I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want -- as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."Technically, I'm not a conservative either, as I find little objective value in cultural constructs and only imbue them with value commensurate with how much I like living in a society founded upon these arbitrary edifices. Basically, I like America how it is and I want to keep it that way. Of course, the limited government principle Stossel appropriates for his libertarian sect is an important aspect of modern conservatism, buttressed by the individualism and self-governing principles of tradition. Stossel concludes with a quote from the Hayek's libertarian tome Why I Am Not a Conservative:
"One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ... ."In addition to their paranoia about government and unjustified hatred of the military, libertarians smugly express the above vituperative against apparently hidebound conservatives. According to these classical liberals, conservatives reject change not as a reflection of traditional success, but rather to dampen their apprehension concerning progress. One notes the value hierarchy of classical liberals whereby the freedom to act as one pleases supersedes all else. Obviously, I agree with this view from a micro-perspective and it's why I passionately support the tobacco industry. But libertarians, in their Ivory Tower short-sightedness, fail to understand the larger social implications of these private choices. By disavowing shame as a means to counter such noxiousness, their loyalty to "freedom" enervates any libertarian ability to shape society.
And perhaps Stossel would gladly admit to such apathy, believing such abject freedom trumps all else in appraising societal quality of life. But what happens when, in the pursuit of freedom and as a result of shirking condemnation of private acts, society changes for the worse and freedom is no longer a viable construct. What of a nation so enamored with freedom that they allow a cohort, one not as ardently loyal to this concept, free reign to actually motivate "progress"?
In the end, libertarianism has no tangible goals except some nebulous concept of private freedom. And when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
61 comments:
One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ... .
We now have decades of bitter experience with "change". The assumption that "change" is automatically positive is clearly falsified by experience, and must be rejected. To let change run its course is not courage, but stupidity, because we can predict where change will lead -- to chaos, disorder, depravity, sloth, incompetence, dissipation, and every form of vice.
reading between the lines it sounds as if you are blaming libertarians for our current SWPL-liberal dominated government
Let's not deny that many conservatives ARE motivated by a knee-jerk fear of change, and also, by anal retentiveness. You and I are on about the same page. I call myself a right-winger, not a conservative.
Let's not deny that many conservatives ARE motivated by a knee-jerk fear of change
Gee, ya think that fact that the political enemies of conservatism are the ones always yammering about "change" has anything to do with this?
"Change" is the Leftist codeword for "things that increase our political power".
Funny video of John Stossel being slapped so hard that he falls down (twice) by a wrestler here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ
My comment about the present military: Enlistment is still high because we have a bad economy with high unemployment, and few life chances for average high-school graduates. They sign up even though there are present realities about the military they dont like (occupational wars in the middle east which may see them fighting several tours of duty). If we had a strong ecomomy, but there were things about the military young prospective males didn't like (such as multiple-long-term foreign wars and serving under gay commanders, etc), then the rates of enlistment might not be so high. In fact, we might have to institute a draft just to get enough kids in those circumstances.
This is another issue that should have been settled democratically. We have a democracy deficit in this country at this point, whereby the will of the people is constantly thwarted by our political system and entrenched interests therein.
The patriotism to this nation is a patriotism of "no better alternatives" at this point. If there was another America out in the middle of the Pacific ocean, that was the way America was in roughly 1980, and accepted immigration from this nation: tons of people would be renouncing their citizenship and leaving this place for good.
Its no longer their country, and deep down, they know it. Being forced to positions of subservience to gays who might want to have sex with them is not a way to induce young men with alternatives into joining the military.
But libertarians, in their Ivory Tower short-sightedness, fail to understand the larger social implications of these private choices. By disavowing shame as a means to counter such noxiousness, their loyalty to "freedom" enervates any libertarian ability to shape society.
My views are similar to most libertarians' views: adults should be allowed to destroy themselves as long as most of the costs are internalized, but we all should be free to shame and shun anyone we disapprove of. I don't think you know any libertarians or have carefully followed anyone like Instapundit (practically a mil-blogger), Russ Roberts, or any of the other mis-fits at GMU (Kling, Henderson, etc.) who espouse conservative ideas for a lot of theoretical reasons and some of whom have even said complimentary things about Steve Sailer. The idea is "free to choose," not "free to choose without censure or condemnation," or "free to choose because all new things are equally good."
