I was recently given two examples of how a free society would fight Ebola. I thought it might be well received by this board since there are so many liberty loving libertarians here.
Quote
Ebola is all over the headlines and airwaves. If it bleeds it leads, they say, and stirring up a panic about a lethal epidemic is a surefire way to drive ad sales through the roof for main stream media. I too shall capitalize on the hysteria, and try to make an actual point in the process.
At least 5 people have been transported to the United States for treatment after contracting Ebola abroad. There is one confirmed death from Ebola in the United States, the CDC has just recently confirmed a second infection, and dozens of at risk people are being monitored for symptoms of the disease.
The United States is dispatching military to Africa to fight the disease, because, you know, the Ebola virus is just terrified of America's military power.
Ebola is a terrifying illness. It has a fatality rate of approximately 50%, so if you become infected, your life is a coin toss. Ebola is highly contagious, spreading through close contact with bodily fluids, and has an incubation period of up to 21 days. A person can board a plane in one country appearing perfectly healthy, and not show symptoms until arriving in a different country, as was the case in Dallas.
These factors makes the virus a global public health concern, that as we've seen, mobilizes governments to action. Much of which is debatable as to whether it is effective, efficient, or detrimental. Sending American military personnel into yet another foreign country for example, raises quite a few eyebrows.
Still, people look to governments whenever there's something scary in the world. So whether the government action is good or bad matters not, governments do act, because people expect it. Talk about a society absent the State, and a question about such public health concerns is never far behind questions about roads. Fail to answer that question, and statists are left free to envision a world which more closely resembles that of AMC's The Walking Dead, than the market based orderly functioning society we describe.
So how would a free society deal with Ebola?
Medicine in General
The medical industry in the United States, and really the world over, is so tightly regulated that entry into the industry is all but impossible for all but the wealthiest and most politically connected people in society. Even after one enters the industry, complying with regulations regarding research alone is so cumbersome that you need not only a medical degree, but a legal one as well. Once a drug or other treatment is researched and developed, FDA approval is required to market it, a process which, if everything goes well, takes 6-10 months. If all does not go well, then the process can take years, or prevent the product from making it to market at all, thereby making all the investment in research a total loss.
By some estimates upwards of a million people in Africa will become infected with the Ebola virus. In a market environment, these people are customers, and with a fatality rate of 50%, you can imagine these customers would pay just about anything for a greater chance of survival. This creates a huge incentive to find cures and treatments for the illness, but if you or I decided we wanted to enter the Ebola curing business, it would take years of our lives and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to begin research. By the time we were able to market a treatment or cure, all our customers would already be dead or recovered.
In fact, there are treatments and possible cures for Ebola already in existence. ZMapp, an experimental cure, has been in development for years. In an experiment published in a 2014 paper, 21 rhesus macaque primates were infected with the Kikwit Congolese variant of EBOV. Three primates in the control arm were given a non-functional antibody, and the 18 in the treatment arm were divided into three groups of six. All primates in the treatment arm received three doses of ZMapp, spaced 3 days apart. The first treatment group received its first dose on 3rd day after being infected; the second group on the 4th day after being infected, and the third group, on the 5th day after being infected. All three primates in the control group died; all 18 primates in the treatment arm survived. The developer then went on to show that ZMapp inhibits replication of a Guinean strain of EBOV in cell cultures.
Unfortunately, only a small amount of the drug has been developed, and only began human testing during the 2014 West African outbreak of the disease. Patients treated with the drug have survived, but supplies have already been exhausted. US President Barack Obama says that even in light of this evidence, allowing the drug to be mass produced and marketed is "premature".
Now, I'm no medical expert, I have no way of knowing the long term effects of ZMapp, or if a safe treatment, cure, or vaccine would or could be developed under any circumstances. What I do know is that years of waiting, attorneys, civil liabilities, and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to comply with government regulations, are massive deterrents to economic activity. We can't predict whether or not a free society would find a cure, treatment, or vaccine for Ebola or any other illness, but we can clearly see that government is an obstruction to any effort towards finding and marketing one.
In the absence of the State, there would be no obstruction to ZMapp or other drugs being produced and marketed. If the drug proved safe and effective, Ebola would be a non-issue in short order. Imagine the difference in environments. In the world you live in today, you could contract Ebola, be held in isolation at a hospital, and have a 50% chance of survival. In a free society, should you contract Ebola, you could very well stop at CVS and buy a cure on your way home from work.
Quarantine and Containment
In Dallas, friends and family of the infected are being monitored by medical professionals. I have seen no indication that they are being forced to do this, but if they refused to comply, we could expect that they would be forced by government to submit to monitoring. If they aren't being forced, it is only because they complied voluntarily upon request.
It makes a lot of sense to do this of course. Simple self preservation instincts incentivize one to seek medical attention when there's a possibility they've been exposed a disease with a 50% fatality rate.
Were there to be a major outbreak of Ebola or any other contagious illness, we know that the US Government has already entertained handing control of a quarantine over to the military. George W. Bush said as much about bird flu just a few years ago, and there have already been a number of quarantine situations in the United States.
It is one thing for a hospital to isolate a patient. It's another for military to blockade a city, town, or state. Preventing healthy people from leaving a place where people are sick could be a death sentence in itself. Preventing goods and services from reaching that place, disrupts the economy, and prevents medicine from making its way to sick people who need it.
Imagine if your neighbor contracted some illness, and when he sought medical attention, military descended upon your town and threatened to kill you for leaving. Imagine trucks were not permitted into the quarantine zone, and the shelves of the supermarkets and pharmacies became empty. Imagine a foreign government sent military personnel onto American soil, you know, to "help".
Undesirable situations all, no doubt.
On the other hand, there is a very real concern that some deadly virus could infect a population, and many people would be comfortable with the above scenarios if they thought it meant keeping other people safe. Preventing one person from leaving a quarantine zone, in their minds, could well prevent the virus from spreading to another area and causing further infection and death. In the minds of many, initiatory force is justified by such circumstances.
So a free society needs to answer that problem, and at first glance it might seem difficult. The non-aggression principle is rather useless if we simply turn it into a suicide pact. A moral and legal platform that leads a people to their extinction is not of much practical use, of course.
What I'm about to describe requires some understanding of the general ideas of protection in a free society. I've written two articles describing them, one about crime, and another about regional defense from foreign invaders.
Call them defense agencies, dispute resolution organizations, or insurance, the basic idea is that one enters into contracts voluntarily with a person or group that provides services much like any other business. The provision of those services is dictated by the terms of the contract, and negative behaviors are curbed by the increased cost of protecting the people who engage in those behaviors.
Say for example a grown man has a propensity for raping children. One could expect this man to find himself with some well earned enemies, and protecting him from the outraged parents of his victims would be cost prohibitive. This being the case, one could expect that any contract of protection would require some basic rules of behavior, barring things like raping children. Should one break those rules, he would be in breach of his contract with the protection firm, they would drop his protection, and he would be therefore unprotected against threats to his safety. The lack of protection alone would be incentive enough for most to refrain from activities that would render them so unprotected, and if they did engage in such behaviors, we could expect to see them removed from the gene pool altogether either by the criminal element that is sure to exist in any society, or by the hand of someone he had wronged.
The same general idea can be applied to people who are sick, or otherwise risk spreading a disease. Imagine an insurance company's incentive to limit the spread of infection. If you're running around infecting people with a lethal virus, some of those people are likely to be their customers, and preventing you from spreading the disease is a lot cheaper than the treatment is going to be for all those that you infect. That's why they are already all too happy to pay for vaccinations and all manner of preventative care.
I see a lot of incentive there to build some quarantine protocol into any stateless health insurance policy. A client would have to agree to be held in isolation, by force if necessary, to avoid spreading his illness to others. I doubt this would even be legal in the current US health care market, due to existing regulations, and in any case the insurance companies rely on government to prevent outbreaks. In the absence of the State, insurance companies would either have to take some initiative, or risk going broke.
It's also reasonable to expect that insurance companies would keep the lines of communication between each other open in the absence of the State. Collaborating between companies on the spread of disease would be beneficial to all parties, so resources could be geographically allocated most efficiently. Without the CDC centrally planning such matters, a vacuum would open up that the market could fill. Say for example, some clever programmer developing a tracking system of some sort that health insurance companies could collaborate across while maintaining the informational security of individual patients.
As stated earlier, there's also a great deal of incentive for patients to cooperate voluntarily, due to their own need for medical assistance. Running away is no cure when one becomes infected with, or exposed to, a deadly virus. If one is made aware of their exposure to an illness like Ebola, simply informing them of their exposure would generally be enough to get them into isolation in exchange for treatment should they become symptomatic.
