LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Kraftster]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I think that is a complicated issue. The Randian "L" even though she never used that word would say that altruism is evil but I don't think other Libertarians would say that. I think the issue boils down to how you view human nature. Human beings are selfish by nature, it's just biological, for survival reasons and to what level should individualism vs collectivism should order society. I would think a reasonable person would think that we would need some level of both altruism vs "selfishness" in society either one would lead to extreme imbalances either way. Communism vs Randism. I also that it is an extremely narrow view of people becasue other needs need to be met then just self-interest. I just don't think it is possible or right to promote that kind of behavior to live in a world with other human beings and be "completely self- interested".

Not only did he not ask you (you (fellow? ) Libertarians), this is all wrong...

[Guinness]

For me, personally, the reason that it matters is that if we have this starting point of -- people naturally act in their own self-interest -- that's a defensible reason as to why the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself. And maybe this is why I'm getting some of the libertarian barbs thrown my way now that I read this response from you. I do agree with that central premise and I think the entire reason that you can reaosonably defense that position is that people act for their own self-interest only. Taking that as true, it would be impossible for another to ever make the right decision for you unless it was by pure happenstance.

It may be a defensible position for individualism, but I don't think it's at the heart of libertarianism (without presuming myself to be the arbiter of all things libertarian ). There's a difference between acting in self-interest and believing in a principle of non-aggression. I don't believe in the use of unprovoked force, be it physical or coercive. That is why the best person to make a decision for an individual is the person himself.

Edit to add: So I guess you can tell those folks who call you a libertarian that it's not the basis of your beliefs. Send those folks my way...

[Guinness]

I think that is a complicated issue. The Randian "L" even though she never used that word would say that altruism is evil but I don't think other Libertarians would say that. I think the issue boils down to how you view human nature. Human beings are selfish by nature, it's just biological, for survival reasons and to what level should individualism vs collectivism should order society. I would think a reasonable person would think that we would need some level of both altruism vs "selfishness" in society either one would lead to extreme imbalances either way. Communism vs Randism. I also that it is an extremely narrow view of people becasue other needs need to be met then just self-interest. I just don't think it is possible or right to promote that kind of behavior to live in a world with other human beings and be "completely self- interested".

Not only did he not ask you (you (fellow? ) Libertarians), this is all wrong...

Here's what gets me:

I would think a reasonable person would think that... And since that is what I deem to be reasonable, I'm going to initiate force against you if you refuse to comply.

Force is at the heart of every statist argument... which is what cracks me up when I get accused of being an absolutist.

Know what I mean?

[Kraftster]

For me, personally, the reason that it matters is that if we have this starting point of -- people naturally act in their own self-interest -- that's a defensible reason as to why the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself. And maybe this is why I'm getting some of the libertarian barbs thrown my way now that I read this response from you. I do agree with that central premise and I think the entire reason that you can reaosonably defense that position is that people act for their own self-interest only. Taking that as true, it would be impossible for another to ever make the right decision for you unless it was by pure happenstance.

It may be a defensible position for individualism, but I don't think it's at the heart of libertarianism (without presuming myself to be the arbiter of all things libertarian ). There's a difference between acting in self-interest and believing in a principle of non-aggression. I don't believe in the use of unprovoked force, be it physical or coercive. That is why the best person to make a decision for an individual is the person himself.

No, that's definitely an important distinction (individualism v. libertarianism) and I appreciate the correction because I have never really been a libertarian devotee.

On that note, I should not lose sight of my elitist leanings (and this is where we will quite obviously diverge). Up until now I had been sort of talking about myself, but, my macro perspective is a little different (and might give away whether I consider myself to be elite or not ).