One, just wait. You're going to get a horde of nerdlings claiming you don't really understand libertarianism. Never mess with nerds and their sacred cows, 'cause they'll flame your ass!
"One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ..."
One,
To understand the fundamentals of the debate, refer to research in Moral psychology. Either Tetlock or Haidt.
Try this: Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009). Planet of the Durkheimians, Where Community, Authority, and Sacredness are Foundations of Morality.
http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/moraljudgment.html
The flaws of Political Liberalism (now libertarianism) are apparent when you consider what liberalism had to become.
One problem is the myriad versions of libertarianism present today. Our founding fathers were right-libertarians in the Lockean sense, which had a very conservative social outlook, while Stossel is an Ayn Rand type libertarian, which is anything goes socially.
reading between the lines it sounds as if you are blaming libertarians for our current SWPL-liberal dominated government
That wasn't my intention.
One problem is the myriad versions of libertarianism present today.
Definitely. It ranges from tinfoil heads to UChi economics profs.
Stossel is an Ayn Rand type libertarian
I truly admire Rand for her defense of personal egoism, but I sure as hell don't think Objectivism is a good thing for society as a whole.
Somewhat OT, but...
"They sign up even though there are present realities about the military they dont like (occupational wars in the middle east which may see them fighting several tours of duty)"
I've heard from a fair number of military men and women, through various channels. Their decision to not re-enlist has little to do with the war. Overwhelmingly, they cite disappointment and disgust with the bureaucracy of the military, the paper-pushing and meaninglessness of it all. This is not about the people serving, but how the military is run.
Repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is probably not a good idea, but having women in the military is a far worse one. If I were in charge, I'd make a clerical corps of sorts that hired only women, who would serve as nurses, cooks, office workers etc., who would serve the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, complete with dresses for uniforms. The Marines already do this with respect to nurses and chaplains, who are provided by the Navy. Including women in any masculine pursuit inevitably degrades it.
One STDV, you write:
"Stossel does present a rather cogent argument."
I disagree. Stossel cites three things in your linked article:
1) He cites the APA, then essentially admits that the APA would support gays in the military regardless of whether it was a good idea or not.
2) He cites the GAO as reporting that military officials from four countries didn't assert that their militaries were less effective with gays...but, of course, no loyal military member ever asserts that a change enacted by lawful order has made a unit of which he or she is a part less effective in combat. If nothing else, doing so on the record is a career-ending move.
3) He writes, "A Military Times poll found: 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours. That's a pretty strong majority for acceptance." I beg to differ: any change that reduces retention and/or recruitment by 24% in a volunteer military is catastrophically bad.
I saw the adverse effect of a male homosexual on a military unit once. I now believe that a man cannot shower and sleep with those whom one desires sexually without that desire becoming apparent. Sexual desire reciprocated by disgust is a disaster in the workplace. I served with many gay and lesbian civilians supporting DoD who all did commendable jobs serving our Defense Department as civilians. Serving in cramped quarters, sharing shower facilities, dressing space, and cramped sleeping areas is, however, different.
adults should be allowed to destroy themselves as long as most of the costs are internalized
Too bad it is never true -- and even if it were true, you can't build a functioning society out of self-destroying narcissists.
Libertarians and liberals tend to make choice an end in of itself, independent of the content of that choice. To judge the content is "judgmental" and "discriminatory", which are the greatest of evils in the liberal mind. In reality, choice is nothing but power, being neither good or bad in itself. Thus I agree that libertarianism is empty.
If you had a population of just the right kind of person, libertarianism, communism, and perhaps democracy could work.
I think your critique of libertarianism is wrong.
First, I think social decay is a myth. "Agnostic" and Razib have demonstrated this as myth"
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/previous%20generations%20were%20more%20depraved.php
All of the objective indicators of social pathology such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and criminality have declined over the past 20 years. By such objective measures, society is far healthier today than it was in, say, 1980.