In the case of Ebola at least, only symptomatic persons can spread the illness, and only through close contact with bodily fluids. The virus is not airborne. So simple respect for property rights could help prevent spread of disease. If there's a risk of my family becoming infected with a deadly virus, sick people are not going to be welcome at my home or place of business. Under those conditions, I'm at no risk of infection. Should some sick person decide to trespass or break in, I or my agent could use force to stop them, and if the dead body of an intruder needed to be removed from the property, some simple preventative measures could prevent infection from reaching those who removed it.
As Usual Government Passes Itself Off As The Solution To The Problem It Creates
As we've demonstrated, simple market forces and incentives do a great deal more to solve problems than government violence. Only a government could have a cure ready to be produced and delivered, and choose to instead prevent that cure from being produced and marketed, sending soldiers into foreign countries as the alternative. Only a government could force healthy people to live with sick people. Only a government could obstruct contracts that prevent the spread of infection. Only a government could disarm people and otherwise prevent them from defending themselves against threats to their safety.
Markets on the other hand promote cooperation and mitigation of damage through incentives. Market actors are incentivized through profit and loss to develop safe and effective medical treatments, to respect property rights, to defend against aggression, to honor contracts, and to solve problems.
Government is not necessary to stop the spread of infection. Government is an infection, and the cure is teaching people how human beings respond to incentives in a market environment. Accomplish that goal, and not only will we stop Ebola, we'll also stop the number one preventable cause of human death and suffering – the State
http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/10/13/ebola-free-society/ (http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/10/13/ebola-free-society/)
QuoteThe Ebola outbreak shows the standard pattern: Whenever there is a major social problem, the deep thinkers in the major ebolamedia report it as a lack of sufficiently powerful government. With regard to Ebola, I've heard people lament that the West African governments do not possess the resources to (a) maintain adequate infrastructure, (b) enforce a quarantine, and (c) provide medical care to the infected. If only their governments were as powerful as those of Europe and the U.S., the implicit argument goes, then this tragedy never would have occurred.
On the face of it, this perspective has things backwards. The affected African nations suffer from a lack of private property rights. The Fraser Institute maintains an "Economic Freedom of the World" index. According to the latest issue, out of 153 total jurisdictions ranked, Guinea ranked 109th while Sierra Leone ranked 72nd. (Liberia wasn't listed.) Nigeria, which is also reportedly in danger from the Ebola outbreak, ranks 98th. So say what you will about these areas and why they were vulnerable to the outbreak, but it's not accurate to claim that they have relatively weak governments. You can claim that the regions are poor, and that therefore their governments don't have the resources to do what other, richer governments would do in their position–but a major reason they're poor is that they have relatively intrusive governments.
(To avoid a possible counterargument: The Fraser EFW rankings aren't a mere tautology; they look at criteria such as "sound money," "size of government," and "freedom to trade internationally," when ranking a jurisdiction. They don't simply look at wealthy countries and then conclude, "Hmm let's give them high marks on economic freedom.")
Yet moving away from the individual case of our current Ebola outbreak, what about the more general question: In a truly free society, where the vast majority embrace voluntarism and there are no institutional violations of property rights, how would people respond in case of a highly contagious disease? Would there be mandatory vaccinations? Would there be the free-market equivalent of quarantines?
In my view, the answer here is not to try to "deduce" the blanket answer from first principles, and declare that in a free society, we would necessarily see either outcome X or outcome Y. Instead, I think we should be humble and acknowledge that one of the supreme virtues of freedom is that its outcomes derive from the contributions and expertise of the millions or billions of people composing the society. We don't know exactly how a free society would handle a hypothetical outbreak, just like we don't know how a free society would handle food distribution, education, or transportation.
We can come up with some general thoughts, but the specific circumstances would influence how many kids went to group schooling versus stayed home to learn, how many restaurants and grocery stores there would be, whether there would be train service at 6am on a Sunday morning, etc. You can't give blanket answers to such particular questions, because their answers depends on economic considerations. Instead, you embrace a free market economy in which people voluntarily trade property titles, so that "the market"–which is just shorthand for the totality of voluntary trades–can produce the outcomes.
Within this context, then, we can speculate about a free society responding to an outbreak of a highly contagious disease. The first thing to remember is that individual property owners could set their own rules. For example, the owners of schools and factories could insist that any students and employees first show proof that they had been vaccinated (if a vaccine existed for the pathogen in question) before allowing them entry onto the property. In a free society, individuals don't possess some abstract "right to go wherever I want without people checking my papers." No, in a free society, people own property and nobody else can violate their ownership rights. If the owner of a building wants to keep it closed on Sundays, he can do that, and if the owner of a building will only let people in who prove to his satisfaction (perhaps because they are listed in the database of a reputable medical clinic) that they've been vaccinated against the contagious disease ravaging the community, then he can do that, too.
As in other areas of social life, here too the existence of competing agencies would check potential abuses. For example, suppose a particular medical clinic keeps very poor records; its database lists some people as "Vaccinated" who haven't been, and/or lists some people "Not Vaccinated" even though they have been. Well, unlike the government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC), any such medical clinic would enjoy no special support from a large institution with all of the tanks and missiles. People who had gone to the clinic to get vaccinated, and then weren't listed on their database, would raise hell and take their business elsewhere. If there were multiple examples of this, the shoddy clinic would soon go out of business. And if anybody who was actually contagious ended up infecting others because the medical clinic said "Vaccinated," then that news would quickly spread to the owners of large buildings in the community and they would no longer trust that particular clinic's database. Thus, the whole point of getting vaccinated by that clinic would evaporate, such that–again–it would quickly fold as people took their business elsewhere.
On the other hand, if there really were a very miniscule risk of infection–perhaps because the outbreak occurred in a distant region–then paranoid property owners would lose business. For example, if a particular mall required entrants to prove their health at the door, while the other malls in the area had no such checkpoint, then the first mall would lose many potential shoppers. Here, as elsewhere, there are tradeoffs, and the best way to find the "optimal" balance on a spectrum is to give people the freedom to use their property in voluntary ways as they see fit.
For a more comprehensive treatment, you should first read my pamphlet Chaos Theory, which discusses the possible role of insurance companies in a free society. Then you will have the framework to imagine how, say, a free society would handle the "choke points" of airports and land borders, if there were a contagious outbreak in a nearby region. For example, the owners of the airport might have contractual relationships with contiguous landowners, in which they promise monetary compensation in the event that planes crash into their homes, or if someone with Ebola infects them because they entered the community through that particular airport. In this context, large insurance companies could handle this legal liability for the airport, but in exchange the insurance companies might insist on safety precautions and have procedures in place for handling an Ebola outbreak. (See my article dealing with the TSA and the false tradeoff between liberty and security.)
For the thorny issue of quarantines, I think a free society would handle this type of case just as it would handle serial killers; either read my discussion in Chaos Theory or listen to this lecture excerpt on "Would There Be Prisons in a Free Society?"
In conclusion, let me admit that a free society would not be paradise: People would still get sick and die, and there might even be outbreaks of contagious diseases. It's true, the mechanisms I sketched above would not be perfect. Yet the question is always a relative comparison: Our current world, filled with monopoly governments, hasn't eliminated contagious diseases, either. For a given group of people, letting them either (a) solve problems voluntarily or (b) create a State, which outcome is more likely to lead to sensible, effective solutions to genuine social problems?
http://www.libertychat.com/2014/08/free-society-handle-quarantines/ (http://www.libertychat.com/2014/08/free-society-handle-quarantines/)
What is the point you're trying to make, and have been trying to make for the last 10 or so years? That all libertarians are kooks? That anyone who values individual freedom is suspect? You've expended thousands of keystrokes, but I still don't know what you're trying to prove.
I presume that anarchists are insane. I was not aware we had lots of anarchists here.
QuoteIn the case of Ebola at least, only symptomatic persons can spread the illness, and only through close contact with bodily fluids. The virus is not airborne. So simple respect for property rights could help prevent spread of disease. If there's a risk of my family becoming infected with a deadly virus, sick people are not going to be welcome at my home or place of business. Under those conditions, I'm at no risk of infection. Should some sick person decide to trespass or break in, I or my agent could use force to stop them, and if the dead body of an intruder needed to be removed from the property, some simple preventative measures could prevent infection from reaching those who removed it.
He makes it sound so simple. Simply get in your bunker and murder anybody who tries to get inside. Problem solved. Nobody will ever get sick with any diseases ever again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 07:20:55 PM
What is the point you're trying to make, and have been trying to make for the last 10 or so years? That all libertarians are kooks? That anyone who values individual freedom is suspect? You've expended thousands of keystrokes, but I still don't know what you're trying to prove.
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that all my posts are designed to illustrate one transcendental point.
I think it's a safe assumption that all your posts that start off "I'm posting this for all the libertarians here" are meant to support some point or another about libertarianism.
