What kind of libertarian are you?

[guitarlifter]

What I mean is, on what grounds do you found your libertarian views? The only four I could think of are as follows: utilitarianism, deontology (not through religion), ethical egoism, and theology (which could be considered a deontological approach).

Let me very briefly break down each type of libertarian. Utilitarian libertarians believe in the ultimate respect of rights because they believe it leads to the ultimate happiness. Deontoligical libertarians believe that rights occur naturally and are inalienable, and it is around this basic principle of rights to life, liberty and property that we are to act. I read an article that mentions Ayn Rand's ethical egoism as a way of justifying libertarian beliefs, but I am not 100% sure on how to describe it, so I'll merely mention it and leave the rest up to you on that one. Finally, we have theological libertarians, or those who derive their libertarian beliefs from scripture or religion.

If I missed any prominent foundations of libertarianism, then let me know. Thanks, and maybe this will show how we spread. I predict that most will choose either the deontology or theology choices, but I guess we'll see. Non-libertarians need not apply. I strongly urge anyone who votes to elaborate upon their vote especially if they choose more than one philosophy. Thanks.

[doodle]

I don't really understand meaning of first three terms. So I'll just say I'm plain libertarian on domestic policies and a non-curser libertarian on foreign policy.

[Anti Federalist]

What kind of libertarian are you?

A tired one.

God, I don't know how Ron has managed all these years.

[headhawg7]

A tired one.

God, I don't know how Ron has managed all these years.I second that!!

[Soldier of Liberty]

Self described Christian Libertarian.


SOL

[realtonygoodwin]

I am a libertarian because I am a Constitutionalist, and I believe the Constitution clearly shows we are supposed to have a libertarian form of government... I want a smaller government because I am a Christian, because I fear the day is coming when Christians will become an oppressed, persecuted, even hunted, group. However, that is not really affected by my theology, as far as I know.

In short, I don't know how to vote.

[AndrewD]

Ethical egoism. I don't know what any of 'em damn mean. But I got a few ethics, and a HUGE ego. So that about sums it up.

[Sola_Fide]

Christian libertarian.

The Bible teaches private property, free markets, private charity, sound money, war only in defense, and that we are free men in Christ and no earthly institution can lay a claim on us.

Taxes are theft. Debasement is theft. They are evil. God owns this earth, we are stewards. Governments own nothing.

The concept of nullification (interposition) comes from Calvinism...limited government in the West itself comes out of the Reformation.

My spiritual fathers are the Scottish Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Patriot Preachers of the Black Regiment, the Puritans like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry who declared, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God".

The Bible is the standard for what I believe about politics, therefore I am a libertarian.

[hugolp]

Utilitarian. Private property has shown repeteadly like the best form of social organization, far superior to anything that has been tried.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Natural Law Thomist.

http://mises.org/daily/2426

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Utilitarian. Private property has shown repeteadly like the best form of social organization, far superior to anything that has been tried.

Best for whom? That is the problem with utilitarianism, is that while 'society' would be better off in a libertarian order, some people would be worse off. It gets muddled in the greater good syndrome (This is my main fault with Mises...otherwise a genius). You reason that it is the best form of social organization because the most people are the best off.....while true, doesn't exactly persuade those who would be worse off (potentially). As always though, there is no one size fits all, so while I am a Natural Law Thomist, I still see the merit in using all argumentation to persuade someone to adapt libertarian means and ends (and insofar I believe the Natural Law rightists are a bit more fervant and passionate in their quest to restore lost liberties and freedoms.)

[iGGz]

I did eenie meenie mynie moe

[hugolp]

Best for whom? That is the problem with utilitarianism, is that while 'society' would be better off in a libertarian order, some people would be worse off. It gets muddled in the greater good syndrome (This is my main fault with Mises...otherwise a genius). You reason that it is the best form of social organization because the most people are the best off.....while true, doesn't exactly persuade those who would be worse off (potentially). As always though, there is no one size fits all, so while I am a Natural Law Thomist, I still see the merit in using all argumentation to persuade someone to adapt libertarian means and ends (and insofar I believe the Natural Law rightists are a bit more fervant and passionate in their quest to restore lost liberties and freedoms.)