Secondly, the private acts of individuals are relevant if they result in the above mentioned pathologies or increased government regulation and control of our lives. I fail to see how a private act can be considered "bad" if it does not result in either of these two effects.
Thirdly, I do not believe in societal goals. I believe in only individual goals. If you have an objective that requires the efforts of others, you are free to associate with those people and to get them to support your objectives as a private group.
Libertarianism is indeed an empty philosophy, promoted mostly by internet nerds who want to demonstrate their social status by being "above the partisan divide". Its proponents run the gamut from anarcho-capitalists who think Snow Crash is a utopian novel to "Liberaltarians" who think the government should step in to prevent "hate speech" that results in reducing the "freedom" of protected minorities. They love to pretend that they have a consistent ideology, but the only consistent form of Libertarianism is Anarchism. Ultimately, they just argue over which aspects of society should be subject to regulation, like everyone else - with the caveat that since they've marginalized themselves by their political choices, they're not responsible for anything.
Anonymous at 1:43,
adults should be allowed to destroy themselves as long as most of the costs are internalized
Too bad it is never true -- and even if it were true, you can't build a functioning society out of self-destroying narcissists.
But my guess is that you can build a functioning society out of libertarians. Like me, those that I know personally avoid the biblical vices, take their debts seriously, and demand little. If you follow the famous living libertarians, you'll notice that this is true of most of them as well: monogamy, sobriety, low time preference. Rand and Heinlein (though quirky) lived to be 77 and 81 respectively. Mises: 92. Friedman: 94. Rothbard: 68 :(.
We all agree/d that adults should be allowed to decide what risks they take, but that says nothing about what we advise or advocate. Don't do drugs, Anonymous! Don't get drunk! Motorcycle riding is stupidly dangerous! Or go ahead, but you should pay the consequences, not me...
All of the objective indicators of social pathology such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and criminality have declined over the past 20 years.
I proved unplanned teen pregnancy has actually risen slightly since 1970 (though it reached a peak in the 80's):
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/02/teen-pregnancy-rates-what-mainstream.html
As for the rest, first, you're being reductionist. Some would say turning on the TV and seeing a 17 year-old Miley Cyrus humping a backup dancer represents societal decline. Or going to a university and having the achievements of white males be denigrated is societal decline.
As for the others, the one big factor that counters the ostensible decline of our society is the huge increase in prison rates. So our society is declining, but to counter it we're locking up the people most likely to be affected by it:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/03/crime-rates-and-increase-in-prison.html
"Repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is probably not a good idea, but having women in the military is a far worse one. If I were in charge, I'd make a clerical corps of sorts that hired only women, who would serve as nurses, cooks, office workers etc., who would serve the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, complete with dresses for uniforms. The Marines already do this with respect to nurses and chaplains, who are provided by the Navy. Including women in any masculine pursuit inevitably degrades it."
What? This is a really goofy post. I'm not advocating women in direct combat or anything( physical weaknesses ensure they pose a risk to everyone else) but your idea is just ridiculous, and there are roles in the military for capable women beyond nurse and cook. Does the presence of females in pants make the military lose their morale or something lol? Nobody sane has an ego that fragile.
OT. Yet more evidence for HBD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlh8k1cNrek
The incarceration rate may be higher today, but the incarceration plus institutionalization rates together are lower than they were during much of the 20th century.
http://volokh.com/posts/1177998929.shtml
Reductionist? This term is so overused that it has become meaningless.
I stand by my arguments regarding libertarianism.
And the Straw Libertarian rears its head once again.
Libertarianism/classical liberalism of the conservative-leaning variety (i.e. on issues such as borders) is pretty similar to what the US had for the 1st couple of centuries, which lay the foundation for its becoming an economic and quality-of-life powerhouse. This sort of conservative/libertarian label nitpicking is pointless – the right should define a set of key issues, with the rest to be handled locally. How about:
1) Serious borders, immigration limited to the extent truly helpful, a jaundiced eye towards Islam
2) Fiscal conservatism (limited spending/regulation/taxes, a strong currency, personal responsibility)
3) No centralized utopianism of either kind: social matters to be handled primarily on the community level
"Change" seems like red herring, although not an intentional one.