We have libertarians here. I thought they would naturally be interested in how a free society deals with an epidemic. Do you take umbrage with my post?
I take umbrage with your incessant efforts to discredit ideas through guilt by association. That's a tool of political spin, not collegial debate and discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
I take umbrage with your incessant efforts to discredit ideas through guilt by association. That's a tool of political spin, not collegial debate and discussion.
:secret: It's Raz. Trying to saddle anyone he disagrees with with the mantle of defending some kooky idea or other is his entire schtick. Obvious troll is obvious, so I don't know why you continue to even question the schtick. Ignore it and move on. No sense taking umbrage with it, since it is so clumsy that it deserves laughter far more than umbrage.
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2014, 08:40:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
I take umbrage with your incessant efforts to discredit ideas through guilt by association. That's a tool of political spin, not collegial debate and discussion.
:secret: It's Raz. Trying to saddle anyone he disagrees with with the mantle of defending some kooky idea or other is his entire schtick. Obvious troll is obvious, so I don't know why you continue to even question the schtick. Ignore it and move on. No sense taking umbrage with it, since it is so clumsy that it deserves laughter far more than umbrage.
Grumbler you totally should go back to ignoring me and let the adults talk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
I take umbrage with your incessant efforts to discredit ideas through guilt by association. That's a tool of political spin, not collegial debate and discussion.
I'll have you know that an honest to god Libertarian gave me these links. Same one I argued with a few months ago about the coercion and the nature of law. I do find the ideas of libertarianism abhorrent, but I'm letting them speak for themselves. Who I ask is being associated with who here?
Don't listen to Yi, Raz. Your bullshit is no worse than his bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2014, 09:08:39 PM
I'll have you know that an honest to god Libertarian gave me these links. Same one I argued with a few months ago about the coercion and the nature of law. I do find the ideas of libertarianism abhorrent, but I'm letting them speak for themselves. Who I ask is being associated with who here?
"many liberty loving libertarians here" are being associated with your linked kooks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2014, 09:11:41 PM
Don't listen to Yi, Raz. Your bullshit is no worse than his bullshit.
You're not that much better than Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 09:28:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2014, 09:08:39 PM
I'll have you know that an honest to god Libertarian gave me these links. Same one I argued with a few months ago about the coercion and the nature of law. I do find the ideas of libertarianism abhorrent, but I'm letting them speak for themselves. Who I ask is being associated with who here?
"many liberty loving libertarians here" are being associated with your linked kooks.
Oh, so you consider these people kooks? How am I suppose to know which libertarians are kosher and which or not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2014, 09:11:41 PM
Don't listen to Yi, Raz. Your bullshit is no worse than his bullshit.
You're not that much better than Raz.
I'd be interested in seeing your relative hierarchy of quality posters on politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2014, 09:11:41 PM
Don't listen to Yi, Raz. Your bullshit is no worse than his bullshit.
You're not that much better than Raz.
I'm honored. I didn't think you thought that highly of me. :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 10:27:27 PM
I'd be interested in seeing your relative hierarchy of quality posters on politics.
Do you mean politics, as in the beauty contest, or policy? If the latter Joan obviously stands out. He always argues a thing on the merits.
After reading those articles, it would appear that Raz's point might be that the internet allows people to spread dangerous, anti-civilization ideas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2014, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 10:27:27 PM
I'd be interested in seeing your relative hierarchy of quality posters on politics.
Do you mean politics, as in the beauty contest, or policy? If the latter Joan obviously stands out. He always argues a thing on the merits.
I mean whatever metric you used when you said Seedy is little better than Raz. And yeah, Joan is the obvious one. I'm more interested in the rest... CdM and Raz are in a range together. Who else is there? Who is in the range above it? Below it?
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 11:37:23 PM
I mean whatever metric you used when you said Seedy is little better than Raz. And yeah, Joan is the obvious one. I'm more interested in the rest... CdM and Raz are in a range together. Who else is there? Who is in the range above it? Below it?
Yi is up there, if only because he sincerely believes his own navel-gazing bullshit.
I just hope we don't have any of the "vaccinations should be optional" kooks here. Now, these are the people who are dangerous to the society as a whole.
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 11:37:23 PM
I mean whatever metric you used when you said Seedy is little better than Raz. And yeah, Joan is the obvious one. I'm more interested in the rest... CdM and Raz are in a range together. Who else is there? Who is in the range above it? Below it?
Siegebreaker is a notch above. Most of the Yuros are quite good about addressing actual ideas. Squeeze, for all his insular parochialism, is decent.
I have not interest in naming others who I think suffer from similar afflictions.
Libertarianism is all well and fine until it's you or your relative or your friend who has it. Then it's all "use my diplomatic passport to skidaddle to Nigeria getting 20+ nigerians killed.
Quote from: Viking on October 21, 2014, 02:42:46 AM
Libertarianism is all well and fine until it's you or your relative or your friend who has it. Then it's all "use my diplomatic passport to skidaddle to Nigeria getting 20+ nigerians killed.
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 02:08:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 11:37:23 PM
I mean whatever metric you used when you said Seedy is little better than Raz. And yeah, Joan is the obvious one. I'm more interested in the rest... CdM and Raz are in a range together. Who else is there? Who is in the range above it? Below it?
Siegebreaker is a notch above. Most of the Yuros are quite good about addressing actual ideas. Squeeze, for all his insular parochialism, is decent.
I have not interest in naming others who I think suffer from similar afflictions.
:cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2014, 12:23:19 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 11:37:23 PM
I mean whatever metric you used when you said Seedy is little better than Raz. And yeah, Joan is the obvious one. I'm more interested in the rest... CdM and Raz are in a range together. Who else is there? Who is in the range above it? Below it?
Yi is up there, if only because he sincerely believes his own navel-gazing bullshit.
If only I had the introspection realize my organizing principles had failed and adopted anti-statism.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
As far as I can tell placing liberty as the highest value is not what Libertarianism is about. No more then Communism or Socialism is about freedom or equality. What libertarianism seems to be about is reducing or even eliminating government altogether. That's not really the same thing as placing liberty as the highest value.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
As far as I can tell placing liberty as the highest value is not what Libertarianism is about. No more then Communism or Socialism is about freedom or equality. What libertarianism seems to be about is reducing or even eliminating government altogether. That's not really the same thing as placing liberty as the highest value.
Depends on how willing you are to ignore the guaranteed unintended consequences of your ideology.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
Personally, I think the approach of placing a single given value as "the highest" will inevitably lead to problems. Instead, I think acknowledging that freedom, justice, equality, and material well being are all very important values (and others as well) and attempting to maximizing them while responding to conflicts between them given context and the desires of the populace is a better approach.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 11:15:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
As far as I can tell placing liberty as the highest value is not what Libertarianism is about. No more then Communism or Socialism is about freedom or equality. What libertarianism seems to be about is reducing or even eliminating government altogether. That's not really the same thing as placing liberty as the highest value.
Depends on how willing you are to ignore the guaranteed unintended consequences of your ideology.
Well the underlying assumption in libertarianism is that if you reduce government, you are increasing freedom. However this doesn't actually seem to be the case. Places were government has collapsed are often less free then places that have functioning governments. Freedom can be restricted by non-governmental actors and often is. I have strong suspicions that these predatory non-governmental actors or people who aspire to be one of these predatory non-governmental actors lean libertarian for precisely that reason.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:29:33 AM
Well the underlying assumption in libertarianism is that if you reduce government, you are increasing freedom. However this doesn't actually seem to be the case. Places were government has collapsed are often less free then places that have functioning governments. Freedom can be restricted by non-governmental actors and often is. I have strong suspicions that these predatory non-governmental actors or people who aspire to be one of these predatory non-governmental actors lean libertarian for precisely that reason.
I think that libertarians can largely be divided into two groups: those that are full of shit, and those that have shit for brains.
The full of shit libertarians don't really value liberty, they just disagree with how governments restrict them personally, and would have no trouble with the concept of strong government if it oppressed on their behalf. In US, they tend to be amoral plutocrats or bigots. The shit for brain libertarians are genuine idealists that simply fail to realize that government is not the only source of oppression, and often its oppression actually protects people from greater injustice. In US, these tend to be young naive people who are always at an increased risk of falling for an extreme ideology due to their reduced tolerance for ideological compromise.
Often full of shit libertarians use the shit for brain libertarians as useful idiots.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 03:17:11 AM
I wouldn't want my relative or friend to catch libertarianism.
Like any other -ism, libertarianism can be carried too far, but the concept of placing liberty as the highest value isn't a bad one. I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
Personally, I think the approach of placing a single given value as "the highest" will inevitably lead to problems. Instead, I think acknowledging that freedom, justice, equality, and material well being are all very important values (and others as well) and attempting to maximizing them while responding to conflicts between them given context and the desires of the populace is a better approach.
