Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

[DocSolarisReich]

That's not what rational means in the context of economics. Economists do not typically look at Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and think: "Hmm, yeah this is a good behavioral framework to base our theories of society on."

In economic theory "rational" simply means that if people want something, they will try to obtain that something. If that something costs more than to get than they are willing to pay, they will not get it, but if the price is lower than they are willing to pay, they will do so. Most humans will exhibit this sort of behavior to enough of a degree to make economic theory work.

And we're back to our homo economicus.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And we're back to our homo economicus.

How on earth do you come up with that? "People will try to get things they want" is not exactly a hot take.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

How on earth do you come up with that? "People will try to get things they want" is not exactly a hot take.

It's even true, as far as it goes. But it's hardly enough to build a functioning theory of politics around, let alone morality as lolbertarianism claims to be.

 

[Bear Ribs]

It's even true, as far as it goes. But it's hardly enough to build a functioning theory of politics around, let alone morality as lolbertarianism claims to be.

Well no, that's step 1, not the alpha and omega of economic theory. It does show that the homo economicus and people aren't rational criticisms are both strawmen though.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Well no, that's step 1, not the alpha and omega of economic theory. It does show that the homo economicus and people aren't rational criticisms are both strawmen though.

They are not, because libertarians turn around and take torches to anything outside of voluntary association and muh contracts because the markets can do it all.

Libertarians are the enemies of Duty and without Duty, we are animals.

 

[Bear Ribs]

They are not, because libertarians turn around and take torches to anything outside of voluntary association and muh contracts because the markets can do it all.

Wow, look at those goalposts move! That's not remotely related to the homo economicus or rationality criticisms, you're arguing something entirely different now.

I'll actually agree with you on those, being a lapsed libertarian myself I have criticisms of the NAP and I've never gotten an effective answer to how libertarianism can solve a tragedy of the commons. However as I said, homo economicus is not a valid place to start criticizing libertarianism.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Wow, look at those goalposts move! That's not remotely related to the homo economicus or rationality criticisms, you're arguing something entirely different now.

I'll actually agree with you on those, being a lapsed libertarian myself I have criticisms of the NAP and I've never gotten an effective answer to how libertarianism can solve a tragedy of the commons. However as I said, homo economicus is not a valid place to start criticizing libertarianism.

No it is entirely a valid place. Libertarianism assumes Bentham and Utilitarianism. Reducing the human person and the meaning thereof to the satisfaction of appetites is the starting point, the same as Communism. They just take different roads to get there.

 

[Abhorsen]

It's even true, as far as it goes. But it's hardly enough to build a functioning theory of politics around, let alone morality as lolbertarianism claims to be.

Again, libertarianism doesn't build around homo economicus, as I just showed above.

No it is entirely a valid place. Libertarianism assumes Bentham and Utilitarianism. Reducing the human person and the meaning thereof to the satisfaction of appetites is the starting point, the same as Communism. They just take different roads to get there.

Also completely wrong, as I showed above. Libertarianism doesn't need Utilitarianism at all. It needs just the NAP, which doesn't at all require utilitarianism. Again, libertarianism isn't about the best life for everyone. It's about personal freedom.

They are not, because libertarians turn around and take torches to anything outside of voluntary association and muh contracts because the markets can do it all.

Libertarians are the enemies of Duty and without Duty, we are animals.

And no, they don't. Again, libertarianism isn't about destroying stuff, and is quite compatible with a variety of morality.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Again, libertarianism isn't about the best life for everyone. It's about personal freedom.

Have you even heard of begging the question? Why is personal freedom even something anyone should worry about?

 

[Bear Ribs]

No it is entirely a valid place. Libertarianism assumes Bentham and Utilitarianism. Reducing the human person and the meaning thereof to the satisfaction of appetites is the starting point, the same as Communism. They just take different roads to get there.

Which is another goalpost move on your part and unrelated to the allegations of homo economicus.

You're also falling into the "hyper-generalize until everything's the same" fallacy. "People will try to get stuff they need and/or want" is the basis of libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, communism, syncretism, malthusianism, just about every economic concept besides maybe greens and some theologies, and even those movements will generally go into "the environment/god's will is what people really want/need but they need us to provide it properly."