Okay, so the score is: Leftists 50, Rightists 5. Which faction of the Rightists wants the score to change? (One rule of the game is, no team ever loses points.) The Rightist Offense wants the Rightist score to increase, so they like change. The Rightist Defense wants to stop the Leftist score from changing.
The ideological differences between Burke-Kirk conservatives and Smith-Nock libertarians are real, and they are interesting. They do not have anything to do with "change" as simply conceived. Conservatives want to change to stricter ideas of marriage (more difficult divorce, greater socioeconomic penalties for cheating & abandonment, etc.). The libertarians want to change marriage to just another contract. Both sides have interesting & different reasons for sticking a fork in the Patriot Act.
I sit out here in the meta-wilderness wondering what it's all about. Think of me as the guy on the beach of a nearly-deserted island, staring out at a sea almost, but not quite, bereft of ships. If I could the folks huddled in the little palm grove and the folks on the lonely ships to stop thinking so much about sex-and-Israel, we could have a happy little bonfire on the beach with fish AND coconuts.
@BLode:
Hi, I’m Sexy Pterodactyl’s perfidious female typist
Re your comment, I think we may be in the same ballpark: it would be good if more people on the right started thinking about creative solutions to move things in what one might call a libertarian-conservative direction, and less on the usual paleo-rants (XYZ sucks but we are cool because we have seen The Matrix and Taken the Red Pill, XYZ sucks but we are cool...)
Blog challenge to OneStdv: can you or any of your homies come up with ways for the right to win, and to (for example) get us out of the Social Security/entitlements mess with minimal pain? What about to actually get serious borders implemented?
Let’s see what we both come up with and compare
People who wish DADT to be changed often point to the Israeli army as a model of efficiency and they make the point that gays serve in the military there.
However, I've seen it pointed out many times that while Israeli gays do serve, (since almost all young people do), people aren't asked their orientation and gays don't advertise that they are gay. IOW, from what I gather, they pretty much "Don't say" during the time they are in the military. Sounds as if the situation operating there is essentially akin to DADT, but it is not established by military law/policy as much as by social culture.
I tend to agree with anonymous:
"If we had a strong ecomomy, but there were things about the military young prospective males didn't like (such as multiple-long-term foreign wars and serving under gay commanders, etc), then the rates of enlistment might not be so high. In fact, we might have to institute a draft just to get enough kids in those circumstances"
Quite frankly, when it comes to our military, I'd like not to worry about pc or "fairness." There are lots of rights a serviceman or woman doesn't have in the military that he or she does have in civilian life.
Under DADT, you just don't talk about your orientation. Big deal.
Oh dear, the physically attractive flying dinosaur has an alter-ego. This is going to be confusing. (I shouldn't be surprised; I've never met a decent-looking winged dinosaur that didn't have an alter-ego.)
Your three-point list is easily good enough for a start.
Blog challenge to OneStdv: can you or any of your homies come up with ways for the right to win, and to (for example) get us out of the Social Security/entitlements mess with minimal pain? What about to actually get serious borders implemented?
A court order enforcing the 10th Amendment would pretty much eliminate all entitlements except naval veterans' benefits. The "waiting for a court order" strategy does seem lazy, but it worked for the abortion legalizers.
Minimal pain? Privatize. Put all Social Security and Medicare benefits in the hand of a hybrid counsel composed, initially, only of public appointees (say, three each by the President, House, and Senate). Give each member long, staggered terms. Make FICA contributions voluntary. Allow the (temporarily) hybrid Social Security system to invest all its surplus in private funds. Give them a one-time lump sum of Federal money, aided by a bond issue if necessary, to give them a nice endowment. Elect all replacement members to the council in a direct, private process replacing one-man-one-vote with voting power weighted by contribution.
Follow up the process by requiring a two-thirds vote in each house to issue bonds.
