Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[civver_764]

Well if that is what he is saying then he is also saying that capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

Probably because he's a socialist.

 

[Cutlass]

It's easy to say they aren't making the arguments when you won't listen.

The problem is that the arguments are never supported. It goes like this: "It would work because of X." "But X doesn't work, so then what?" And nothing follows. So either a person simply accepts X as true, or they have no reason to assume that the arguments have a legitimate foundation.

That's actually the point. Remove power from the state, and the state has less power to serve the interest of those seeking to use it for their own purposes. That includes all business, labor and religious interest.

Doesn't work. What you are referring to is Public Choice Theory. The idea that all of what the government does is to serve special interests. But the reality is that massive amounts of what the government does does not serve special interests. Or, at least that is true in all the nations that have a legitimate democracy. The nations where it is true tend to not have any more than the outward trappings of democracy.

The whole reason all the Republican candidates are still talking about deregulation is that the government is not yet exclusively serving special interests, and they are trying to change that. And yes, that does in fact include Ron Paul.

Paul, being the ultimate deregulator, it the ultimate servant of special interests at the expense of the public interest.

And that is the core of the problem with the Public Choice Theory. Public Choice says that government is serving special interests, so the alternative is to give special interests a complete and total victory. Rather than have government corrupted to special interests, government should just capitulate to special interests.

Why would it devolve into that?.

Why wouldn't it? Some libertarians assume that you give people power over others, they will abuse it. But oddly those same people assume that that only applies to the government. Except that it doesn't. The private sector has always acted like that. And so there is no believable reason that they would not act like that in the future.

Why? 1) It's profit maximizing. 2) When people have unchecked power they tend to abuse it.

Also, private police are no worse than public police. When cities, in the U.S. anyway, first formed police forces, despite the existence of the voluntary ones, they were used mainly to serve the interest of the corrupt. Rarely, did they effectively combat crime. And I would argue, not much has changed to justify the existence of them.

That assumes you can afford the private police and they don't just work for the people who want to screw you over.

Outside, of private-certification/regulation and consumer response, not really much of anything. I'm not going to pretend that there will be no bad side effects of removing state-regulation from the markets. While I am a libertarian, I'm not an Austrian, and therefore do not believe that removing the state will cause the market to gain magical super powers.

And if we could get the bulk of the libertarian believing people to see that, then libertarianism might become a viable and respectable political movement.

You don't overcome human nature in any society.

And that is the strongest argument against libertarian government out there.

 

[Traitorfish]

yes.

I'm not familiar with Pavlac's work, but as far as I can gather, that isn't what he argues at all. His discussion is of the existence of systems of domination, not an assumption that all human society naturally tends in that direction and that direction alone. (In fact, the central thesis of the book you link seems to be that history displays a constant tension between the tendencies of "supremacy" and "diversity", which is a far cry from your Hobbes war of all against all. It appears to be an essentially dialectical model of human society.)

And while you goaded me this time I shan't go looking up support for every simple statement I make. Make an argument and I may respond but simply calling everything I say simplistic and lazy and half-arsed is, how should I put it....simplistic and lazy.

Deary me, I hit a sore spot with that, didn't I?

This makes no sense to me. Giving money for influence is corruption IMO.

Corruption, by definition, implies something that can become corrupted. That means that this something must have a naturally uncorrupted character, a pure character. When discussing government institutions, this "purity" can only be located constitutionally, that is, in the form of the institution as dictated by the law. But you're arguing that corruption can in fact exist in a legal form, on a second level; that it can occur not just through departure form the law, but through departing from some essence which is two steps removed from concrete reality. And that strikes me as a very idealistic, even religious way of approaching the question of government.
tl;dr: If the system is constructed as such that giving money for influence is entirely legal, then what, exactly, has been "corrupted"?

Why don't you find me an authoratative argument that it is not.

