion is on the 'Libertarianism as an untested theory' section of my post here?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78006003&postcount=18

Just curious as to how much certainty, i.e. 'will work' vs 'might/should work', you (and others in general) apply to Libertarian economics.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Eh, what? For the past few posts you've been claiming that libertarians consider rationalism and "human best practice" to be the maximization of monetary earnings ... is this your way of retracting that?

Retracting? Are you kidding? It follows from the premises that the rational actor should maximise his earnings ... of course monetary gain isn't the only form of utility for individuals, but more money = more utility, irrespective of individual preferences, so, on my reading of neoclassical doctrine, the rational course is always to maximise your earnings.

Or, if you want to insist that libertarians and economists believe that to be the case, I really don't care. Altruism, in my mind, is fully reconcilable with the "rational man hypothesis" - and if Ayn Rand disagrees, that's her problem, not mine.

So you're taking a pragmatic view of doctrinaire libertarianism now, are you?

And it may be clear in your mind, but many thousands of pages have been written trying, and failing, to reconcile the rational self interested utility maximiser with altruistic behaviours. Going to open a thread on it once I get the chance to write up a decent OP, we can take it up there. And, btw, we haven't even started on the "rationality" side of the equation.

benway - in fairness, your "pragmatism" speel has been a clear attempt to portray yourself as somehow intellectually superior to libertarians because you pick bits and bobs from here and there. I was pointing out that your pragmatism is as based as much on ideology as libertarianism, and hence that your sense of intellectual superiority is unjustified.

Translation: "yeah, well you think you're so great, but you're not". Come on, this is no better than schoolyard bickering. Make a substantive contribution of gtfo.

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

Retracting? Are you kidding? It follows from the premises that the rational actor should maximise his earnings ... of course monetary gain isn't the only form of utility for individuals, but more money = more utility, irrespective of individual preferences, so, on my reading of neoclassical doctrine, the rational course is always to maximise your earnings.

I totally disagree. As I have said, after finishing my degree I could relatively easily take on high paying jobs that would entail a lot of work (in terms of time) and a load of stress. I'd be maximizing my earnings, but my past-times would go out the window. My overall life - being based somewhat on the overall utility I derive from employment - would be lower than it is now. Thus it would be irrational for me to take on such employment. More utility = lower earnings. You disagree, so could you expose the flaw in that reasoning?

benway wrote: »

So you're taking a pragmatic view of doctrinaire libertarianism now, are you?

If by pragmatism here you mean thinking for myself, then, yes, that's something I try to do...!

I don't know how much of the free-market literature you've read, but it's quite varied. Ayn Rand doesn't just outline a political philosophy but a moral philosophy as well. It doesn't follow that if one is broadly libertarian that one subscribes to Ayn Rand's moral philosophy; in fact, I find bits in Ayn Rand that I outright dislike.

If I had to pick a writer I most agree with it would be Robert Nozick, but that's a lot because I admire his academic and intellectual method. Either way, I feel no need to be tied to certain beliefs ... much as some members of the forum here would like me to.

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eliot Rosewater: As a side question, I wonder what your opinion is on the 'Libertarianism as an untested theory' section of my post here?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78006003&postcount=18

Just curious as to how much certainty, i.e. 'will work' vs 'might/should work', you (and others in general) apply to Libertarian economics.

To be honest, I don't give it much thought. I would be highly surprised if libertarian economy emerged in some existing country in my lifetime. The most likely thing one could envisage is a free union of libertarians on an oil rig or something, in which case issues such as how well things work would be irrelevant, because there would be no one "forced" into that libertarian society.

In general, making sure things work out the way you went them to is, of course, important (whatever that means in the context of a free society).

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I totally disagree. As I have said, after finishing my degree I could relatively easily take on high paying jobs that would entail a lot of work (in terms of time) and a load of stress. I'd be maximizing my earnings, but my past-times would go out the window. My overall life - being based somewhat on the overall utility I derive from employment - would be lower than it is now. Thus it would be irrational for me to take on such employment. More utility = lower earnings. You disagree, so could you expose the flaw in that reasoning?

Well, the way I've worked it through is that money can be translated into all kinds of utility, so the more money the more utility. For example, the libertarian ideal that welfare be based exclusively on philanthropy - you go and make as much money as possible, then if you're some kind of sissy-ass bleeding heart, you spend as much as you like on good causes, gaining utility that way.

I could, of course, be wrong, and I do recognise that utility is broader than just money ... although there's that kind of reductivist tendency in the literature, as I remember it, again open to correction ... but I think the profit maximising imperative fits better with the grander scheme of libertarianism, as above, with its absolute emphasis on self interest, above all other human motivations.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If by pragmatism here you mean thinking for myself, then, yes, that's something I try to do...!

Is exactly what I mean by pragmatism.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't know how much of the free-market literature you've read, but it's quite varied. Ayn Rand doesn't just outline a political philosophy but a moral philosophy as well. It doesn't follow that if one is broadly libertarian that one subscribes to Ayn Rand's moral philosophy; in fact, I find bits in Ayn Rand that I outright dislike.

Like I said earlier, I got into it in a kind of oblique way, so I have read very specific areas, to do with cultural evolution, customary law and norm formation in the absence of government authority, and the main source texts referred to in that area, Hayek's "Law Legislation and Liberty" is a big one. I have a specific view on it, based on a very specific area, but an extremely pertinent one when it comes to how workable a libertarian approach to social organisation would be.

Rightly or wrongly, I would regard Rand as the popular libertarian's figurehead, not so much because of the quality of her work, far from it, but because of the aggressive evangelical proselytising of her followers. Apparently a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress found Atlas Shrugged to be the second most influential literary work of all time, after the Bible. Scary thought.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If I had to pick a writer I most agree with it would be Robert Nozick, but that's a lot because I admire his academic and intellectual method. Either way, I feel no need to be tied to certain beliefs ... much as some members of the forum here would like me to.

Hadn't even heard of Nozick, will check it out when I get the chance. Now isn't this much more useful than you just telling me what I think?

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also, random point regarding business: Many (not all) business's put shareholders as their highest priority (even though arguably they should be one of the lower priorities, compared to customers/workers and others, but that's yet another discussion), and shareholders often focus on short-term profits, which tends to make many business's focus primarily on profits.

They do as long as they can get away with it, but they are ultimately responsible to their customers. If a company can't satisfy consumer interests it won't make money for shareholders. I fail to see why the interests of customers and shareholders are usually seen as opposed.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If that becomes acceptable, that means it is more likely for the extreme-variant of these attitudes to proliferate throughout society, and it could become self-reinforcing to the extent that compassion/empathy outside your immediate social circle is dissuaded.

Not saying that would happen, it just seems perfectly compatible with the "morals as self-interest" principals, and I can see a path to that happening (even if it's difficult to determine how likely it is to happen).

There's nothing stopping those kind of attitudes propagating now -- the government hasn't legislated that everybody be nice (yet :P).

But for sure, wanting people to have freedom means being okay with them using that freedom in ways that you don't like. I think your question is worthy, but is perhaps phrased a little too generally -- for it to be a consequential matter, one would really have to demonstrate how "moral bankruptcy" could come to reign in a free society, rather than just loosely suggest that morally bankrupt monopolies could occur without any reason for that. (Such general statements aren't falsifiable, I suppose.)