I know it opens a big can of worms. But I truly believe there is no other way to prove anything.

[AlexMerced]

I would say I'm a philosophical libertarian, because while I do believe that Libertarian have Utilitarian benefits, there are cases where it won't in the short term while it will in the long term (for example roads, it would probably take longer for coordination to occur naturally, but in the long term it'd be more dynamic and sustainable)

Although Utility isn't a sufficient reason, cause Utilitarianism can be used to justify some horrible stuff, although here are couple of ther reason Libertarianism works for me...

- The Pretense of Knowledge - While Hayek wasn't quite Libertarian himself, he was dead on that it is impossible and pretentious to believe we can gather and even process enough information to accurately plan society so thus it makes sense to leave to individuals to solve simple problems and for emergent orders to solve larger problems that make up the overly abstract and complex macro problems.

- Self-Actualization - Hegelian philosophy is a lot about conflict and change, and I believe that by serving the state, a state/society conflict will arise that will cause society to finally break from the state and be independant (kinda like when a child becomes an adult and is self actualized, a very hegelian relationship) so Libertarianism philosophically is society becoming self-actualized.

- Creativity - Innovation and Creativity I do believe is a driver of human progress, and free society where barriers philosophically and legally are minimal leads to less social barriers of the mind allowing for creativity (See Creatarianism at Creatarian.com)

- Diversity - Like evolution with species, improvements come from having a diverse array of possibilities and seeing which ones stand the test of time and adapt to changing environments. Only in a libertarian environment is diverse arrangements allowed to truly allow institutions to develop and advance. (See Diversatarianism at Diversatarian.com)

[pcosmar]

What I mean is, on what grounds do you found your libertarian views?

Enlightened Self Interest and Common Sense.

[stuntman stoll]

I picked theology (I'm a christian, and you can't be a follower of Jesus' teachings without being a volentaryist) but on second thought it should be all of the above. That's the beauty of libertarianism; with using logic, you will come to the right conclusion no matter what your objective.

[Xenophage]

Ethical Egoist. Objectivism ftw.

[Xenophage]

It's always heartening to see so many people embrace liberty from different philosophical origins. I'm beyond passionate about freedom, and I'd like to see it achieved within my lifetime!

[pcosmar]

I know it opens a big can of worms. But I truly believe there is no other way to prove anything.

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad99/jonjan1/can-o-worms.gif

I had never really defined it before I came here and found there was a name for it.

It comes down to Liberty, for whatever reasons one might have for embracing it.

I really don't get into the purity tests. Seems like "I love Liberty more than you Cuz"

Phfft !

[Philhelm]

A tired one.

God, I don't know how Ron has managed all these years.

I was going to say an angry one, but your answer works too.

[CaptUSA]

I said other. My beliefs are based upon individualism and naturalism.

I do recognize the others in my belief system, but they act as supporting agents instead of forming agents. Being an individualist and naturalist, I also understand why libertarianism will also suit utilitarianism and deontology. Ethical egoism is not the same as individualism. While many individuals may choose that path, it's not necessary.

All of this may constitute a sort of theology, but not in the terms usually understood.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ethical egoism. I don't know what any of 'em damn mean. But I got a few ethics, and a HUGE ego. So that about sums it up.

Are you really Mark Levin or Sean Hannity? ;)

[guitarlifter]

Wow, a huge spread. I'm surprised by that. I'm too lazy to go back to the first page to see if I explained my position (and I'm pretty sure I didn't), but I'm right along with Aqua Buddha on this one. I have read scripture and determined that scripture speaks of a libertarian society where all interactions are voluntary and any state makes no claim over us.