I think the problem is in starting with a blank slate - deciding your ideology without reference to the real world. So libertarianism (to pick on it, although it works for most other -isms) starts with the ideal of liberty, and designs it's ideal world around maximizing liberty, all with little or no reference to what actually works, or doesn't work, in the real world.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2014, 11:40:11 AM
I think the problem is in starting with a blank slate - deciding your ideology without reference to the real world. So libertarianism (to pick on it, although it works for most other -isms) starts with the ideal of liberty, and designs it's ideal world around maximizing liberty, all with little or no reference to what actually works, or doesn't work, in the real world.
Well put.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Personally, I think the approach of placing a single given value as "the highest" will inevitably lead to problems. Instead, I think acknowledging that freedom, justice, equality, and material well being are all very important values (and others as well) and attempting to maximizing them while responding to conflicts between them given context and the desires of the populace is a better approach.
Unfortunately, what you propose isn't an 'approach" at all, but an avoidance of an approach. Saying that everything is important is saying that nothing is important. You cannot maximize everything. Something has to be your measure of effectiveness, and an MOE cannot be everything.
It is
attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
It is true that saying anything is more valuable than something will "inevitably lead to problems." So will not saying that anything is more valuable that something else. We will "inevitably [have] problems" so we shouldn't shy away from solutions that still have problems.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Personally, I think the approach of placing a single given value as "the highest" will inevitably lead to problems. Instead, I think acknowledging that freedom, justice, equality, and material well being are all very important values (and others as well) and attempting to maximizing them while responding to conflicts between them given context and the desires of the populace is a better approach.
Unfortunately, what you propose isn't an 'approach" at all, but an avoidance of an approach. Saying that everything is important is saying that nothing is important. You cannot maximize everything. Something has to be your measure of effectiveness, and an MOE cannot be everything.
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
It is true that saying anything is more valuable than something will "inevitably lead to problems." So will not saying that anything is more valuable that something else. We will "inevitably [have] problems" so we shouldn't shy away from solutions that still have problems.
I don't think Jake said that everything should be maximized. He said that multiple values should be taken together and maximized in unison, taking into account some inherent incompatibilities and alleviating them in the best way possible. It is true that it's either to maximize something you can easily quantify, and the kind of compromise Jake proposed is almost never easily quantified. However, the alternative approach of just ignoring what you can't quantify is almost always disastrous.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2014, 11:40:11 AM
I think the problem is in starting with a blank slate - deciding your ideology without reference to the real world. So libertarianism (to pick on it, although it works for most other -isms) starts with the ideal of liberty, and designs it's ideal world around maximizing liberty, all with little or no reference to what actually works, or doesn't work, in the real world.
Ah. Are you sure that other libertarians agree with your definition? I don't think that Adam Smith, for example, started with the idea of liberty and designed his ideal world around it. I think he started with the world as he saw it, and described how it could be made better.
The anti-libertarians, like Rousseau, were IMO the ones who took a single idea and "with little or no reference to what actually works, or doesn't work, in the real world."
Now, if you were referring to -isms like Catholicism or Islamism, then I'd agree with your assessment, but I think we must expressly exclude religions from the discussion, as they are not suppose to be rational. Ditto, pretty much, for the romantic -isms like communism and fascism. But, other than those, I think you will find that there are far more -isms based on logic and the real world, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 12:00:12 PM
I don't think Jake said that everything should be maximized. He said that multiple values should be taken together and maximized in unison, taking into account some inherent incompatibilities and alleviating them in the best way possible. It is true that it's either to maximize something you can easily quantify, and the kind of compromise Jake proposed is almost never easily quantified. However, the alternative approach of just ignoring what you can't quantify is almost always disastrous.
I don't see why you wouldn't maximize everything good (not "everything") if you are setting out to maximize many variables simultaneously. Beside, Jake himself named four goods he would simultaneously and also noted that there were "others as well." I don't think the alternative to maximizing all the good things is to "ignore what you cannot quantify;" that's a false dichotomy. Besides, i don't see how it could possibly be easier to quantify "liberty" than to quantify any of the other values he mentions.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't maximize everything good (not "everything") if you are setting out to maximize many variables simultaneously.
Optimizing many variables simultaneously is not equivalent to maximizing all those variables in isolation if the variables are not independent.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
Unfortunately, what you propose isn't an 'approach" at all, but an avoidance of an approach. Saying that everything is important is saying that nothing is important. You cannot maximize everything. Something has to be your measure of effectiveness, and an MOE cannot be everything.
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
It is true that saying anything is more valuable than something will "inevitably lead to problems." So will not saying that anything is more valuable that something else. We will "inevitably [have] problems" so we shouldn't shy away from solutions that still have problems.
Yeah, muddling through it is not the most philosophically coherent approach - you can even call it a "non approach" and I won't argue. I still prefer it, though. As you said, it's possible to take libertarianism too far; and I think that's true for other basic principles we can frame - be it justice, equality, material welfare, etc. They have to be modulated by practical concerns and other basic principles that are worthwhile.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
Yes there is, it's called Utilitarianism
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:10:51 PM
Yeah, muddling through it is not the most philosophically coherent approach - you can even call it a "non approach" and I won't argue. I still prefer it, though. As you said, it's possible to take libertarianism too far; and I think that's true for other basic principles we can frame - be it justice, equality, material welfare, etc. They have to be modulated by practical concerns and other basic principles that are worthwhile.
The problem with muddling through, though, is that it tends to create dogmatism as a reaction. Personally, I also definitely favor pragmatism over almost any other -ism, with the caveat that the pragmatism be based on the long-range outlook. I do reject the idea of "maximizing everything good," because that's impossible, and I can accept the idea that liberty is one of the key MOEs of any policy (along with its opposite, justice). Thus, I think it useful to see policies weighed by how much liberty they trade for justice, and vice-versa.
Quote from: PJL on October 21, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
Yes there is, it's called Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a theory of normative ethics.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't maximize everything good (not "everything") if you are setting out to maximize many variables simultaneously.
Optimizing many variables simultaneously is not equivalent to maximizing all those variables in isolation if the variables are not independent.
Yeah, exactly.
And yeah, though quantifying this stuff is basically impossible, for the sake of argument I think something like:
Freedom = 0.7;
Equality = 0.65;
Justice = 0.8;
General Material Welfare = 0.75
is superior to
Freedom = 1.0;
Equality = 0.02;
Justice = 0.2;
General Material Welfare = 0.4.
It's super abstract, of course, and leaves out all sorts of different social goods but it illustrates the main point.
Now, if libertarianism means something like "let's weigh the value of the '
Freedom' score to be worth 1.3 points of
Equality, and 1.1 points of
Justice and
General Material Welfare while striving for the highest possible score" then that's fine (and the same with, say, some sort of "Social Welfare" philosophy that posits "1
General Material Welfare = 1
Equality = 1.2
Justice = 1.3
Freedom; let's drive up the aggregate score").
As long as the other values are considered worthwhile in themselves, we can have endless and possibly constructive arguments about how to balance that out and how to apply it (not to mention about exactly what we mean by
General Material Welfare or
Freedom).
But once we get to arguments that "we have to get
Freedom as close to 1 as possible, without regard to any of the other values" then I think we're looking at something very counterproductive, to say the least; even more so if we get into "we should push
Equality as close to 0 as we can, rather than 1" or "I actually prefer
Justice at around 0.5, because [members of group X] does not deserve
Justice, only people like me". And lest this is taken to be specifically about libertarianism, I feel the same way about any approach that places one value as the pinnacle of philosophical ideals at the cost of all others.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:24:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:10:51 PM
Yeah, muddling through it is not the most philosophically coherent approach - you can even call it a "non approach" and I won't argue. I still prefer it, though. As you said, it's possible to take libertarianism too far; and I think that's true for other basic principles we can frame - be it justice, equality, material welfare, etc. They have to be modulated by practical concerns and other basic principles that are worthwhile.
The problem with muddling through, though, is that it tends to create dogmatism as a reaction. Personally, I also definitely favor pragmatism over almost any other -ism, with the caveat that the pragmatism be based on the long-range outlook. I do reject the idea of "maximizing everything good," because that's impossible, and I can accept the idea that liberty is one of the key MOEs of any policy (along with its opposite, justice). Thus, I think it useful to see policies weighed by how much liberty they trade for justice, and vice-versa.
Okay, that I can agree to :)
It's not like I think "muddling through" is a brilliant coherent and fail proof approach either.
Well I found out something today. Adam Smith was a libertarian. And Rousseau was a "anti-libertarian". No wonder Grumbler is a teacher. You learn something from him everyday.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: PJL on October 21, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
Yes there is, it's called Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a theory of normative ethics.