As to the borders issue, I'm feeling pretty demoralized in the wake of Judge Bolton's bull abrogating the police power of the state. The courts hold all the cards, and will continue to do so as long as the men with the guns and the keys to the prisons continue to believe they need to enforce court orders.
As to how to get this stuff enacted, my only suggestion is to do what we're doing. Fish and coconuts can come later.
By the way, the fact that McCain directly opposes Obama on the judicial coup v. Arizona matter makes me feel silly for thinking Obama would be no worse than McCain on immigration. Not sure I was wrong; the White House might have made McCain go all squishy-left (or rather, extended his flirtation with squishy-leftism) ... but I still feel silly.
Nihilism is the only empty philosophy. Say what you will about libertarianism, but at least it's an ethos.
kurt9,
The illegitimacy rate continues to rise. That's a cause of decay.
Most libertarians are for open borders. That's another cause of decay - the biggest that swamps all others.
I went thru a libertarian phase. But libertarian philosophy is not compatible with real human nature for the vast majority of people on the planet.
"Under DADT, you just don't talk about your orientation. Big deal."
The point is that it doesn't matter if you "talk about your orientation" or not. If you're discovered to be gay, no matter how it happens, you're discharged. You're forced to practice active deception.
FuturePundit,
Would you consider "Escapist's" proposal reasonable?
1) Serious borders, immigration limited to the extent truly helpful, a jaundiced eye towards Islam
2) Fiscal conservatism (limited spending/regulation/taxes, a strong currency, personal responsibility)
3) No centralized utopianism of either kind: social matters to be handled primarily on the community level
I fail to see why the above is not reasonable.
I live by the principles cited in Harry Brown's book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". It is essentially personal libertarianism. I see no reason to change my views on this.
Once a libertarian, always a libertarian. I will never, ever stop being a libertarian because despite its flaws (which it has of plenty) it is still superior to any other worldview ever invented by mankind.
I am libertarian largely be default because it is the only worldview that does not have paternalism and respects my right to free association. If you think libertarianism is bad, then your job is to come up with another worldview that is completely devoid of paternalism, respects my right to free association, and respects my right to pursue my own dreams in goals in life. If you can come up with another worldview that meets this specification, I'm all ears.
Since you guys don't think libertarianism is up to snuff, I can suggest several alternatives that may be more acceptable to you:
1) Producerism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism
2) "Heinleinian" conservatism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#Views
Scroll down to "Individualism and self-determination"
3) Transhumanism:
By this, I am not referring to the Kurtzweilian singularity/uploading scenario. Rather, I am referring to transhumanism in the more general context of using biotechnology and nanotechnology to improve the human condition by improving human beings through "enhancement".
Greg Bear wrote two novels that depicted this kind of transhumanism about 20 years ago ("Queen of Angels" and "Moving Mars")
I think it legitimate to consider the use of paternalism to improve human competence and productivity. Paternalism for any other purpose seems rather pointless to me.
kurt9,
What does libertarianism have to do with the majority of the population? Some combination of diddly and squat.
Libertarianism is the natural political philosophy for you. But since there's considerably genetic variation in the human population and because you are a genetic outlier your own personal most preferred political philosophy has a snowball's chance in an active nuclear reactor.
This is my problem with libertarians. They are not willing or able to accept that the biggest political problem they face is that most people are not genetically compatible with libertarianism. Worse yet, the demographic trends in the American population make it even less compatible with libertarianism every day.
So you can tell me I've got to come up with an alternative. But you are so missing the point by stating it that way. The challenge is how to protect as much of your own freedom from the masses as possible. That inevitably means giving up some forms of freedom and coercing the masses in ways aimed at trying to preserve some of your freedom (e.g. really big border barriers).
I think people should be free to do anything they want -- as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
That's the political philosophy of a child. It's completely useless as a guide to any sort of society. Which is why in all of history there has never been a libertarian society.
Hayek was not a "libertarian" and he never made any such claim for himself. He described himself as a Burkean Whig - what everybody else calls a conservative.
The ideological differences between Burke-Kirk conservatives and Smith-Nock libertarians are real, and they are interesting.
Objection, your honor.