Aqua Buddha, I am unsure of the concept of "resisting tyrants" as "being obedient to God." I've seen scripture that tells us to walk that extra mile with the Roman soldier and to pay the tax anyway so as to not offend them. The basic principle behind this is to submit to governing authorities not because they are right, but because it would be dangerous for you not to as though God were giving you advice for how to deal with a robber. I am aware that Jesus often acted out of subtle sedition. Are we to oppose and even rightfully dethrone tyrants in the name of God? How far are we allowed to/should we act in the name of God in regards to tyrants? Should we not pay taxes? Should we not follow coercive laws such as drug laws, traffic laws, laws on requiring insurance, etc?

[White Bear Lake]

I choose Deontology simply because none of the other three applied to me. I don't like utilitarianism, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand (although I did enjoy reading Atlas Shrugged and Anthem), and while I'm Catholic, I don't base my politics off of my religion.

I think Bastiat's The Law is the best base for Libertarianism and I think that falls under Deontology. I'm a huge fan of the anti-federalist papers as well.

[Teaser Rate]

Utilitarian. Private property has shown repeteadly like the best form of social organization, far superior to anything that has been tried.

Do you support government intervention to correct clear cases of market failure?

[hugolp]

Do you support government intervention to correct clear cases of market failure?

So-called market failure does not exists.

[MelissaWV]

A tired one.

God, I don't know how Ron has managed all these years.

Wow you're a glorious beacon of light :eek:

But yeah, I agree with you.

* * *

As for me I am the sort that doesn't take these sorts of polls.

[Teaser Rate]

So-called market failure does not exists.

That point of view doesn't seem compatible with a utilitarian stance.

Let me rephrase the question, if I could demonstrate a case of market failure and show a government solution which has a net benefit on society, would you support it?


E.g. If the price of buying everyone free flu shots was lower than the costs saved by not having as many sick people around, would you support a government subsidy?

[pcosmar]

That point of view doesn't seem compatible with a utilitarian stance.

Let me rephrase the question, if I could demonstrate a case of market failure and show a government solution which has a net benefit on society, would you support it?


E.g. If the price of buying everyone free flu shots was lower than the costs saved by not having as many sick people around, would you support a government subsidy?
:confused:
That makes absolutely no sense at all, and assumes several fallacies.
Sounds like some socialist twisted alternate reality.

[Teaser Rate]

:confused:
That makes absolutely no sense at all, and assumes several fallacies.
Sounds like some socialist twisted alternate reality.

I'll try to re-phrase my question, maybe I didn't word it the best way the first time around.

The flu season puts large monetary costs on any society, such as healthcare costs, missed workdays, lower efficiency, etc.

If the positive economic effect of giving everyone a free flu shot outweighs the costs of that subsidy, wouldn't a utilitarian support it?

i.e. If a vaccine subsidy which costs $400 million ends up saving $800 million's worth of medical and sick leave costs, then it's a good program.

[pcosmar]

I'll try to re-phrase my question, maybe I didn't word it the best way the first time around.

The flu season puts large monetary costs on any society, such as healthcare costs, missed workdays, lower efficiency, etc.

If the positive economic effect of giving everyone a free flu shot outweighs the costs of that subsidy, wouldn't a utilitarian support it?

i.e. If a vaccine subsidy which costs $400 million ends up saving $800 million's worth of medical and sick leave costs, then it's a good program.

I reject that premise on it's face.
Flu vaccines cause more sickness that the flu does on it's own.

I believe that there would be more effective remedies if the government imposed monopolies were not in place.
And if employers are losing money due to the flu, it would be up to those employers to provide a remedy
Not the Government..

[olehounddog]

I don't take flu shots. I don't want to pay for somebody else to get a flu shot. They cannot be free.

[MelissaWV]

I reject that premise on it's face.
Flu vaccines cause more sickness that the flu does on it's own.

I believe that there would be more effective remedies if the government imposed monopolies were not in place.
And if employers are losing money due to the flu, it would be up to those employers to provide a remedy
Not the Government..

Many employers offer vouchers for their employees to get flu shots. At my main job, which is populated largely by nurses, someone comes in and gives them up in the conference room. This is important because these nurses go out in the field and see all kinds of really sick folks, and they believe it prudent to vaccinate against any strains of the flu they can. The employer also doesn't force its employees to get shots.