I think that the elite should basically be free to make decisions for themselves, whereas the non-elite should be subject to a more authoritarian role taken by the elite. That's why I said I think Elitism is a bit of both (libertarianism and authoritarianism, which, incidentally don't necessarily seem like precise opposites). Basically the level of elitism of a given person is directly related to the degree of control that they should expect to have exerted over them. The more elite, the more your decisions should be unconstrained. So I would be in agreement with non-aggression towards the elite, but, not necessarily committed to such a stance 100% when it comes to force exerted by elite over non-elite. Essentially, in an ideal world, I would be in favor of a meritocracy of sorts, with the governors obviously being members of the elite. Ideally there would be a test of some sort to be administered to individuals at some point (birth?) which would give you a snapshot of what that individual's capabilities would be. And it would be perfectly accurate. And that person would then be groomed to be exactly what they were capable of being. Happiness would be at an all time high. Its a lot less gruesome than it sounds, I think, though. I'm not advocating for a Anthem-esque world (or The Giver-esque world) because no one would be in a slot where they didn't belong.

Problem is that pesky test that isn't really available...

[doublem]

I think you are probably a good person to flesh this out with because "other needs need to be met than just self-interest" is the idea that I'm usually met with. But, it seems that you agree that naturally/biologically/etc. we are selfish creatures/we do things because of selfish reasons. It seems like 50/50 chance I have a hard time getting people to at least buy that starting premise.

The basic problem I see with this and it has kept me up at nights is that basically humans beings haven't evolved to a point where our lower basic needs are no longer needed, so you will always have that pull toward getting as much for yourself as possible. I don't think human nature is good or bad, it just is, but I do think , I guess, resist in a way, those needs to others is the ultimate way to live but only a certain amount of people would be able to dedicate their life to serving others( which is different then random acts of kindness) and I don't think people that don't are "bad" people becasue that is most of us, like 99.9% of people and ideally we would all be able to live that kind of life but I know that is never possible.

This is similar to another point that is really the pillar of my elitist views - all humans are inherently unequal. The inevitable question I get is "how are they unequal?" But, I think that's putting the burden on the wrong person. They are unequal in every way -- there is no way in which they are equal, to me, someone contending otherwise bears the burden of showing me why they are unequal. I try to build off of this base in the same way as the self-interest premise (and again, here, its nothing particularly profound, I feel like its just stating the obvious when saying that people are unequal).

Again, this is something I agree with but it just really saddens me. I would say that humans just by birth should all be treated the same just for the fact of being human but I again know that isn't possible. The thing that has always bothered me is that most of the time people play a role in why they are unequal it basically boils down to luck and circumstances. Should we let some genetic gift play that big of role in deciding the role in a world we all share????

[doublem]

If you separated the poles at Communism and Randism, I think it is reasonable to think that we need to find some type of middle ground becasue either one would be complete chaos. I just don't know how anyone could think it's a good idea to be completely on either side, given the state of people and I'm talking about extreme individualism not Libertarianism, I guess.

[Kraftster]

I think you are probably a good person to flesh this out with because "other needs need to be met than just self-interest" is the idea that I'm usually met with. But, it seems that you agree that naturally/biologically/etc. we are selfish creatures/we do things because of selfish reasons. It seems like 50/50 chance I have a hard time getting people to at least buy that starting premise.

The basic problem I see with this and it has kept me up at nights is that basically humans beings haven't evolved to a point where our lower basic needs are no longer needed, so you will always have that pull toward getting as much for yourself as possible. I don't think human nature is good or bad, it just is, but I do think , I guess, resist in a way, those needs to others is the ultimate way to live but only a certain amount of people would be able to dedicate their life to serving others( which is different then random acts of kindness) and I don't think people that don't are "bad" people becasue that is most of us, like 99.9% of people and ideally we would all be able to live that kind of life but I know that is never possible.

This is similar to another point that is really the pillar of my elitist views - all humans are inherently unequal. The inevitable question I get is "how are they unequal?" But, I think that's putting the burden on the wrong person. They are unequal in every way -- there is no way in which they are equal, to me, someone contending otherwise bears the burden of showing me why they are unequal. I try to build off of this base in the same way as the self-interest premise (and again, here, its nothing particularly profound, I feel like its just stating the obvious when saying that people are unequal).

Again, this is something I agree with but it just really saddens me. I would say that humans just by birth should all be treated the same just for the fact of being human but I again know that isn't possible. The thing that has always bothered me is that most of the time people play a role in why they are unequal it basically boils down to luck and circumstances. Should we let some genetic gift play that big of role in deciding the role in a world we all share????

Well I think to a certain extent the reason we don't see a world void of any altruism or government void of social programs is precisely because people have made the decision that they don't want to let the genetic lottery determine their role. Given the fact that there are more non-elite than elite (if for no other reason than because there can only be one person on top), all of the non-elite basically went down the "social contract" road to give themselves a more favorable spot than they would have been left with in the "state of nature." At that point, the bonded non-elite become a threat to the elite and the elite join in the social contract for somewhat different reasons but for the same ultimately selfish purpose (self preservation).

That's at least why I think we've seen altruism/socialist-type governments emerge in a world that naturally contains nothing of the sort.

[Guinness]

If you separated the poles at Communism and Randism, I think it is reasonable to think that we need to find some type of middle ground becasue either one would be complete chaos. I just don't know how anyone could think it's a good idea to be completely on either side, given the state of people and I'm talking about extreme individualism not Libertarianism, I guess.

I don't know what individualism is, but Randism is not libertarianism.

And again...

I just don't know how anyone could think it's a good idea... and so you will implement force to impose your vision.

[doublem]

If you separated the poles at Communism and Randism, I think it is reasonable to think that we need to find some type of middle ground becasue either one would be complete chaos. I just don't know how anyone could think it's a good idea to be completely on either side, given the state of people and I'm talking about extreme individualism not Libertarianism, I guess.

I don't know what individualism is, but Randism is not libertarianism.

And again...

I just don't know how anyone could think it's a good idea... and so you will implement force to impose your vision.

Okay, I guess I'm talking about Randism.

[Kraftster]

Not only did he not ask you (you (fellow? ) Libertarians), this is all wrong...

Here's what gets me:

I would think a reasonable person would think that... And since that is what I deem to be reasonable, I'm going to initiate force against you if you refuse to comply.

Force is at the heart of every statist argument... which is what cracks me up when I get accused of being an absolutist.

Know what I mean?

This highlights the reason that I originally distanced myself from exploring libertarian thought years ago. It bothers me about anything that is "relativist" -- you can't argue in favor of your position, i.e., you can't really fairly argue in favor of non-aggression without using force/aggression (at least to the same extent someone would use force in trying to tell you what is or is not reasonable). One thing I know is that there is a "best choice" and while there may not be an objectively true perfect type of governance, some choices are better than others and I want to be able to argue in favor of or against them.

[Guinness]

This highlights the reason that I originally distanced myself from exploring libertarian thought years ago. It bothers me about anything that is "relativist" -- you can't argue in favor of your position, i.e., you can't really fairly argue in favor of non-aggression without using force/aggression (at least to the same extent someone would use force in trying to tell you what is or is not reasonable). One thing I know is that there is a "best choice" and while there may not be an objectively true perfect type of governance, some choices are better than others and I want to be able to argue in favor of or against them.

doublem's head is going to come off when he reads what you've wrote.

If you recall, I modified "force" in my response with the word, "unprovoked". The absolute, in libertarianism (as I see it) is the sovereignty of the individual.

[Kraftster]

This highlights the reason that I originally distanced myself from exploring libertarian thought years ago. It bothers me about anything that is "relativist" -- you can't argue in favor of your position, i.e., you can't really fairly argue in favor of non-aggression without using force/aggression (at least to the same extent someone would use force in trying to tell you what is or is not reasonable). One thing I know is that there is a "best choice" and while there may not be an objectively true perfect type of governance, some choices are better than others and I want to be able to argue in favor of or against them.

doublem's head is going to come off when he reads what you've wrote.