I don't think you understood my previous question. I wasn't asking for an "authoritative argument", I was just wondering why, if the "simplist understanding of history" makes your Hobbesian view of humanity "quite apparent", no modern historian that I've encountered holds to such a view. (And, granted, I'm hardly in a position to have made a comprehensive survey, but if it was quite as obvious as you claim, then the overwhelming majority should cleave to such a view, so the question wouldn't need asking.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Outside, of private-certification/regulation and consumer response, not really much of anything. I'm not going to pretend that there will be no bad side effects of removing state-regulation from the markets. While I am a libertarian, I'm not an Austrian, and therefore do not believe that removing the state will cause the market to gain magical super powers.

Well, that indeed is the side of Libertarianism that raises the most questionmarks with me. There is a genuine discussion to be had in the role government should play in society, there are reasonable arguments I can consider there.

The thing with private-certification/regulation is that is even more susceptible to corruption than public regulation is. Private companies exist for one thing, and one thing only: continuity. To achieve that without any public funding, the only way to insure that goal is simple, it's making a profit or at least breaking even in a very idealogical organisation.

You don't overcome human nature in any society.

Disco! My point exactly. A Libertarian Utopia will meet the same issues any society in human history has met.

 

[Traitorfish]

At some point it would be nice if somebody explained what "human nature" actually is. A lot of what's being thrown around seems to hinge on it, so it seems kind of impractical to leave it only half-said.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, Human Nature is a little broad to describe. What is meant, by me at least, is that there are characteristics to it that make a Libertarian Utopia impossible.

Some of those characteristics are: Self-centred, short sighted, laziness and impressionable.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's still quite vague. Nobody denies that people are capable of exhibiting that behaviour, but that in itself doesn't tell us anything- or at least nothing fundamental- about how we should organise our society. And, I mean, I agree that their model is basically unworkable, but I don't think that appeals to a nebulous "human nature", which is basically the political philosophy version of a Get Out of Jail Free card, offers the basis of an effective critique.

(Also, it's interesting that while the socialist argument addresses the basic unsuitability of capitalism for humans, the liberal argument focuses on the basic unsuitability of humans for capitalism. So I guess that tells us something about where we're coming from, philosophically.)

 

[Cutlass]

At some point it would be nice if somebody explained what "human nature" actually is. A lot of what's being thrown around seems to hinge on it, so it seems kind of impractical to leave it only half-said.

The short version, as it applies to the discussion, is that you don't expect any significant changes in people because of an external change, unless that external change is in the manner of a push against their current behavior. "Human nature" may be very different from group to group or individual to individual. But within any group or individual it is usually quite consistent year to year. Barring an external pressure.

So street crime may be down in NYC, but the reason is not that people changed, but because more effective policing compelled the change.

How that applies to the discussion of a libertarian society is that many libertarians assume a change in behavior while any external pressure favoring the new behavior is removed rather than increased. And that would be a violation of "human nature".

So, can people be expected to pollute less when there is no longer a government compelling them to do so? For what reason would you assume that they would?

 

[Traitorfish]

What do you mean by "pushing against their current behaviour"? Here you seem to frame it as necessarily taking the form of concious intervention, and apparently of state intervention above all, but that doesn't seem obvious to me. But in the most basic sense, any attempt to pursue X course of action in unideal circumstances would constitute such a "push"; intervention is merely a way of ensuring those circumstances. So it's possible for the right-libertarians to argue that the necessity to do X, Y and Z- to institute environmentally-friendly industrial practices, to take your example- would lead people to voluntarily pursue those courses of action. Without a critique of the social context which these human beings inhabit, without some understanding of how that itself compels them towards certain actions- something rather more complex than the notion of Homo selfishjerkus we usually encounter here- you're just tossing around hypotheticals. New mazes for your tranhistorical man-made-lab rat to scurry around. No anthropology worth talking about.

 

[Cutlass]

Not all pressure has to come from the government. But people don't tend to change behaviors a lot unless there is some external pressure that is an incentive to do so. If the price of oil goes up, people will use less of it. That sort of thing. What you should not expect is that you could have the price of oil go down, and again have people use less of it.

If people pollute in the absence of a clear incentive to not do so, or despite some level of incentive to not do so, then why would you expect them to cease to pollute if there was even less incentive to not do so?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's still quite vague. Nobody denies that people are capable of exhibiting that behaviour, but that in itself doesn't tell us anything- or at least nothing fundamental- about how we should organise our society.