This, to me, is the way it should be done. If it's really important for you to have a flu shot, they'll take care of it. If you're a construction worker or a telemarketer or a lawyer, you'd likely have to finance it yourself and deal with the "sick day" issue on your own.

The "it costs businesses" argument is silly. All kinds of things cost businesses money. Colds, which cannot be cured or properly averted with any real regularity by many people, cost sick days. Allergies cost sick days. Children cause sick days. Food poisoning costs sick days. Using the other poster's logic, food regulation (think on the level of not being able to buy raw meat anymore, because some people cross-contaminate and others eat it undercooked) is a glorious thing. Most employers factor a certain amount of absences into their budgets and scheduling.

Flu shots are not free. Someone always pays.

[Mini-Me]

That point of view doesn't seem compatible with a utilitarian stance.

Let me rephrase the question, if I could demonstrate a case of market failure and show a government solution which has a net benefit on society, would you support it?
You weren't asking me, but personally, I would rather just trace the "market failure" back to the government policy that actually caused it. ;)



E.g. If the price of buying everyone free flu shots was lower than the costs saved by not having as many sick people around, would you support a government subsidy?
No, because you're considering only short-term costs with a complete disregard for externalities such as the corporate welfare it would entail, the subversion of the market, and the resulting domino effect that creates side effects worse than the problem you're trying to solve. Here is a rule of thumb: If you ever find yourself believing in any government intervention whatsoever, you've probably left a whole bunch of important variables out of your utility measurement. ;) Remember: Believing in government intervention isn't just about believing it's the best course of action. That's not sufficient; to believe in government intervention, you must necessarily believe so strongly (so arrogantly) that it's the right course of action that the minority opinion should be disregarded, and even people who disagree should be forced to pay for both the execution of the plan and for the consequences.

This topic is always ironic to me: I believe in deontological ethics, self-ownership, etc. partially because they appear self-evident to me, but also because they're a far better utilitarian choice than utilitarianism: Building law around strict deontological ethics is the best (only) way to have a remotely sane economy or governance. Out of all the laws that are nearly universal among societies (laws against murder, theft, etc.), how many are NOT supported by the most fundamental of deontological ethics? It is no coincidence, because these are the only kinds of laws that we'll ever get a reasonable consensus on (e.g. 95%+ agreement). They form the bedrock of all societies, in a way that Medicare, Social Security, and "free" vaccines do not. Utilitarian laws are basically about finding excuses to make exceptions to these fundamental laws (and let government carry out the dirty work), and we will never, ever reach consensus on such exceptions.

There are certain academic hypothetical corner cases that deontological ethics fail at and utilitarian ethics excel at, because utilitarianism offers an infinite number of degrees of freedom (with no need for consistency), complete malleability to adapt to context, and nearly complete subjectivism in measuring utility...but while these are strengths in the context of a single example, they create a complete train wreck when people try to use utilitarianism as the basis for broad-based law. Once you start compromising on principles, all of the "wiggle room" creates boundless discord and endless power struggles in society. The reason people are passionate about politics is because deep down, everyone understands that politics and government are about people struggling to use force against each other to pursue their goals. Not everyone shares the same goals, and even the ones who do will not always judge the utility of different approaches the same way. Some of us have access to more or different information than others, which we use to measure utility. Some of us consider utility more subjectively (how will an action affect me?), and others try to subjectively arrive at some kind of objective measurement. ;) It is rare for any kind of utilitarian consensus to extend beyond 60% or 70% of the population, yet somehow we are supposed to accept laws based upon it? Considering how difficult it is to properly measure utility, it is beyond me how so many have the complete and utter arrogance to force their decisions on everyone else.