Perhaps the most artful dodge Grumbler has made to date to avoid having to admit he was wrong.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: PJL on October 21, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
It is attractive to want to maximize everything you think is good, but being attractive doesn't make it possible. That's why there is no philosophy of maximizing everything good.
Yes there is, it's called Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a theory of normative ethics.
And normative ethics is a part of moral philosophy.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:28:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't maximize everything good (not "everything") if you are setting out to maximize many variables simultaneously.
Optimizing many variables simultaneously is not equivalent to maximizing all those variables in isolation if the variables are not independent.
Yeah, exactly.
And yeah, though quantifying this stuff is basically impossible, for the sake of argument I think something like:
Freedom = 0.7; Equality = 0.65; Justice = 0.8; General Material Welfare = 0.75
is superior to
Freedom = 1.0; Equality = 0.02; Justice = 0.2; General Material Welfare = 0.4.
It's super abstract, of course, and leaves out all sorts of different social goods but it illustrates the main point.
Now, if libertarianism means something like "let's weigh the value of the 'Freedom' score to be worth 1.3 points of Equality, and 1.1 points of Justice and General Material Welfare while striving for the highest possible score" then that's fine (and the same with, say, some sort of "Social Welfare" philosophy that posits "1 General Material Welfare = 1 Equality = 1.2 Justice = 1.3 Freedom; let's drive up the aggregate score").
As long as the other values are considered worthwhile in themselves, we can have endless and possibly constructive arguments about how to balance that out and how to apply it (not to mention about exactly what we mean by General Material Welfare or Freedom).
But once we get to arguments that "we have to get Freedom as close to 1 as possible, without regard to any of the other values" then I think we're looking at something very counterproductive, to say the least; even more so if we get into "we should push Equality as close to 0 as we can, rather than 1" or "I actually prefer Justice at around 0.5, because [members of group X] does not deserve Justice, only people like me". And lest this is taken to be specifically about libertarianism, I feel the same way about any approach that places one value as the pinnacle of philosophical ideals at the cost of all others.
Good post.
The only issue is that I don't think there are really libertarians who feel the way you describe - that liberty should be held with such weight as to trump all others.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:28:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:07:13 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't maximize everything good (not "everything") if you are setting out to maximize many variables simultaneously.
Optimizing many variables simultaneously is not equivalent to maximizing all those variables in isolation if the variables are not independent.
Yeah, exactly.
And yeah, though quantifying this stuff is basically impossible, for the sake of argument I think something like:
Freedom = 0.7; Equality = 0.65; Justice = 0.8; General Material Welfare = 0.75
is superior to
Freedom = 1.0; Equality = 0.02; Justice = 0.2; General Material Welfare = 0.4.
It's super abstract, of course, and leaves out all sorts of different social goods but it illustrates the main point.
Now, if libertarianism means something like "let's weigh the value of the 'Freedom' score to be worth 1.3 points of Equality, and 1.1 points of Justice and General Material Welfare while striving for the highest possible score" then that's fine (and the same with, say, some sort of "Social Welfare" philosophy that posits "1 General Material Welfare = 1 Equality = 1.2 Justice = 1.3 Freedom; let's drive up the aggregate score").
As long as the other values are considered worthwhile in themselves, we can have endless and possibly constructive arguments about how to balance that out and how to apply it (not to mention about exactly what we mean by General Material Welfare or Freedom).
But once we get to arguments that "we have to get Freedom as close to 1 as possible, without regard to any of the other values" then I think we're looking at something very counterproductive, to say the least; even more so if we get into "we should push Equality as close to 0 as we can, rather than 1" or "I actually prefer Justice at around 0.5, because [members of group X] does not deserve Justice, only people like me". And lest this is taken to be specifically about libertarianism, I feel the same way about any approach that places one value as the pinnacle of philosophical ideals at the cost of all others.
Great post Jacob.
As someone who very much self describes as a libertarian, and yet laughs regularly when people like Raz and DG try to tell me what "libertarians" believe, I think your assesment is very reasonable, except that
"we have to get
Freedom as close to 1 as possible, without regard to any of the other values" is not a position held by any libertarians I know - and if there are, they should be mocked. I suspect though that is more of a caricature.
Now, back to your previous point that noted that "liberty" is one of several (often competing) values. What I mean when I claim to be "libertarian" is that I DO in fact think that these values are not all the same, and that in fact freedom and liberty are special compared to the others. That humans have a inate "right" to their own personal freedom, and that inate right is in fact the starting point that we should consider when discussing how society ought to organize itself, and certainly how governments should maximize the greater good overall.
In other words, it isn't just evaluating several competing values or even assigning a heavier weight to "liberty" versus "equality" (as an example). It is saying that freedom is so important, that the dangers of the state taking away human freedom is so common and pernicious throughout human history, that when we discuss and debate proposals to maximize that greater good, we must start with the presumption that any decrease in liberty MUST be explicitly justified by a objective and measured increase in the greater good. It is not enough to simply claim that that good will be served - it must be shown to be the case in some convincing fashion.
There is an obvious philosophical stance here around basic human rights, but there is also (at least for me) an extremely pragmatic stance as well. Throughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes.
But honestly, it is mostly just about a political elite attempting to retain and secure their hold on power, and personal freedom (whether that be freedom of expression or even the simple freedom to have a say in government) is anathema to that, and so throughout history we see example after example of the state restricting freedom in the interests of what they *always* claim is the greater good, but in reality it is just for some segments greater good.
I have to agree with grumbler - if we say all these things are equally good, then in fact none of them are good. I claim that not only should "freedom" be weighted highly against other "goods", but that it actually enjoys a "first among equals" status. That no amount of security or equality or prosperity can justify significant restrictions on freedom, even to the extent of saying that the true equation of the "greatest good" includes a basic ceiling on the value placed on freedom. Without freedom, the rest matters little.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 06:28:31 AM
I'd say the libertarians like Smith and Locke ended up with far more coherent and human (and, ultimately, influential) political-economic theories than the non-libertarians like Rousseau and Mun.
I wouldn't consider Smith to be a libertarian; his moral philosophy is consistent either with libertarian and non-libertarian point of view, and his political economy is essentially pragmatic. As for Locke, the Two Treatises are libertarian-y, but his account of property is pretty incoherent. And the Locke that wrote the Carolina Constitutions isn't really libertarian at all.
I also think Rousseau is misunderstood/gets a bad rap based on subsequent misuse but that is an argument for another time and place.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:37:41 PM
That no amount of security or equality or prosperity can justify significant restrictions on freedom, even to the extent of saying that the true equation of the "greatest good" includes a basic ceiling on the value placed on freedom. Without freedom, the rest matters little.
Is that really the argument? If there was a system that could provide superior security, equality and prosperity then that system would be superior. Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:37:41 PM
As someone who very much self describes as a libertarian, and yet laughs regularly when people like Raz and DG try to tell me what "libertarians" believe, I think your assesment is very reasonable, except that
:huh: Berkut, you're definitely a libertarian by my definition. :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2014, 02:01:30 PM
I wouldn't consider Smith to be a libertarian; his moral philosophy is consistent either with libertarian and non-libertarian point of view, and his political economy is essentially pragmatic. As for Locke, the Two Treatises are libertarian-y, but his account of property is pretty incoherent. And the Locke that wrote the Carolina Constitutions isn't really libertarian at all.
I also think Rousseau is misunderstood/gets a bad rap based on subsequent misuse but that is an argument for another time and place.
Libertarian = "classical liberal" by every definition I have seen (and that is precisely how the phrase was coined, to the best of my knowledge). I'd be interested in an argument that Locke or Smith were not classical liberals based on something other than arguments by definition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.
Exactly. Which is why I was a bit surprised by Berkut's position.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.
Exactly. Which is why I was a bit surprised by Berkut's position.
Is my position in contrast to that? It certainly is not intended to be...
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 03:30:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.
Exactly. Which is why I was a bit surprised by Berkut's position.
Is my position in contrast to that? It certainly is not intended to be...
Fair enough, I thought you were going so far as to argue that Liberty is so important that even if a system could be created that gave more security, equality and prosperity it should be rejected if it sacrificed Liberty.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:37:41 PM
Great post Jacob.
As someone who very much self describes as a libertarian, and yet laughs regularly when people like Raz and DG try to tell me what "libertarians" believe, I think your assesment is very reasonable, except that
"we have to get Freedom as close to 1 as possible, without regard to any of the other values" is not a position held by any libertarians I know - and if there are, they should be mocked. I suspect though that is more of a caricature.
Now, back to your previous point that noted that "liberty" is one of several (often competing) values. What I mean when I claim to be "libertarian" is that I DO in fact think that these values are not all the same, and that in fact freedom and liberty are special compared to the others. That humans have a inate "right" to their own personal freedom, and that inate right is in fact the starting point that we should consider when discussing how society ought to organize itself, and certainly how governments should maximize the greater good overall.
In other words, it isn't just evaluating several competing values or even assigning a heavier weight to "liberty" versus "equality" (as an example). It is saying that freedom is so important, that the dangers of the state taking away human freedom is so common and pernicious throughout human history, that when we discuss and debate proposals to maximize that greater good, we must start with the presumption that any decrease in liberty MUST be explicitly justified by a objective and measured increase in the greater good. It is not enough to simply claim that that good will be served - it must be shown to be the case in some convincing fashion.
There is an obvious philosophical stance here around basic human rights, but there is also (at least for me) an extremely pragmatic stance as well. Throughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes.
But honestly, it is mostly just about a political elite attempting to retain and secure their hold on power, and personal freedom (whether that be freedom of expression or even the simple freedom to have a say in government) is anathema to that, and so throughout history we see example after example of the state restricting freedom in the interests of what they *always* claim is the greater good, but in reality it is just for some segments greater good.
I have to agree with grumbler - if we say all these things are equally good, then in fact none of them are good. I claim that not only should "freedom" be weighted highly against other "goods", but that it actually enjoys a "first among equals" status. That no amount of security or equality or prosperity can justify significant restrictions on freedom, even to the extent of saying that the true equation of the "greatest good" includes a basic ceiling on the value placed on freedom. Without freedom, the rest matters little.
Thanks! :) And likewise, great post Berkut.
I see two parts to it, which I'll address separately.
The matter of "we'll have to get
Freedom to 1, with no regard to other values" being a caricature - if we allow a change from "no regard" to "little regard" then it's something that seems to come up fairly frequently in discourse. I'd certainly put the libertarian-response-to-ebola that Raz posted initially in that bucket, and you (or rather I) do come across it when it comes to a number of other issues as well, especially in an American context.
Now, it may be that those arguments are made purely for trolling reasons or in attempts to move the Overton window, rather than as serious attempts at formulating real policy. I still feel it's worthwhile to explicitly reject those, even if they are hyperbolic. If you and grumbler reject that sort of absolutist libertarian extremism as being silly, and you both have in this thread in different words it seems, then great and good; we're in agreement :hug:
So, with the extreme case and potential strawman out of the way by mutual agreement, the meat of your argument seems to come down to the following: you say that you consider
Freedom to be a "first among equals" when it comes to the various values and social goods, and you put forth your very reasonable reasoning for that.
I don't have any real beef with that kind of libertarianism in the abstract. It seems to me that you've basically refined the equation, so that there's a a high value on
Freedom, and posit some sort of relationship where other values tend to deteriorate if the
Freedom score gets lowered.
I don't know if I agree with exactly how you look at those relationships, but as a broad philosophical approach I think it's sound enough. The real issue comes up when
"we must start with the presumption that any decrease in liberty MUST be explicitly justified by a objective and measured increase in the greater good" (as you say). Because different people will be convinced more easily, and sometimes a decrease in your
Freedom for my
Other Benefit is a lot more palatable to me than to you (and vice versa); on the other hand it seems some people refuse a decrease in any kind of value that affect them, no matter how minuscule, if the benefit applies primarily to others, no matter how big.
When you say...
Quote from: BerkutThroughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."
... I think you are correct.
But I also think that people have used arguments for Liberty to increase their share of the pie and deny other people benefits; it's not immune to being misused as a banner for non-related and unpleasant objectives. I do think that for a not insignificant part of the modern discourse involving Libertarianism, it is either being used as an argument for other ends (often personal financial benefit), or the non-
Freedom benefits of others are counted as being at a really low value.
It's possible to theoretically accept the idea that
Freedom needs not be absolute if other worthwhile goals can be achieved, but reject it in all practical matters. In that case, I think we're back at the position we both dismissed at the beginning.
In the end, though, if you accept - as you do - that sometimes there needs to be a trade off of
Freedom for other things, and at a reasonable valuation where non-
Freedom goods does matter, it comes down to what formula you use and how you apply it in real life.
Which means, to me, that we are ultimately back at "muddling through it". I think coming at "muddling through it" from a perspective of "undermining liberty tends to cause serious problems" and "liberty is the most important value (but it can be sacrificed for other things when necessary)" is perfectly reasonable and valid, even if I don't necessarily agree with any given individual conclusion drawn from those premises.
... but at least we can have some potentially constructive conversations about desired outcomes and possible ways of achieving them. And if we can find common ground there, I don't really care that much if you're coming at it from a Libertarian premise, a Socialist premise, or some other approach.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: BerkutThroughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."
... I think you are correct.
I wouldn't word it so strongly. I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly. The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government. You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people. I'd still take the Western system, though.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 12:24:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:10:51 PM
Yeah, muddling through it is not the most philosophically coherent approach - you can even call it a "non approach" and I won't argue. I still prefer it, though. As you said, it's possible to take libertarianism too far; and I think that's true for other basic principles we can frame - be it justice, equality, material welfare, etc. They have to be modulated by practical concerns and other basic principles that are worthwhile.
The problem with muddling through, though, is that it tends to create dogmatism as a reaction. Personally, I also definitely favor pragmatism over almost any other -ism, with the caveat that the pragmatism be based on the long-range outlook. I do reject the idea of "maximizing everything good," because that's impossible, and I can accept the idea that liberty is one of the key MOEs of any policy (along with its opposite, justice). Thus, I think it useful to see policies weighed by how much liberty they trade for justice, and vice-versa.
A quibble but I think the opposite of justice is mercy, while the opposite of liberty is equality.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 12:31:29 PM
Well I found out something today. Adam Smith was a libertarian. And Rousseau was a "anti-libertarian". No wonder Grumbler is a teacher. You learn something from him everyday.
This is technically true for a given value of "libertarian". Smith (though I would probably argue for Locke more) was the father of liberalism (which today, especially in America is almost synonymous with a moderate libertarian) and Rousseau was the father of collectivism. The third leg was conservatism with Burke.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: BerkutThroughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."
... I think you are correct.
I wouldn't word it so strongly. I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly. The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government. You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people. I'd still take the Western system, though.
The Rule of Law is what gives us Liberty. Without it we would be reduced to the kind of arbitrary form of government to which you refer. I will let Berkut speak for himself but, given his clarification, I dont think that is what he has in mind.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
I don't know if I agree with exactly how you look at those relationships, but as a broad philosophical approach I think it's sound enough. The real issue comes up when "we must start with the presumption that any decrease in liberty MUST be explicitly justified by a objective and measured increase in the greater good" (as you say). Because different people will be convinced more easily, and sometimes a decrease in your Freedom for my Other Benefit is a lot more palatable to me than to you (and vice versa); on the other hand it seems some people refuse a decrease in any kind of value that affect them, no matter how minuscule, if the benefit applies primarily to others, no matter how big.
Jacob,
If I understand Berkut's point, it isnt any different than what is enshrined in our Charter. All infringements of our rights must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is to say rights are not absolute but any infringement must be justified in the light of maintaining freedom.
I think people are forgetting that the classic political systems were not a dichotomy but a triad.
Liberalism was about maximising personal liberties of an individual (both from the constraints of the tribe and of the family). It recognised that sometimes you need the state to enforce these individual freedoms.
Conservatism was about the state withdrawing and abdicating its power to families so they can run themselves as they see fit.
Collectivism was about re-organising the society top-to-bottom in a way that was orderly, with the collective taking precedence over both individuals and families.
On reflection, I think a lot of modern-day libertarianism has more in common with conservatism than with liberalism. I do think, however, that Berkut's style of libertarianism/progressivism is classically liberal. I think American politics is about the struggle between liberalism and conservatism, with collectivism taking a back seat. Contrary to continental Europe, where conservatism, collectivism and liberalism are more equally strong. Countries like Russia are, obviously, conservative and collectivist, with very little liberalism.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:34:59 PM
Libertarian = "classical liberal" by every definition I have seen (and that is precisely how the phrase was coined, to the best of my knowledge). I'd be interested in an argument that Locke or Smith were not classical liberals based on something other than arguments by definition.
Locke's Carolina constitution is a fundamentally illiberal document - it provided for a feudal system where landowners would have feudal rights to dispense justice and a large permanent class of serfs tied to the land by restrictions on movement. One could argue that it didn't really reflect Locke's views, I suppose, or that he changed his mind. I would agree that the Locke of the Two Treatises could be considered a libertarian or proto-libertarian but I wouldn't agree that his argument, as least as concerns property rights, is particularly coherent.