If you recall, I modified "force" in my first response with the word, "unprovoked". The absolute, in libertarianism (as I see it) is the sovereignty of the individual.

Hmm...interesting. "Unprovoked" -- seems a little sneaky to me at the moment, but, I have no immediate response. I will address this later, for now I have been provoked to get back to work.

[Guinness]

Hmm...interesting. "Unprovoked" -- seems a little sneaky to me at the moment, but, I have no immediate response. I will address this later, for now I have been provoked to get back to work.

I can see that it might seem sneaky, but consider it within the context of the sovereignty of the individual...

I'm about to leave work, myself!

Until then, Cheers!

[Kraftster]

This highlights the reason that I originally distanced myself from exploring libertarian thought years ago. It bothers me about anything that is "relativist" -- you can't argue in favor of your position, i.e., you can't really fairly argue in favor of non-aggression without using force/aggression (at least to the same extent someone would use force in trying to tell you what is or is not reasonable). One thing I know is that there is a "best choice" and while there may not be an objectively true perfect type of governance, some choices are better than others and I want to be able to argue in favor of or against them.

doublem's head is going to come off when he reads what you've wrote.

If you recall, I modified "force" in my response with the word, "unprovoked". The absolute, in libertarianism (as I see it) is the sovereignty of the individual.

So, I'm guessing the implication is that you can defend your position to doublem because you were provoked?

So, under your view of libertarianism, then, you'd basically have laws to protect the one absolute (individual sovereignty). So, you'd presumably punish unprovoked use of force. To have any such law, I'd think you'd want a fairly specific, fixed definition of provocation. Care to give it a stab?

[slappybrown]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

[Guinness]

So, I'm guessing the implication is that you can defend your position to doublem because you were provoked?

doublem loves to call me an absolutist. His head will explode because you essentially agreed that libertarianism is not essentially an absolutist philosophy.

So, under your view of libertarianism, then, you'd basically have laws to protect the one absolute (individual sovereignty). So, you'd presumably punish unprovoked use of force. To have any such law, I'd think you'd want a fairly specific, fixed definition of provocation. Care to give it a stab?

I would, but later - at the moment I have to run to my folks to unclog a toilet, stoke a wood stove, and visit my ailing step-father.

[Guinness]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

I can't answer those questions... I want to argue with at least half of them!

[Kraftster]

I would, but later - at the moment I have to run to my folks to unclog a toilet, stoke a wood stove, and visit my ailing step-father.

Sure, I'll look forward to it. Well wishes to your step-father.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... ity-visas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
More of the diversity / PC nuttiness that plagues our country.

[doublem]

doublem loves to call me an absolutist. His head will explode because you essentially agreed that libertarianism is not essentially an absolutist philosophy.

I call you an absolutist becasue you always claim taxation is immoral and anyone that doesn't think that would also be immoral, I assume. A philosophy in itself can't be absolutist just the people that claim to have the "answers". Religious people all over the world claim to have the answers; someone has to be wrong, could it be all of them? I think it is pretty evident that no form of government works that well, not in practice at least, plus individual sovereignty means some many different things to different people.

[shafnutz05]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."

The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.

People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected. Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted. About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

So if you buy your insurance through the new "exchange", or whatever the hell it is called, you will be punished severely for being married. Great way to endorse families, eh?

[doublem]

Great way to endorse families, eh?

Is that what is really happening here?

[shafnutz05]

Great way to endorse families, eh?

Is that what is really happening here?

Do I think that the reason for this penalty is to oppose traditional families? Of course not...but the penalty is stupid. Obama vowed to not raise taxes on middle-class families...........and then proceeds to endorse a costly healthcare bill that will raise taxes significantly on all of us, support cap and trade which will cost us extra thousands of dollars a year because the increasing energy costs will affect everything, and amnesty, which will place an even higher burden on our social programs. Another broken promise....and only one of many

[slappybrown]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

I can't answer those questions... I want to argue with at least half of them!

Oh come on G, just answer them!

[HomerPenguin]