In any case, the vast majority of people are incredibly narrow and shallow in their analysis of complex phenomena, and they cannot follow (let alone foresee) a chain of consequences that extends more than a few inches in front of their faces. That is why almost everyone seeks to intervene in the market in ham-fisted ways...like your vaccination example. It comes down to personality types, and unless you have a personality well-suited for logically understanding the cause-and-effect workings of complex systems - which most people don't (thankfully this forum has a good number of INTP's and INTJ's ;)) - you're going to be a horrible judge of utility in the context of government policy and economics. Utilitarianism fails as a basis for law, because it relies on the lawmakers to actually be competent judges of utility. Such a notion is ridiculous on its face, and that's before even considering the effects of corruption, moral hazard, and emotional manipulation on their decision-making faculties.

So, basically...I reject utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds.

[Teaser Rate]

I reject that premise on it's face.
Flu vaccines cause more sickness that the flu does on it's own.

Around 36,000 people in the US die from the flu each year.

How many die from vaccines? (Please cite your source)


I believe that there would be more effective remedies if the government imposed monopolies were not in place.
And if employers are losing money due to the flu, it would be up to those employers to provide a remedy
Not the Government..

Vaccination is a case of market failure because the collective benefits of vaccination cannot be captured by an individual's cost of getting vaccinated. In other words, it might not be worth it for one individual (or company) to pay $50 for a vaccine because the cost isn’t worth the reduction in risk, but it might be worth it for a government to spend $500 million to buy vaccines for everyone to gain herd immunity.

[MelissaWV]

Around 36,000 people in the US die from the flu each year.

How many die from vaccines? (Please cite your source)
...

It's fascinating that people bring up this false choice.

Those people die from the flu... and some have been vaccinated. Isn't that strange? All of the nursing homes around here vaccinate every single person living there AND all of the workers, yet some old folks die from flu complications every year. How odd!

The reason is you are being vaccinated against the last known flu strains. New ones are not included. You are not getting a blanket innoculation against all influenza. You are getting a shot against some versions of it.

Now, let's go a step further.

Those old strains that are dying off because they don't find suitable hosts? Those are "tame" in comparison with the new ones that come out, fast and furious and ready to kill. Vaccines, like overuse of antibiotics and other such medical miracles, tend to weed out the tamer diseases and leave us festering in a swamp of superbugs.

Beyond that, the flu vaccine (and some other vaccines) have the effect of making some people ill. This illness can rarely complicate into other things, such as pneumonia. You said "how many die from vaccines" so I'm guessing you're talking about the benefits of vaccines in general. You might want to read up on the unintended consequences associated with various kinds of vaccines, and I'm not even talking alleged autism connections.

There is no herd immunity to "the flu" to be gained. There are also not infinite suppliers of the vaccine, which is why you hear of a shortage every year. There is not enough of the vaccine for everyone, so your logic fails.

[gb13]

This thread is missing a lot of options:

Minarchism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Georgist Libertarianism
Libertarian Constitutionalism
Classical Liberalism

I chose "other" in your poll. I'm more of a Minarchist/Classical Liberal....perhaps with a touch of Georgism, insofar as one of the only types of taxes I can somewhat get on board with is a LOCAL tax on land property to fund municipal services. This would obviously vary by municipality, with perhaps some localities providing many social services (necessitating higher taxes) and some taking a more anarcho-capitalist approach (reducing or eliminating taxes). As long as it's as local as possible, I feel communities should be able to make their own rules. This would allow individuals, families, and businesses -without having to travel very far- to move to locations that approach their personal preferences and core-values.

[Teaser Rate]

You weren't asking me, but personally, I would rather just trace the "market failure" back to the government policy that actually caused it. ;)

Mind if I ask you what government policies cause overfishing, pollution, global climate change and intellectual property violation?


No, because you're considering only short-term costs with a complete disregard for externalities such as the corporate welfare it would entail, the subversion of the market, and the resulting domino effect that creates side effects worse than the problem you're trying to solve.

