Libertarianism?

Good   3 votes - 60 %
Bad   1 vote - 20 %
-   0 votes - 0 %
Internally consistent   2 votes - 40 %
Internally inconsistent   3 votes - 60 %
 
5 Total Votes
Planning to have a crack at Nozick? by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:16:31 AM EST
Anarchy, State, Utopia?

I thought your review of Rawls was a bit harsh bit didn't have my thoughts together enough. I don't even remember the bit on states of exception from A Theory of Justice.

Iambic Web Certified

Probably not by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:39:13 AM EST
Feeling distinctly lacking in energy for another long, complicated read. Will get even harder when I start the new job soon.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Nozick isn't all that complicated by lm (4.00 / 1) #6 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:46:42 PM EST
And, from what I recall from my reading of it several years ago, he brings up some of the same problems with Rothbard's scheme, which he refers to as the ultra-minimalist state, that you do.

But certainly it does take time. As a new parent, your time is a precious commodity and one that is going to be stretched overly thin now that you're starting a new position and have to tackle some new technologies.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Oh well by Scrymarch (4.00 / 2) #14 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 10:09:36 AM EST
There's certainly no shortage of problems by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #17 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 11:46:37 AM EST
With utilitarianism.

But as a theory, capitalism is definitely deeply bound up with utilitarianism; both in its Enlightenment origins, and its moral justification as a way of maximizing the satisfaction of preferences. Trying to reformulate capitalism as a theory of natural rights instead is very difficult and tends to leave you with something completely incoherent. The main advantages of doing so seem to be that it gives you an excuse to object to taxes and incovenient laws and get on your high horse about "rights" while doing so.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
True enough by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #27 Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:51:13 AM EST
It's also interesting that Rawls, who had one of the better alternatives, basically proposed a different utility function. The idea that you had to think about society as a whole in very material terms was established very firmly already, and was one of the more radical aspects, as I understand it.

I suspect non-consequentialists like libertarians are better off arguing a Rawlsian veil of ignorance means we should choose some sort of minarchist or anarcho-capitalist state. Ie accept Rawls argument structure but not his premises. In fact I vaguely recall people doing, but I'm not really up on the latest hip anarcho-capitalist trends, especially since Reason mag and Cato got more tedious and doctrinaire under the Koch brothers ownership. Or maybe I just started seeing through their shtick more.

Hayek and von Mises would be other libertarian intellectual usual suspects. One day I'll read The Road to Serfdom instead of the PJ O'Rourke cliff notes. Of course by most strict libertarian definitions they are merely austere liberals. Funding public education! The gall.

Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
BHX... by ana (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:19:39 AM EST
Yikes. I remember one landing at Manchester, NH in a crosswind in winter. It was bumpy enough that the passengers gave the cabin crew an ovation after we rolled out.  

I now know what the noise that is usually spelled "lolwhut" sounds like. --Kellnerin

It's obvious. by gmd (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:11:27 PM EST
Why is it coercive when a state says "pay taxes, follow laws or leave", when it's non-coercive for a corporation to say "pay fees, follow rules or leave"? 

Because one is voulantry, the other is typically backed up by threats of violence, imprisonment etc. e.g Council Tax.
Interestingly the "freeman" movement is challenging the council tax by invoking common law, and not without some success.

it's all about the "consent of the governed"...


--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
I can't make heads or tails of that response by lm (4.00 / 5) #10 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 12:53:25 AM EST
A private entity owns a plot of land. This entity rents space to individuals who sign a private contract and if they violate that contract are punished or evicted using threats of violence according to the terms of the contact.

A state controls a section of land. The state allows individuals who accept the social contract to reside there if those individuals violate the contract, they are punished or evicted using threats of violence according to the terms of the social contract.

In both cases, barring places like North Korea, individuals who do not like the contract can more out. Wherein lies the difference?


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Re whistleblowing on a bank by gmd (4.00 / 1) #5 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:10:05 PM EST
Remember you are fucking with some serious reptillian illuminati shit. Think VERY carefully before you take this course of action.

I'll wager that JP has some sort of anti-retaliation policy in place to protect whistleblowers. That is not worth the paper it's written on once the private investigators start stalking you.


--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
whistleblowing on anybody by garlic (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 12:43:38 PM EST
is like proving to your current and future employers that you're a turncoat. Doing the right thing is probably going to hurt you a lot, and often times more than it hurts them.


[ Parent ]
"Working the land" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #7 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:07:16 PM EST
There are always implicit assumptions about what "working the land" means.  Someone (usually a white guy) is "working the land" because he fenced something off and started growing crops, but the dark skinned guy he drove off, who was harvesting the wildlife for meat and furs wasn't "using the land".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
Microsoft by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #8 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:13:19 PM EST
This line jumped out at me:

"I think the problem with Windows 8 all along has been that nothing about it was driven by user need,"

That is also the reason the XBox One is struggling compared to my own company's product.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

wow by dev trash (4.00 / 1) #9 Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:24:15 PM EST
A merchants association could get together, require its members to pay a fee and keep the streets clean and safe.  You could call this association, I dunno, a city perhaps?