Indeed. It's not as if there's an easy solution.

I never claimed I knew how to organize a society, I can only dismiss those that claim to have found the answer and point out where it's lacking.

And, I mean, I agree that their model is basically unworkable, but I don't think that appeals to a nebulous "human nature", which is basically the political philosophy version of a Get Out of Jail Free card, offers the basis of an effective critique.

I think the characteristics of Human Nature, for which I gave examples, are at the basis why the model doesn't work.

It also takes a very homogeneous group of people to make the model work, because since there is no government, how to decide which solution to implement in various problems.

(Also, it's interesting that while the socialist argument addresses the basic unsuitability of capitalism for humans, the liberal argument focuses on the basic unsuitability of humans for capitalism. So I guess that tells us something about where we're coming from, philosophically.)

That we're dealing with inherent flawed concepts and trying to insert checks and balances to limit the effects of those flaws.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not all pressure has to come from the government. But people don't tend to change behaviors a lot unless there is some external pressure that is an incentive to do so. If the price of oil goes up, people will use less of it. That sort of thing. What you should not expect is that you could have the price of oil go down, and again have people use less of it.

If people pollute in the absence of a clear incentive to not do so, or despite some level of incentive to not do so, then why would you expect them to cease to pollute if there was even less incentive to not do so?

Why is there an incentive to pollute in the first place?

Indeed. It's not as if there's an easy solution.

I never claimed I knew how to organize a society, I can only dismiss those that claim to have found the answer and point out where it's lacking.

Fair point. (I could hardly say otherwise, could I, given that I'm taking the same position against Cutlass in another thread. )

I think the characteristics of Human Nature, for which I gave examples, are at the basis why the model doesn't work.

It also takes a very homogeneous group of people to make the model work, because since there is no government, how to decide which solution to implement in various problems.

But the thing is, you can employ that argument for anything and against anything. "Human nature" is so nebulous, so poorly defined, that you can see in it anything you want; a Hobbesian thug, a Kropotkinian communist, or anything in between. Without a substantial anthropology behind it, it's just an appeal to a quite invisible authority.

That we're dealing with inherent flawed concepts and trying to insert checks and balances to limit the effects of those flaws.

That's where you're going, certainly but not where you're coming from. Those are conclusions, not premises. It's the fact that capitalism is basically presumed, and that politics is a way of trying to slot humans into it in a halfway workable fashion, that I find interesting.

 

[Mark1031]

I'm not familiar with Pavlac's work, but as far as I can gather, that isn't what he argues at all. His discussion is of the existence of systems of domination, not an assumption that all human society naturally tends in that direction and that direction alone. (In fact, the central thesis of the book you link seems to be that history displays a constant tension between the tendencies of "supremacy" and "diversity", which is a far cry from your Hobbes war of all against all. It appears to be an essentially dialectical model of human society.)

I do not have a Hobbesian view of society at all. That is your incorrect interpretation of what I said. All there need be is some individuals that seek systems of domination. Basic human nature is complex and variable and influenced by many things. But what history has shown is that these systems of domination arise quite frequently and the libertarian approach seems to be one that would facilitate it.

 

[warpus]

I do not have a Hobbesian view of society at all. That is your incorrect interpretation of what I said. All there need be is some individuals that seek systems of domination. Basic human nature is complex and variable and influenced by many things. But what history has shown is that these systems of domination arise quite frequently and the libertarian approach seems to be one that would facilitate it.

I haven't been following this conversation at all, but would be interested in seeing some sort of a coherent argument showing how zero government regulation would be a good thing.

Has anyone provided one? Just curious

 

[Mark1031]

Deary me, I hit a sore spot with that, didn't I?
)

No I simply realized as I was searching for some historians quote that you argue in the style of the philosopher questioning the most simple of statements and generating complex verbiage that says little and I do not find such conversations enjoyable or productive and so would not be baited again by your philosotroll.

 

[Cutlass]

I haven't been following this conversation at all, but would be interested in seeing some sort of a coherent argument showing how zero government regulation would be a good thing.

Has anyone provided one? Just curious

No. Some people simply assume that it will work, without an in depth argument supporting that.

Why is there an incentive to pollute in the first place?

It's an externalities problem. Which is to say it is a market failure problem. And one that has been recognized by most economists for a long time. So methods have been developed to mitigate it.

Essentially, pollution imposes costs on people who are neither the buyer or the seller of a good or service. So both the buyer and the seller are better off with the creation of the pollution. Someone else, someone they are unconnected to, gets the price for their action.

 

[Akka]

That's still quite vague. Nobody denies that people are capable of exhibiting that behaviour, but that in itself doesn't tell us anything- or at least nothing fundamental- about how we should organise our society.

At the very least it tells us that the entire basis of libertarian pipe-dream ("RATIONAL self-interest") is flat-out wrong, and as such the entire system can't work.

 

[Traitorfish]

I do not have a Hobbesian view of society at all. That is your incorrect interpretation of what I said. All there need be is some individuals that seek systems of domination. Basic human nature is complex and variable and influenced by many things. But what history has shown is that these systems of domination arise quite frequently and the libertarian approach seems to be one that would facilitate it.

That hinges on the notion that it is some intrinsic to humans as individuals that generate these systems as individuals, which I don't think is the case. Certainly, individual action plays its part, but what is that part, and what is its relationship to humans as a collective? Humans do not and have never existed outside a social context, so to take a transhistorical, individual man as your point of departure is to begin in entirely the wrong place.

I haven't been following this conversation at all, but would be interested in seeing some sort of a coherent argument showing how zero government regulation would be a good thing.

Has anyone provided one? Just curious

Define "zero government regulation". That doesn't mean the same thing that it means to me as it would to Amadeus, if you follow me.

It's an externalities problem. Which is to say it is a market failure problem. And one that has been recognized by most economists for a long time. So methods have been developed to mitigate it.

Essentially, pollution imposes costs on people who are neither the buyer or the seller of a good or service. So both the buyer and the seller are better off with the creation of the pollution. Someone else, someone they are unconnected to, gets the price for their action.

So you would agree that the incentive towards this behaviour isn't located in humans-as-individuals, but, rather, in human-in-society? That it is not innate, but emerges in how we produce together, in this case through a market society?

At the very least it tells us that the entire basis of libertarian pipe-dream ("RATIONAL self-interest") is flat-out wrong, and as such the entire system can't work.

You're aware that it shares this basis with liberalism, aren't you? Right-libertarianism isn't some alien philosophy, dropped out of the sky in 1962, it's the philosophical principles of liberalism taken to different conclusion, just as modern or social liberalism begins with the same conclusions as classical liberalism. So you can't outright reject the notion of rational without rejecting liberalism, you can just debate to what extent it is balanced with irrationality.

 

[Akka]

You're aware that it shares this basis with liberalism, aren't you? Right-libertarianism isn't some alien philosophy, dropped out of the sky in 1962, it's the philosophical principles of liberalism taken to different conclusion, just as modern or social liberalism begins with the same conclusions as classical liberalism. So you can't outright reject the notion of rational without rejecting liberalism, you can just debate to what extent it is balanced with irrationality.

I'm aware that the whole libertarianism (as well as the whole "unregulated free-market" bonanza) stems from the ridiculous ideal situation where everyone takes completely rational decisions in a magical world where they have and know all the relevant informations.

It doesn't mean that humans can't take rational decisions (not they shouldn't strive to, at least, balance their emotional ones with rational ones), but it's a long way between "able to take rational decisions" and "basing an entire system on the virtual idea that people always take this kind of decisions".

 

[Cutlass]

So you would agree that the incentive towards this behaviour isn't located in humans-as-individuals, but, rather, in human-in-society? That it is not innate, but emerges in how we produce together, in this case through a market society?

I would say that it is both. Much of economics is the aggregate of individual behavior. We say that the market does this or that, but what we are really saying is that the aggregate of individual decisions adds up to this or that.