This topic is always ironic to me: I believe in deontological ethics, self-ownership, etc. partially because they appear self-evident to me, but also because they're a far better utilitarian choice than utilitarianism: Building law around strict deontological ethics is the best (only) way to have a remotely sane economy or governance. Out of all the laws that are nearly universal among societies (laws against murder, theft, etc.), how many are NOT supported by the most fundamental of deontological ethics? It is no coincidence, because these are the only kinds of laws that we'll ever get a reasonable consensus on (e.g. 95%+ agreement). They form the bedrock of all societies, in a way that Medicare, Social Security, and "free" vaccines do not. Utilitarian laws are basically about finding excuses to make exceptions to these fundamental laws (and let government carry out the dirty work), and we will never, ever reach consensus on such exceptions.

There are certain academic hypothetical corner cases that deontological ethics fail at and utilitarian ethics excel at, because utilitarianism offers an infinite number of degrees of freedom (with no need for consistency), complete malleability to adapt to context, and nearly complete subjectivism in measuring utility...but while these are strengths in the context of a single example, they create a complete train wreck when people try to use utilitarianism as the basis for broad-based law. Once you start compromising on principles, all of the "wiggle room" creates boundless discord and endless power struggles in society. The reason people are passionate about politics is because deep down, everyone understands that politics and government are about people struggling to use force against each other to pursue their goals. Not everyone shares the same goals, and even the ones who do will not always judge the utility of different approaches the same way. Some of us have access to more or different information than others, which we use to measure utility. Some of us consider utility more subjectively (how will an action affect me?), and others try to subjectively arrive at some kind of objective measurement. ;) It is rare for any kind of utilitarian consensus to extend beyond 60% or 70% of the population, yet somehow we are supposed to accept laws based upon it?

In any case, the vast majority of people are incredibly narrow and shallow in their analysis of complex phenomena, and they cannot follow (let alone foresee) a chain of consequences that extends more than a few inches in front of their faces. That is why almost everyone seeks to intervene in the market in ham-fisted ways...like your vaccination example. It comes down to personality types, and unless you have a personality well-suited for logically understanding the cause-and-effect workings of complex systems - which most people don't (thankfully this forum has a good number of INTP's and INTJ's ;)) - you're going to be a horrible judge of utility in the context of government policy and economics. Utilitarianism fails as a basis for law, because it relies on the lawmakers to actually be competent judges of utility. Such a notion is ridiculous on its face, and that's before even considering the effects of corruption and moral hazard on their decision-making faculties.

So, basically...I reject utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds.

I think you're making a very interesting argument about the limitations of government. However, I'm skeptical that your rejection of most government policies is based purely on utilitarian grounds. i.e. If I were to propose a new government vaccine program, I doubt there could ever be enough evidence to convince you that it would have a positive effect on society due to your natural biases. If I were to say something like France has this program which saves 5% of their healthcare costs every year, I think your first reaction would be where can I find the flaw in that argument?

Utilitarianism is a flawed concept because we are first and foremost emotional, not rational creatures, and we usually begin our search for evidence to support our conclusions and not the other way around. However, I don't think that problem is impossible to overcome if we work hard enough to limit the effect of confirmation bias. We've all changed our minds on certain topics, and as long as we stay away from dogmatic thinking such as "tax cuts are theft" or "taxation is theft" better policies will eventually become more clear to more people over time. It took us a long while to get away from slavery, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'll take painfully slow improvements towards better policies over the alternative of not even trying.

[cdc482]

humanitarian

[Teaser Rate]

It's fascinating that people bring up this false choice.

Those people die from the flu... and some have been vaccinated. Isn't that strange? All of the nursing homes around here vaccinate every single person living there AND all of the workers, yet some old folks die from flu complications every year. How odd!

The reason is you are being vaccinated against the last known flu strains. New ones are not included. You are not getting a blanket innoculation against all influenza. You are getting a shot against some versions of it.

Now, let's go a step further.

Those old strains that are dying off because they don't find suitable hosts? Those are "tame" in comparison with the new ones that come out, fast and furious and ready to kill. Vaccines, like overuse of antibiotics and other such medical miracles, tend to weed out the tamer diseases and leave us festering in a swamp of superbugs.