Smith and Nock were not what are called "libertarians" today. Hell, have you ever read "Our Enemy, The State"? The people at Cato would have an aneurysm if they heard it.
Would you consider "Escapist's" proposal reasonable?
1) Serious borders, immigration limited to the extent truly helpful, a jaundiced eye towards Islam
I'd consider it non-libertarian. In fact I'd consider it conservative.
One problem is the myriad versions of libertarianism present today. Our founding fathers were right-libertarians in the Lockean sense, which had a very conservative social outlook
Why not just call that "conservatism", as everybody else does? What we call "libertarianism" is defined by opposition to the conservative social outlook. It's also a very new thing, really taking shape in the years after WWII.
It borrows bits and pieces from Locke, Adam Smith, Hayek etc, but rejects much more of them.
Smith and Nock were not what are called "libertarians" today. Hell, have you ever read "Our Enemy, The State"? The people at Cato would have an aneurysm if they heard it.
Okay, let me rephrase:
"The ideological differences between Burke-Kirk conservatives and Smith-Nock folks are real, and they are interesting."
I haven't read Our Enemy the State. I see it is available on PDF. Nevertheless, I know even less about the Cato Institute than about the Paterson Nock Mises Hayek folks. I like the bits I've read by the latter, as well as The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane, but I should also mentioned that I'm the only self-described anti-anarchist I know.
I really, deeply believe that the split between conservatives and the anacap / Hayekian / mutualist school is widened by the latter's terminology. Non-ideological types conceive of the state, at its best, as being the people who take some of your paycheck as to repair potholes in the road and go find the guys who robbed the liquor store. They seek to trim down the state to do that, and defend the country, at as little cost as possible.
For the anacaps to come along and tell us there's no such thing as "the state, at its best" causes more dismay than it's probably worth. What is it about the unprecedentedly high 20th Century income tax that makes all taxes completely horrendous and immoral?
It would be okay if "zero tax!" were a bargaining chip in a fight for drastically lower taxes. Let's say there's a moderate proposal - a 10% constitutional cap on income taxes, water projects banned outright, entitlements banned after a two-year buffer period. The non-ideological taxpayer would like that proposal, and would dislike the "zero tax!"
I worry that anarcho-capitalism divides and saps the energy of the right. And yes, I know I should read Nock. I'll probably read Paterson first anyway.
Future Pundit,
What does libertarianism have to do with the majority of the population? Some combination of diddly and squat.
I am well-aware that most of the human race is too stupid and incompetent for libertarianism. Of course, people who can handle libertarianism are superior to those who cannot. This is understood.
Believe it or not, I share your thoughts about the border issue. Milton Friedman himself said that you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both.
Your arguments suggests the use of bio-science to improve the human race. I actually share your belief in doing this.
I think these ideas that say that we have to give up a measure of personal freedom in order to live with people who are too flawed for such freedom yet, at the same time, hold that is is wrong to use bio-science to correct these flaws are stupid and pointless. I do not know why intelligent people insist on believing in this kind of crap.
Randall,
Acceptance of the HBD arguments against libertarianism does indeed suggest that libertarianism is impossible in the U.S. This suggests that separatism is a better strategy for creating a libertarian society. One that is composed of the right people.
I think continued globalization as well as materials technology will make "seasteading" possible by the 2030-2040 timeframe. Such a seastead could most certainly be libertarian. Also, space colonization will probably start about this time, too.
As you are probably aware, real private money is starting to pour into both of these approaches.
The problem with 95% of libertarians is that they're unconfessed leftists.
Try to talk about HBD or racial differences on a pro-Ron Paul/pro-Mises forum, and you're get slammed.
I admit libertarians are smarter than average. But the smartest people I've ever found in the political arena are actually anti-democrats (fascists/monarchists).
Democracy can only work with intelligent people. If you haven't understood that, you'll go from delusions to delusions.
Libertarianism could only work in a high IQ society, which could only be reached through eugenics.
In the other cases, fascism/monarchy is the only way out.
And free market for economics.
"I think your critique of libertarianism is wrong.