As for Smith, he was a moral philosopher who adovocated the practice of virtue, which he defined as a sympathetic approach to others in which one objectively considers the needs, desires and feelings of others in society. It is not inconsistent with libertartianism, but it certainly does not entail it. Smith's identification as a classical liberal is thus based on the Wealth of Nations. But Smith in the WoN is really more concerned with the interference in politics by commercial interests than vis-a-versa. What WoN really reflects, I think, is an early articulation of knowledge economics - namely that in a system of production where productivity is driven in significant part by specialization - the state is in a very poor position to coordinate economic activity, and the more efficient and effective result is to permit individual actors on the spot to make judgments based on superior information. This is an argument often made by classical liberals- Hayek famously refined it many years later - but it is not at all unqiue to classical liberals. It is also pragmatic argument based on what works best, not an a priori argument from economic liberty as a fundamental value in itself. In other circumstances in WoN, Smith is of the view that state intervention may be desirable.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 04:49:16 PM
Conservatism was about the state withdrawing and abdicating its power to families so they can run themselves as they see fit.
That is the first time I have heard Conservatism described in that manner. I will wait for BB to give us his well used definition as I think he puts it best and he is our resident defender of the faith on that issue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2014, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:34:59 PM
Libertarian = "classical liberal" by every definition I have seen (and that is precisely how the phrase was coined, to the best of my knowledge). I'd be interested in an argument that Locke or Smith were not classical liberals based on something other than arguments by definition.
Locke's Carolina constitution is a fundamentally illiberal document - it provided for a feudal system where landowners would have feudal rights to dispense justice and a large permanent class of serfs tied to the land by restrictions on movement. One could argue that it didn't really reflect Locke's views, I suppose, or that he changed his mind. I would agree that the Locke of the Two Treatises could be considered a libertarian or proto-libertarian but I wouldn't agree that his argument, as least as concerns property rights, is particularly coherent.
As for Smith, he was a moral philosopher who adovocated the practice of virtue, which he defined as a sympathetic approach to others in which one objectively considers the needs, desires and feelings of others in society. It is not inconsistent with libertartianism, but it certainly does not entail it. Smith's identification as a classical liberal is thus based on the Wealth of Nations. But Smith in the WoN is really more concerned with the interference in politics by commercial interests than vis-a-versa. What WoN really reflects, I think, is an early articulation of knowledge economics - namely that in a system of production where productivity is driven in significant part by specialization - the state is in a very poor position to coordinate economic activity, and the more efficient and effective result is to permit individual actors on the spot to make judgments based on superior information. This is an argument often made by classical liberals- Hayek famously refined it many years later - but it is not at all unqiue to classical liberals. It is also pragmatic argument based on what works best, not an a priori argument from economic liberty as a fundamental value in itself. In other circumstances in WoN, Smith is of the view that state intervention may be desirable.
I think many people would be genuinely surprised by what Smith actually wrote, had they managed to make it past the non-benevolent butcher part.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 05:18:30 PM
I think many people would be genuinely surprised by what Smith actually wrote
:yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 04:01:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 03:30:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.
This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.
Exactly. Which is why I was a bit surprised by Berkut's position.
Is my position in contrast to that? It certainly is not intended to be...
Fair enough, I thought you were going so far as to argue that Liberty is so important that even if a system could be created that gave more security, equality and prosperity it should be rejected if it sacrificed Liberty.
I would agree with that, but it is completely theoretical, since I don't think that it is possible to have all of those things without freedom.
But even if it was possible, I would still reject it since the value of prosperity without freedom is dubious at best, and won't last anyway.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: BerkutThroughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."
... I think you are correct.
I wouldn't word it so strongly. I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly. The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government. You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people. I'd still take the Western system, though.
The Rule of Law is what gives us Liberty. Without it we would be reduced to the kind of arbitrary form of government to which you refer. I will let Berkut speak for himself but, given his clarification, I dont think that is what he has in mind.
Exactly. Again, history tells us that absent Law you have the rule of the despot, and there is no liberty at all, or the rule of the powerful over the weak.
I will agree with the notion that Rule of Law pays for itself in terms of liberty, and then some. Where I differ with most people calling themselves libertarian is that other things other than rule of law have the same effect. Having liberty from the government is not worth much if you're still under the thumb of entities with enormous economic power over you. The weak should be protected from all strong entities, not just the strong government.
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: BerkutThroughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."
... I think you are correct.
I wouldn't word it so strongly. I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly. The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government. You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people. I'd still take the Western system, though.
I think Berkut self-identifies as libertarian because he doesn't feel comfortable in the two party system. His freedoms are typical American ones tempered by Republican virtues and rule of law. There are many freedoms that exist outside of this. For instance, the freedom to bribe people is not a protected right. A contractor can't bribe individuals in another company so they will hire him over his competitors. At least not legally. I've never seen anything that indicates Berkut believes this should be legal, but it is a freedom and presumably falls under label of "Two consenting adults", and presumably legal in a society that values freedom over everything else.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2014, 04:28:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 12:31:29 PM
Well I found out something today. Adam Smith was a libertarian. And Rousseau was a "anti-libertarian". No wonder Grumbler is a teacher. You learn something from him everyday.
This is technically true for a given value of "libertarian". Smith (though I would probably argue for Locke more) was the father of liberalism (which today, especially in America is almost synonymous with a moderate libertarian) and Rousseau was the father of collectivism. The third leg was conservatism with Burke.
No it is not technically true. Classical liberal is not synonymous with "Libertarian" anymore then it is synonymous with "Social Liberal".
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 07:02:36 PM
I think Berkut self-identifies as libertarian because he doesn't feel comfortable in the two party system. His freedoms are typical American ones tempered by Republican virtues and rule of law. There are many freedoms that exist outside of this. For instance, the freedom to bribe people is not a protected right. A contractor can't bribe individuals in another company so they will hire him over his competitors. At least not legally. I've never seen anything that indicates Berkut believes this should be legal, but it is a freedom and presumably falls under label of "Two consenting adults", and presumably legal in a society that values freedom over everything else.
It definitely doesn't fall under the category of two consenting adults. The recipient of the bribe has been charged with a public trust. The contract is not his to dispose of as he wishes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2014, 02:01:30 PM
I also think Rousseau is misunderstood/gets a bad rap based on subsequent misuse but that is an argument for another time and place.
Thank you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 07:53:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 07:02:36 PM
I think Berkut self-identifies as libertarian because he doesn't feel comfortable in the two party system. His freedoms are typical American ones tempered by Republican virtues and rule of law. There are many freedoms that exist outside of this. For instance, the freedom to bribe people is not a protected right. A contractor can't bribe individuals in another company so they will hire him over his competitors. At least not legally. I've never seen anything that indicates Berkut believes this should be legal, but it is a freedom and presumably falls under label of "Two consenting adults", and presumably legal in a society that values freedom over everything else.
It definitely doesn't fall under the category of two consenting adults. The recipient of the bribe has been charged with a public trust. The contract is not his to dispose of as he wishes.
A public trust? We aren't talking about government officials here. We are talking about private citizens in private business.
How do you bribe someone in private business?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 07:59:57 PM
How do you bribe someone in private business?
Typically by paying them money. Say two business are competing to get a cleaning contract from a third business. One cleaning companies bribes individuals in the third business to make sure they get the contract. That seems unfair. How would you prevent such activity if you don't involve the state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 07:59:57 PM
How do you bribe someone in private business?
I'm not telling you. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Typically by paying them money. Say two business are competing to get a cleaning contract from a third business. One cleaning companies bribes individuals in the third business to make sure they get the contract. That seems unfair. How would you prevent such activity if you don't involve the state.
Either "the individuals in the third business" own the business, in which case your bribe is just a reduced price, or they don't, in which case the bribee is betraying the trust of his superiors.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:11:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Typically by paying them money. Say two business are competing to get a cleaning contract from a third business. One cleaning companies bribes individuals in the third business to make sure they get the contract. That seems unfair. How would you prevent such activity if you don't involve the state.
Either "the individuals in the third business" own the business, in which case your bribe is just a reduced price, or they don't, in which case the bribee is betraying the trust of his superiors.
If they betray the trust his superiors so what? They get fired. They're just got a hefty bribe. They're loaded. Maybe they'll even be hired by the cleaning company, after all they know how contracts get made.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:11:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Typically by paying them money. Say two business are competing to get a cleaning contract from a third business. One cleaning companies bribes individuals in the third business to make sure they get the contract. That seems unfair. How would you prevent such activity if you don't involve the state.
Either "the individuals in the third business" own the business, in which case your bribe is just a reduced price, or they don't, in which case the bribee is betraying the trust of his superiors.
:o Thanks for clearing it up.
Well I was wrong. Some people seem to think bribery is a fundamental right. So long as it's not government, anything goes.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 08:18:50 PM
:o Thanks for clearing it up.
I don't see how your smart mouth is warranted. Raz started this exchange by describing bribery as two consenting adults.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:22:00 PM
I don't see how your smart mouth is warranted.