Beyond that, the flu vaccine (and some other vaccines) have the effect of making some people ill. This illness can rarely complicate into other things, such as pneumonia. You said "how many die from vaccines" so I'm guessing you're talking about the benefits of vaccines in general. You might want to read up on the unintended consequences associated with various kinds of vaccines, and I'm not even talking alleged autism connections.

There is no herd immunity to "the flu" to be gained. There are also not infinite suppliers of the vaccine, which is why you hear of a shortage every year. There is not enough of the vaccine for everyone, so your logic fails.

1. I was replying to a post which made the outrageous claim that vaccines do more harm than the flu.

2. "Vaccines, like overuse of antibiotics and other such medical miracles, tend to weed out the tamer diseases and leave us festering in a swamp of superbugs. " -- Do you mind providing a source to back that claim up?

3. The rest of your post about the specifics of flu vaccination is nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you'd like, you can replace flu with a different illness or change the concept of vaccination altogether. The topic at hand is about pragmatism vs idealism, not vaccination.

[Mini-Me]

Mind if I ask you what government policies cause overfishing, pollution, global climate change and intellectual property violation?
Overfishing? Public property and tragedy of the commons.

Pollution? Public property, government itself (government is the biggest polluter), depleted uranium, regulations that set "acceptable" limits regardless of damage to properties or health, and the abject corruption and lack of accountability for "big dogs" that goes hand-in-hand with the centralization of power.

Global climate change? This isn't the government's fault, but neither is it a market failure. The sun is the driving factor, as it has been for billions of years. You do know that Greenland used to be green, right? The Vikings wrote about the new ice caps in their records. We've found old Viking settlements under melted glaciers, old mature forests, and silver mines with tools left there, like miners left when winter came suddenly and expected to return later...but never could. The subject is far too big to cover in a footnote on a post about utilitarianism and limited government, but this is one of my favorite quotes on the issue:


To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

Intellectual property? I think you might want to ask someone who actually believes in "intellectual property." I used to believe in copyright and patents, but I've never bought into "intellectual property," a term coined by powerful copyright lobbies in recent decades to conflate copyright, patents, and trademarks and cover up the true history and purpose behind the former two. I'll tell you something though: Government sure isn't setting any limitations on itself or sparing any efforts in its fight against "piracy." YARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!


I think you're making a very interesting argument about the limitations of government. However, I'm skeptical that your rejection of most government policies is based purely on utilitarian grounds. i.e. If I were to propose a new government vaccine program, I doubt there could ever be enough evidence to convince you that it would have a positive effect on society due to your natural biases. If I were to say something like France has this program which saves 5% of their healthcare costs every year, I think your first reaction would be where can I find the flaw in that argument?
Absolutely, it would be. I edited my above post after you read it, but I'll copy something here which I think might help you see where I'm coming from on this:
Believing in government intervention isn't just about believing it's the best course of action. That's not sufficient; to believe in government intervention, you must necessarily believe so strongly (so arrogantly) that it's the right course of action that the minority opinion should be disregarded, and even people who disagree should be forced to pay for both the execution of the plan and for the consequences.

Whenever I hear about an attempt at government intervention, I run it through my mental model of the economy, and I generally come up with a laundry list of unintended side consequences or even ways that the policy will backfire and make the targeted problem worse. Every once in a while, a non-precedent-setting interventionary measure arises where I wonder, "Could this really be that bad?" There are certain programs, like the Interstate highway program, that actually turned out very well, but every action comes with its opportunity costs, and I always wonder what other solutions might have emerged. For instance, in the case of rural electrification, forgoing that would have accelerated the adoption of decentralized power like solar power, energy independence, etc. At the most, I can concede that the government has done a decent job on a few things, but I can also envision ways the same problems could have been solved without government. For every program I consider "a wash," there are too many abysmal failures to count.

With the government's track record, the obvious reality of the slippery slope*, and the debatability of even the most innocuous-sounding interventions, I could almost never in good conscience say, "Do this, and coerce everyone else to pay for it, and make everyone else suffer the consequences if I'm wrong." The cost of being wrong is too high (and others will pay it), and the likelihood of being wrong is similarly too high. To me, having that kind of confidence is unreasonable, dangerous, and...extreme. Whereas most would consider me an "extreme libertarian," I consider libertarianism the epitome of moderation, whereas the use of force is the true mark of extremism (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0890b.asp).