Have you even heard of begging the question? Why is personal freedom even something anyone should worry about?

Why is duty even something anyone should worry about?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Again, libertarianism doesn't build around homo economicus, as I just showed above.

Indeed, libertarianism creates economic prosperity. It is not driven by economic prosperity.

 

[Abhorsen]

Have you even heard of begging the question? Why is personal freedom even something anyone should worry about?

Because it derives from the NAP. And arguing against the NAP requires being pro hurting people or pro theft. Now if you are in favor of hurting or stealing from people who aren't doing bad things, that's fine. But almost every ethical system will consider your bad person.

This is why the NAP is an axiom, something generally taken as clearly true. It's not provable.

All moral bases have these problem of coming down to an axiom that isn't provable. Religious morality needs a bunch of axioms:My God exists, He said X, and it's morally right to do what God says. These aren't provable either. Duty being important also has at the bottom a moral axiom as well, so it's not provable.

But what I would argue is that the NAP axiom is one that many instinctually agree with, but just balk at what it implies.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

You're also falling into the "hyper-generalize until everything's the same" fallacy. "People will try to get stuff they need and/or want" is the basis of libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, communism, syncretism, malthusianism, just about every economic concept

Yes. All modern political economies are deformed in the same way. That is the point. The differences that moderns see as so essential are mere accidents in the wider scheme of human experience. After the Revolutions of Enlightenment what was the left became the 'right' to the new radicalism. The difference between classical liberalism/libertarianism and communism is merely the difference between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.

Why is duty even something anyone should worry about?

Because I say so? We have already established that this the only foundation for the NAP.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Indeed, libertarianism creates economic prosperity. It is not driven by economic prosperity.

That's not even what the words mean.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

That's not even what the words mean.

Libertarianism=liberty

Liberty=freedom

And it would seem freedom=prosperity.

Look, I understand. You have a problem with the post-1945 order. So do I. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater will not make things any better. That aside, the primary problem isn't liberty, it's an overmighty state (that fucks up everything it touches) infringing on liberty.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Libertarianism=liberty

Liberty=freedom

And it would seem freedom=prosperity.

Look, I understand. You have a problem with the post-1945 order. So do I. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater will not make things any better. That aside, the primary problem isn't liberty, it's an overmighty state (that fucks up everything it touches) infringing on liberty.

Lol no, the 'government' under liberalism is just an extension of the banks. They are middle management. That's why voting never changes anything.

"Liberty" is freedumb, now those with the gold make the rules and we call ourselves 'free'.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Yes. All modern political economies are deformed in the same way. That is the point. The differences that moderns see as so essential are mere accidents in the wider scheme of human experience. After the Revolutions of Enlightenment what was the left became the 'right' to the new radicalism. The difference between classical liberalism/libertarianism and communism is merely the difference between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.

Because I say so? We have already established that this the only foundation for the NAP.

Then why are you bothering to debate? You use the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. All things are the same, there is no difference between anything, the only basis for argument is "I say so." There can be no meaningful discussion when everything's the same.

Lol no, the 'government' under liberalism is just an extension of the banks. They are middle management. That's why voting never changes anything.

"Liberty" is freedumb, now those with the gold make the rules and we call ourselves 'free'.

Do you have any reason to say this is a bad thing besides "Because I say so?"

 

[Abhorsen]

That's not even what the words mean.

It's entirely what they mean.

Because I say so? We have already established that this the only foundation for the NAP.

Exactly. That's the point. All moral basis rely on base assumptions. It's just that libertarianism has a good one.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Do you have any reason to say this is a bad thing besides "Because I say so?"

We have already established this as the reason for anything. How can it be acceptable for the NAP but not for this?

 

[Abhorsen]

We have already established this as the reason for anything. How can it be acceptable for the NAP but not for this?

It's acceptable for both the NAP and Duty being important because these are axioms. Everything else should be derived from the axioms you choose. So using your axiom of Duty, explain why the current world order is bad.

Also, it's kinda funny how you won't respond to me now.