Is that supposed to stop me?
QuoteRaz started this exchange by describing bribery as two consenting adults.
Was your description meant to counter Raz's claim that it's a transaction between two consenting adults?
It's either a transaction between two consenting adults, in which case it's not bribery, or it's among 3 adults, one of whom is not consenting.
Smack DG in his Russian mouth Yi. Russians only respect force.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
It's either a transaction between two consenting adults, in which case it's not bribery, or it's among 3 adults, one of whom is not consenting.
:hmm: That is a good point.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2014, 08:27:19 PM
Smack DG in his Russian mouth Yi. Russians only respect force.
:mad:
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
I think I see the confusion. The Principle of the Rule of Law does not simply mean that there are laws that everyone must obey. There has been a lot written about the Rule of Law and it is difficult to define with precision but a minimum threshold is a notion of fairness and due process. I think we can all agree that a system which allowed for indentured servitude would not meet the minimum standard and if you study the law as it relates to the treatment of the poor you will see signficant reforms both in the common law and in legislation. One can argue that is the Rule of Law at work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
It's either a transaction between two consenting adults, in which case it's not bribery, or it's among 3 adults, one of whom is not consenting.
I don't think a business really can be described as a true person that is able to consent or not.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
But change it to laws allowing abortion or capital punishment and the precise calibration would be controversial.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
I don't think a business really can be described as a true person that is able to consent or not.
I don't care.
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
But change it to laws allowing abortion or capital punishment and the precise calibration would be controversial.
Again, Jacob is talking about the enactment of specific laws not the Rule of Law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
I don't think a business really can be described as a true person that is able to consent or not.
I don't care.
Well you're in a bad mood.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
But change it to laws allowing abortion or capital punishment and the precise calibration would be controversial.
Again, Jacob is talking about the enactment of specific laws not the Rule of Law.
Right; I don't disagree with your point that Rule of Law assumes a certain level of fairness, but I think Jacob's point is that while in the West most people agree with the principle of Rule of Law, there can still be considerable differences among people within that majority as to what is "fair'.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2014, 05:14:40 PM
Locke's Carolina constitution is a fundamentally illiberal document - it provided for a feudal system where landowners would have feudal rights to dispense justice and a large permanent class of serfs tied to the land by restrictions on movement. One could argue that it didn't really reflect Locke's views, I suppose, or that he changed his mind. I would agree that the Locke of the Two Treatises could be considered a libertarian or proto-libertarian but I wouldn't agree that his argument, as least as concerns property rights, is particularly coherent.
Locke wasn't writing the Carolina Constitution for himself, he was writing it for, and under the direction of, Lords Proprieters. Naturally, it doesn't reflect what he later wrote about as his understanding of liberty and justice. It does contain some remarkably "clasiically liberal" statements about religion (but, again, in practice these liberal practices were already in effect in Carolina). I'd agree that Locke never really had a solid concept of the liberal approach to property, but I'd also argue that no other classic liberal (or modern libertarian) has succeeded with that, either! :lol: And, yes, Locke would be a proto-liberal in the sense that he was pretty much the first big liberal name, and was still working out the kinks in his thinking when he died.
Property is a slippery thing even for Divine-Right-of-King conservatives.
QuoteAs for Smith, he was a moral philosopher who adovocated the practice of virtue, which he defined as a sympathetic approach to others in which one objectively considers the needs, desires and feelings of others in society. It is not inconsistent with libertartianism, but it certainly does not entail it. Smith's identification as a classical liberal is thus based on the Wealth of Nations. But Smith in the WoN is really more concerned with the interference in politics by commercial interests than vis-a-versa. What WoN really reflects, I think, is an early articulation of knowledge economics - namely that in a system of production where productivity is driven in significant part by specialization - the state is in a very poor position to coordinate economic activity, and the more efficient and effective result is to permit individual actors on the spot to make judgments based on superior information. This is an argument often made by classical liberals- Hayek famously refined it many years later - but it is not at all unqiue to classical liberals. It is also pragmatic argument based on what works best, not an a priori argument from economic liberty as a fundamental value in itself. In other circumstances in WoN, Smith is of the view that state intervention may be desirable.
I don't think that there is any question that classic liberals recognized a need for the state to intervene in economic matter - contract law enforcement, for instance, isn't possible without the state. Nor do I think that non-kook modern libertarians think that such intervention isn't needed. And I don't agree that Smith didn't know where he was going when he started WoN - he knew that he was making an argument for the value of economic liberty when he first put pen to paper - but he was doing so by arguing from the interests of the state first, because the interests of the state were assumed in his time to be paramount. No argument from economic liberty
a priori would have had the power WoN did, because it would be dismissed immediately as not "recognizing the truth." I don't know whether he would have made the argument
a priori if he thought he could get away with it, of course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 05:21:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 05:18:30 PM
I think many people would be genuinely surprised by what Smith actually wrote
:yes:
:yes: Many people here, in fact.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
I don't think a business really can be described as a true person that is able to consent or not.
I don't care.
Well you're in a bad mood.
Raz, concede the point when it has been refuted (or at least STFU). Bribery is a conspiracy by the agent to steal from the principal. Ultimately, the principal is always at least one person.
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
Right; I don't disagree with your point that Rule of Law assumes a certain level of fairness, but I think Jacob's point is that while in the West most people agree with the principle of Rule of Law, there can still be considerable differences among people within that majority as to what is "fair'.
But part of the Rule of Law is that you obey the law even if your minority doesn't like the law or think that it is 'fair."
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2014, 08:27:19 PM
Smack DG in his Russian mouth Yi. Russians only respect force.
:hug:
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2014, 08:57:07 PM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
Right; I don't disagree with your point that Rule of Law assumes a certain level of fairness, but I think Jacob's point is that while in the West most people agree with the principle of Rule of Law, there can still be considerable differences among people within that majority as to what is "fair'.
But part of the Rule of Law is that you obey the law even if your minority doesn't like the law or think that it is 'fair."
What about civil disobedience?
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.
(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)
But change it to laws allowing abortion or capital punishment and the precise calibration would be controversial.
Again, Jacob is talking about the enactment of specific laws not the Rule of Law.
Right; I don't disagree with your point that Rule of Law assumes a certain level of fairness, but I think Jacob's point is that while in the West most people agree with the principle of Rule of Law, there can still be considerable differences among people within that majority as to what is "fair'.
Agreed. But that is why we have a judiciary that decides such things, an independant judiciary being another important aspect of the Rule of Law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
I don't care.
:thumbsup:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3-www.craveonline.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2FThe-Fugitive-Tommy-Lee-Jones-I-Dont-Care.jpg&hash=25401b5736e4f114b5600ec0d4c1fdb1352c1bea)
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
I don't think a business really can be described as a true person that is able to consent or not.
I don't care.
Well you're in a bad mood.
Raz, concede the point when it has been refuted (or at least STFU). Bribery is a conspiracy by the agent to steal from the principal. Ultimately, the principal is always at least one person.
While the slavic mind is easily befuddled by Asiatic tricks, mine is not. If the business is a separate person then the man running the business can't take bribes either since he is betraying that "person". However, Yi seemed to consider that okay.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 10:12:03 PM
While the slavic mind is easily befuddled by Asiatic tricks, mine is not. If the business is a separate person then the man running the business can't take bribes either since he is betraying that "person". However, Yi seemed to consider that okay.
The person taking the bribe either owns the business or he doesn't. If he doesn't own the business, he is betraying the owners. If he only partially owns the business, he is betraying his investors. If he owns the whole thing, it's not really a bribe.
A business is not a person, btw.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2014, 10:22:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 10:12:03 PM
While the slavic mind is easily befuddled by Asiatic tricks, mine is not. If the business is a separate person then the man running the business can't take bribes either since he is betraying that "person". However, Yi seemed to consider that okay.
The person taking the bribe either owns the business or he doesn't. If he doesn't own the business, he is betraying the owners. If he only partially owns the business, he is betraying his investors. If he owns the whole thing, it's not really a bribe.
A business is not a person, btw.
I don't care.
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 09:15:42 PM
What about civil disobedience?
Well, the law includes the consequences, so you agree to suffer those in civil disobediance. You cannot follow the rule of law and shoot the deputy when he comes to arrest you for violating the law.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2014, 05:00:51 AM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2014, 09:15:42 PM
What about civil disobedience?
Well, the law includes the consequences, so you agree to suffer those in civil disobediance. You cannot follow the rule of law and shoot the deputy when he comes to arrest you for violating the law.
Also, rule of law is not an absolute or all-encompassing principle - just a principle for a good society. It does not mean that it never comes into conflict with other principles. Too often Languish debates seem to be dealing with absolutes.
I am in full agreement with Marti and Grumbler - end times? :D
That is one of the signs, yes.