To me, only the most dire of situations could possibly be so important as to justify systematically steamrolling over the free will of others in this way. For instance, if I thought we were facing some genuine extinction-level threat, I'd do what I had to do, and to hell with principles...but that's a big if, and "global warming" doesn't qualify. ;) However, if I found out some crazy asshole next-door had a nuke, I would absolutely consider it a gun pointed at my head and act as almost anyone else would in such a situation. Another libertarian once called me a tyrant for that, so I guess I'm not THAT overly principled. It's just that in the vast majority of situations, I find sticking to principles to be far more...pragmatic. :p

* Many dismiss slippery slope arguments, but gradualism has brought us farther down it every year. It's just easier to notice the pattern once we've already gone way farther down it than you personally want to be. The question, "When will enough be enough?" is less about, "Things could be bad someday," and more about, "We've already slid past what I'm comfortable with, and I see continued movement toward the centralization of power. What makes you think you can stop the momentum once things get to your personal limits?"


Utilitarianism is a flawed concept because we are first and foremost emotional, not rational creatures, and we usually begin our search for evidence to support our conclusions and not the other way around. However, I don't think that problem is impossible to overcome if we work hard enough to limit the effect of confirmation bias. We've all changed our minds on certain topics, and as long as we stay away from dogmatic thinking such as "tax cuts are theft" or "taxation is theft" better policies will eventually become more clear to more people over time. It took us a long while to get away from slavery, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'll take painfully slow improvements towards better policies over the alternative of not even trying.

What you call dogma, I call principle and moral foundation, without which all hell breaks loose. ;) Even in the absence of emotion, utilitarianism still has to contend with limited brainpower, an overwhelming number of utility-affecting variables, and an overwhelming amount of information floating around, of which any one person is only aware of a small portion. I know where you're coming from, because I used to think the same way. I even used to believe in universal healthcare and higher education, believe it or not...and before that, I believed in the Iraq War. I've just come to the conclusion (aside from believing that using force is too arrogant) that all of these attempts at "improvement" are only doing harm. They're essentially attempts at someone else's idea of perfection or utopia, whereas cutting our losses and sticking to reasonable laws that everyone can agree on would result in a much saner, more harmonious, more prosperous world.

[Verrater]

This is a very complicated question for me.

I'm a mix between consequentialist and deontologist.
Friedman usually used these as the two main branches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl_qwo2VIlU

I do believe that the consequentialist and deontologist arguments are complimentary rather than contradictory. However, I must detract from the utilitarian view that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Meaning, I can not see justification in an action purely because of its outcome. I can see moral worth in action that has no positive outcome. Liberty or death. It gets very scary when you start talking about the "greater good" of an action and ideals are very important to me.

[Conza88]

Deontological would be closest. However, argumentation ethics is where it's really at.

Utilitarianism? - Wrong.



"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome.

A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - Hans Hermann Hoppe, Economics and Ethics of Private Property, pg 354.

Theology? - Wrong. Regarding Natural law, the question of whether God enacted those laws or not, is completely irrelevant to political philosophy (i.e Libertarianism).

;)

[pcosmar]

What kind of libertarian are you?

One that appreciates and wishes for Liberty.

so, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[hugolp]

I'll try to re-phrase my question, maybe I didn't word it the best way the first time around.

The flu season puts large monetary costs on any society, such as healthcare costs, missed workdays, lower efficiency, etc.

If the positive economic effect of giving everyone a free flu shot outweighs the costs of that subsidy, wouldn't a utilitarian support it?

i.e. If a vaccine subsidy which costs $400 million ends up saving $800 million's worth of medical and sick leave costs, then it's a good program.

How could you prove such a thing? How can you prove that it does not exists a voluntary solution that works well and does not create an authoritarian system that will create a bunch of problems ahead?

[ChaosControl]

Deontological.