First, I think social decay is a myth. "Agnostic" and Razib have demonstrated this as myth"
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/previous%20generations%20were%20more%20depraved.php
All of the objective indicators of social pathology such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and criminality have declined over the past 20 years. By such objective measures, society is far healthier today than it was in, say, 1980."
I laughed very hard.
The Roman Empire is still alive today, as I can see.
Believing that social decay can't exist is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life, and a very, very dangerous thing also. This kind of ideologies is lethal for any civilization.
Come on, do you seriously think that the West is better today than it was in the 1980s ? If you take off the technological advances, which have nothing to do with society, I'm not quite sure about it.
2 things that could explain the relative stability of statistics:
1) Statistics are fixed or flawed. I live in France, where criminality has grown at an alarming rate since the start of mass immigration. Everyone is feeling it. Even the most leftist newspapers are forced to report on it. The police is feeling it. The hospitals are feeling it. Though, the "official stats" are actually showing a decrease in criminality.
In USSR too, everything was going better each year after each year...
2) Money can temporarily fix a lot of things. If you spend 50 billion dollars on Negroes to help them not get pregnant or get AIDS, you are going to succeed at least a bit.
Do you think it will be the same after the crisis ? You can thank monetary creation for the illusion of richness of the last 30 years.
Libertarianism could only work in a high IQ society, which could only be reached through eugenics.
Instead of yammering about how "bad" libertarianism is, we should talk about how to create a society of high IQ individuals.
Obviously this can only be accomplished through eugenics and bio-engineering. Duh.
Obviously non-libertarian worldviews that say its wrong to use eugenics and bio-engineering to improve the human capital are as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
I would not go as far as some of the others. Libertariansism makes some valuable points about free markets, although it is sometimes inconsistent with other libertarian claims.
Libertarianism and civil rights - the shaky ground
http://knol.google.com/k/mainstream-academic-research/7-reasons-why-hbd-biodiversity-and/3q8x30897t2cs/41#view
"The patriotism to this nation is a patriotism of "no better alternatives" at this point. If there was another America out in the middle of the Pacific ocean, that was the way America was in roughly 1980, and accepted immigration from this nation: tons of people would be renouncing their citizenship and leaving this place for good'
1980 wasn't bad,but we should go back to the early 60's before the 65 Immigration aCt and the whole anti free association idea--meaning antidiscrimination laws.
@ FuturePundit and his Straw Libertarian:
Of my 3-point plan to increased awesomeness, what part do you specifically object to? #1 handles the national aspect (borders, immigration), so are you going for more socialism (contra to #2) or more social-control/utopianism of either left or right variety (contra to #3)?
Some might say that #2 (a certain amount of Darwinian competition) will reward good behavior and punish the bad (e.g. people will be pushed to be sober savers, raise good kids etc, sans Socialist Insecurity), and that is one of the inherent advantages of libertarianism (i.e. it achieves some of the good behavior goals of #3 in an “organic” manner).
P.S. Keep in mind that #1 is not contra to the original libertarian views of say The Founding Fathers.
I really, deeply believe that the split between conservatives and the anacap / Hayekian / mutualist school is widened by the latter's terminology.
Sorry, but Hayek was a lot closer to the traditionalist conservatives than to the anarcho-capitalists. As was Smith.
Libertarianism one-worldism and radical individualism are very new things, without any roots in Locke, Smith, and other early classical liberals.
I agree with your larger point though.
Say what you will about libertarianism, but at least it's an ethos.
What is the ethos? Talk to ten different libertarians and you'll get ten different answers. They don't agree that there should be any such thing as "an ethos". It's too constricting.
Libertarianism could only work in a high IQ society, which could only be reached through eugenics.
I don't see what high IQ has to do with it. I do think that libertarianism would work best, if it works at all, in a society where everybody is at about the same IQ, as it seems to assume
that people are a lot more equal than they actually are.
But that IQ level can be low, medium, or high.
Alex,
There's another way in which crime statistics mislead: They measure crimes committed, not criminality. Charles Murray made this point that the underclass willingness to commit crime has grown. That's decay.
The US has lowered the crime rate by locking up a lot more people. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
kurt9,
Seasteading is not practical now and won't become practical for 20+ years. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Plus, even once it becomes practical then you have to live on a big floating ship. You've got no mountains, no natural beach and wild animals. Seasteading is more like a refuge for losers who lost control of civilization.
Escapist,
Social problems are supposed to be handled at the community level? What does that mean? If you mean, get rid of the welfare state and let poor people ask for help from their neighbors then I would ask how you propose to convince the majority to vote for getting rid of the welfare state.
Libertarianism can't win as a political philosophy because it can't convince the majority (or even a large minority) to support it. Therefore as a solution it is irrelevant.
"Libertarianism could only work in a high IQ society, which could only be reached through eugenics."
I have seen this asserted many times.
How exactly do the high and lo IQ versions differ if we freeze frame them at a sample level of technological progress (say 1970's)?
How exactly do the high and lo IQ versions differ if we freeze frame them at a sample level of technological progress (say 1970's)?
My sense is that libertarians just allow too many people to do too many things that will destroy them. In the neolibertarian paradise, when you're in your house everything is exactly the way you want it to be (assuming you have soundproof walls or your neighbors have small speakers). Fine, right?
So, assuming you have the need to go outside once in a while, your environment suddenly becomes whatever others want it to be. If the others have an IQ average 115 that's going to be different from a place where they average 85. In the latter case, the market for decent books drops to nothing, and the libertarians have abolished public libraries. The market for cartoons and cocaine has gone through the roof.
The reverence that libertarians have for contracts seems predicated on bright people. "Informed consent" is a lovely concept but there are people who can't be informed, right?
"Give us your pancreas Tuesday and we'll give you a pizza today!"
"What's a pancreas?"
"Everybody has one. Nobody knows what it's for. It's not like your brain or anything."
"Deal!"
I really wish more people regarded "non-initiation of force" as an important principle to be respected, and fewer regarded it as the only principle worth mentioning.
"Obviously this can only be accomplished through eugenics and bio-engineering. Duh.
Obviously non-libertarian worldviews that say its wrong to use eugenics and bio-engineering to improve the human capital are as worthless as tits on a boar hog."
Agreed. There also needs to be a serious population decline worldwide for libertarianism to work. It would be nice if in 300-500 years if global pop went back down to levels it was at around 1900. This is why I don't see the West's below replacement fertility rate as a problem in itself. Its only an issue because everyone else breeds too much.
Seasteading is not practical now and won't become practical for 20+ years. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Plus, even once it becomes practical then you have to live on a big floating ship. You've got no mountains, no natural beach and wild animals. Seasteading is more like a refuge for losers who lost control of civilization.
I know what you are hinting at here. Lets just say its an option that is not discussed in polite society, let alone in a public venue like an internet blog. We'll just say there is no political solution and leave it at that.
You will note I saw your comments about DIY biology on your blog the other day.
I think creating a society of "well-adjusted" IQ 130 people would not be that difficult to create. I think this could be accomplished over 30-40 period through nothing more than birth control and embryo selection. The Chinese are already searching for the differences between people of normal intelligence and those with IQ's of 130 or so. This kind of work is politically unacceptable in the West, but the Chinese have no such irrational inhibitions about pursuing this kind of work.
A society of people with a mean IQ of 130, along with the executive function and future time-orientation, would be profoundly different than any society that currently exists. Such a society would outperform all existing societies in every sphere of human endeavor.
It would be interesting to live in such a society.
I know what you are hinting at here. - kurt9
I don't. Anyone want to explain this for the kids who aren't cool? Is it just that seasteading won't work? I can't see it working, myself. Wouldn't it be pretty easy to just declare seasteaders racist and fire a few cruise missiles at them?
A libertarian in favor of immigration reform:
http://barelyablog.com/?p=28168
Ilana Mercer is awesome. She is one of the most principled and clear bloggers I know. I don't know her intellectual antecedents exactly; probably Rand, Hayek, Smith, and those guys. She is light-years from the hippy-libertarians set.
Post a Comment