--
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BALLS! ->clock
Maybe by lm (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 12:56:41 AM EST
One big difference is implied (vs explicit) agreement to the contract.

Another big difference is a city providing necessary services (e.g. police) even if an entity (individual or corporate) declines to pay taxes whereas a contractual association would decline to provide services if an individual declined to pay dues.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
what if "clean and safe" by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:54:56 PM EST
requires the non-consensual removal of undesirables? Oddly, the first thing that popped to mind was the reputation of safety [for whites, not sure about others] in Baltimore's Little Italy:(deep in the city, back long before the Inner Harbor became a tourist attraction). The Mob always seemed to be the type of government Libertarians idealize, so maybe it is.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
The mob may not be a great example by lm (4.00 / 2) #24 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 10:55:25 PM EST
Protection rackets, as one example, frequently use force to convince folks to pay up whether they would like to or not.

Anyway, there is the free rider problem. If police services were entirely a private affair, many people would move into a well policed area and not pay for police services. Eventually, the number of non-policed homes would grow and make burglary an attractive proposition because there are decent odds that one would be breaking into a non-policed house. Signs indicating police contracts would become meaningless because many people would put fake signs up to fool would be burglars.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
True, but by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #26 Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:52:51 PM EST
I never really thought a "protection racket" protected you from anybody other than the mob (and was deeply suspect of the "Myth Adventure" book that was based on such an assumption). Not sure if it was the Mob proper (and providing full service for their cut), people reading in too much into a community watch (known for brandishing machine guns during riots), or simply the mob deciding that they would be the only operating criminals in their community (completely aside from protection).

I just lived in the burbs and heard that the small area in what would be later seen as "The Wire"land was considered "safe".

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
baby steps. by dev trash (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 10:28:52 PM EST
I'm sure the first governments of the world didn't just poof into existence.

--
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BALLS! ->clock
[ Parent ]
A brave and open-minded reader, as always by johnny (4.00 / 4) #12 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 06:38:22 AM EST
At first I wondered why a sophisticated and schooled thinker as yourself would bother reading a book on Libertarian magical thinking theory. I certainly never would.

But as I read your review I felt a growing sense of gratitude, because it is, in a way, rank prejudice to dismiss Libertarian magical thinking theory as flat-earth, the-moon-is-made-of-green-cheese nonsense without having read their #1 thinker. So now you've given it a careful reading and have reported back to us that it is, in fact, nothing but magical thinking all the way down as we long suspected. And for this, I thank you.

She has effectively checked out. She's an un-person of her own making. So it falls to me.--ad hoc (in the hole)

Coercivist n/t by gmd (4.00 / 3) #13 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:25:36 AM EST
 

--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Theophile reads these things so we don't have to by priestess (4.00 / 3) #15 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 11:18:12 AM EST
Seems to me the biggest difference between a libertarian state and a proper one is essentially democratic control.

In one votes get some say, in the other it's money all the way.

Pre.........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Voting is a pointless waste of time and energy. by gmd (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri May 02, 2014 at 05:05:02 PM EST
In the UK you have the Pro-EU, Pro War, Pro Big Business Tories,  the Pro-EU, Pro War, Pro Big Business Labour party and the the Pro-EU, Pro War, Pro Big Business Lib Dems. Oh and the Swivel Eyed Loon party (UKIP).

Do you really think that Democracy deserves the semi-sacred status afforded it?


--
gmd - HuSi's second most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Windows 8 by priestess (4.00 / 1) #16 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 11:20:50 AM EST
I've used Windows 8 for all of two minutes. Didn't like it much. It's so bad it's driven even my parents into Apple's hands.

Mind you, Gnome was getting silly too. I seem to have switched to using XFCE when I upgraded to Jessie, coz Gnome just gets more slow and horrible each release. It's like going back in time to when computers weren't so horrible to use and when they were actually fast and responsive.

Which is good.

So maybe everything in computer UI since the naughties was a mistake.

Pre.......
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

crazy talk by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #19 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:17:00 PM EST
> Issues like pollution are to be solved by lawsuits where everybody sues the polluter.

This will not work.

The problem is that you cannot establish with sufficient specificity that whatever harm was caused by $pollution is traceable to that particular polluter. Because there's more than one, especially when it comes to air pollution, so you can't establish that any individual source is either necessary OR sufficient to cause your injury.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

you're spending time with the an-caps? by gzt (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:51:29 PM EST
they're intellectually vapid. Rothbard is just a race-baiting kook.

the only person with any kind of respectable intellectual pedigree barking anywhere near them in Nozick. and he doesn't like them.

Nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free. by ana (4.00 / 2) #21 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 06:09:46 PM EST
 Which reminds me of the time, while in college, that I was working at a fast food joint. I went out to sweep up the trash in the parking lot, and found a business card sized piece of paper. It had the name and address of a campground a state away (roughly a day's drive), a bunch of stars around the edge, and the inscription
THIS IS A FREE TICKET
not good for anything; it's just free
 
 

I now know what the noise that is usually spelled "lolwhut" sounds like. --Kellnerin

This is great. by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #25 Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 11:05:26 PM EST


Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
Fascinating. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #28 Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:22:32 PM EST
I did not realize how little I knew about the placenta until today. Thank you.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger