“You’re so confused on so many things I am wondering if it’s worth continuing this with you. I don’t mean that as an “ad hominem” (which it’s not, but someone will undoubtedly accuse me of it at some point, maybe even you), I mean it sincerely because it’s becoming “clear” from your original posting to now that you are completely “unclear” on what you’re even after.”
I would argue that I’m not confused. I am just not 100 percent sold on any particular ideology. I recognize that there are grey areas in ideology and I sometimes occupy them. Unless I think it best to be 100 percent for or against something (which I rarely am.)
"Great, for the benefit of the rest of us, or me anyway, can you explain what your principles actually are? You don’t seem to have ANY principles, which is why this conversation has been so confusing and self-contradictory. What are your principles, at least as far as this issue is concerned, for instance:
1.) is it okay for some individuals to initiate the use of force against other individuals?
2.) is value subjective or objective?
I’d appreciate your input as far as what your principles are on those two issues."
This is what I was hoping you would say. In other words you do see it as a market process only with time restrictions?
Consider this.
When you purchase a good your purchasing something that effects you yourself. You bear the costs of that purchase.
IN contrast, when you vote you are attempting to make others do what you want against their will. You are in effect practicing your illegitimate right to compulsion.
In the market place you don’t force others to do anything, regardless of what you choose, in addition int he market place you have options, when you vote you are generally limited to shitty option A and shitty option B or not to vote at all.
Because of this human action changes drastically. The human’s behavior continues to act to benefit his own wellbeing just as praxeology defines, but he uses newfounded tools ‘compulsion and coercion’ as a means to find his end. This is really the opposite of how markets should work. We don’t make people produce things for us. We don’t make people sell things to us.
Now consider the fact that the entire population has a gun to enact coercive policies which may or may not benefit themselves. Also when considering the costs of voting. The cost is highly marginal. They know that if their vote is wrong their total expense is not immediately felt or it will be very small. Like a .001% increase in cost of living for whatever reason. Because of this people have intensive to vote in disasterous policies with an understanding that they will gain much at little costs. After doing this for a few hundred years you end up with literally hundreds of counter-economical policies which take a tole of society and continuously rage the cost of living.
In the market place however only you yourself bears the cost of making that decision, it is not forced onto anyone else. As a result your decision making process is structured much differently. You are less prone to being rationally ignorant on the goods you purchase for yourself, but very prone at being rationally ignorant about the policies you vote for.
"Here’s a reason why libertarianism is a marginal concept: politicians don’t like it because it implies they are crooked tyrants.
Here’s another reason it’s marginal: because many people who understand the consistency of it ultimately reject it as “impractical” and instead support and advocate for violent intervention in social and economic affairs.
Ideas count, buddy. The world doesn’t operate spontaneously or deterministically. it operates through purposeful, reasoned HUMAN ACTION. Might I suggest to you the book of the same title by Ludwig von Mises for clarification of this important issue?"
I would argue it’s also sold very poorly as a “you either accept these principles or you do not” kinda thing. Ultimatums are tricky because people can just walk away. As a former salesman, I know it’s good to give people as many options as possible so they don’t feel trapped.
The problem with consistency is that it’s unappealing. Humans don’t want to be consistent, they just want to get what they want. And statism offers them that whereas libertarianism tells them everything is a trade off. And that’s not appealing. At a gut level I mean.
I agree that ideas count. And I agree that people do things for a reason. But the reasons vary. Therefore, a programs that promises people anything and everything hits a larger audience than a system that promises some people something and a lot of people nothing or…I should say…something that they don’t really care about. “Here, have a car and a house” sounds better than “here, you can keep your salary…” Which is unfortunate.
Fair enough, but the ability to use “compulsion and coercion” against others with little consequence is obviously appealing. Which is why I think people choose to play the democracy game rather than the an-cap game. Now what can an-cap offer people that sounds as good as “we’ll force other people to do what we want them to do for a period of time and there will be no consequence?”
You have yet to explain the significance of any of the points you’re making.
Yes, of course you’re correct, it would make random people on the sidewalk much more enthusiastic if I told them, “I will give you a trillion dollars right now and all you need to do is… nothing!” vs. “Fact: there is no such thing as a free lunch”
So what? Does that mean I am not only justified in stealing and redistributing wealth, but that I SHOULD do it as well because it will make everyone better off?
No, what it means is that from a political viewpoint, one is easier to sell than the other AND that someone will always be willing to make that offer in exchange for power. What I’m saying is that governments aren’t going anywhere, we need to learn to control them and stop dreaming of the day they cease to exist.
"Another reason is that many people have never heard of it, given they haven’t been introduced to it in school and they likely aren’t curious enough about economics or politics to discover it on their own.
Now, what makes you say it “sounds awful”? What, in particular, sounds awful about freedom and a functioning economy?"
"If your honest-to-god thought process is “I only want to support something that other people will support”, and, seeing how libertarianism is not enjoying majority support at the moment, you may want to rethink whether or not freedom is something you want to support at all.
However, if your thought process is a bit more nuanced and mature than that, let’s talk more about economic and political principles!"
That’s exactly what my thought process is. I’m only going to support something if I think I can get others to support it. Because that’s ultimately what matters to me. CAN I GET THIS DONE?
I like talking about principles though. They’re fun to think about from a philosophical point of view.
I appreciate your attempts to be profound. However, I do not appreciate them enough to continue corresponding with you on this subject, or any other. Attempting to engage in a comprehensive, logical, point by point conversation with you is fruitless because you ignore points that are inconvenient for you to address, you can not clearly differentiate between ideas such as “initiating the use of force” and “the use of force in self-defense response to the initiation of the use of force”, and you continue to pursue an attempt to integrate contradictory concepts (such as, “Hey guys, how do we integrate freedom and coercion (the absence of coercion)?”)
I won’t bother giving you any advice because I’d doubt you’d follow it anyway, but I will say that I personally found that reading more freedom literature (economics and politics from the Austrian point of view) clarified for me all the questions you have, as well as many you haven’t even gotten far enough along in your own study and thought to have figured out yet. May auto-didactism serve you as graciously as it did me, for it will surely save many an opponent the frustration of trying to sort out your confused mind for you.
One last note, I just want to let you know that if I ever come across you in a dark alley, I will beat you and take everything you have. I mean, power is the only thing anyone listens to and maybe when I beat you senseless and rob you of your possessions you’ll realize that ideas matter and so does a non-contradictory conception of justice.
I like talking about principles though. They’re fun to think about from a philosophical point of view.
“One last note, I just want to let you know that if I ever come across you in a dark alley, I will beat you and take everything you have. I mean, power is the only thing anyone listens to and maybe when I beat you senseless and rob you of your possessions you’ll realize that ideas matter and so does a non-contradictory conception of justice.”
I would recommend David Friedman. He tends to think of every possible objection. He also isn’t a libertarian so you don’t have all these moralistic arguments every 5 seconds. Its all about practicality for David Friedman.
I definitely don’t want to get into an argument about whether DF is a libertarian or not but I am curious to ask why you say he is not because I thought he has categorized himself as such numerous times on his blog and elsewhere (including TMoF?) I heard him speak at the FreedomFest in Vegas in 08, for example…
It’s admittedly been two years since I read the book but I thought there were at least some moralistic arguments?
He does seem more like a utilitarian though, who believes that liberty simply wins out economically/utility-wise. If someone could “prove” it doesn’t he might flip sides.
If you’re interested I would also highly recommend Harry Browne’s Why Government Doesn’t Work or The Great Libertarian Offer.
I consider myself to be a fairly realistic person and the second of those 2 books exploded the idea in me that the Government could ever be changed for the better.
If you have time, you may find it enlightening. It’s all about real life as opposed to philosophy.
Oh, and his son Patri is a Seasteader… he’s trying to build free territories on the ocean where libertarians/voluntaryists can go live and be left alone.