Is libertarianism too rational?

[Moonbeam]

It's easy to wave the flag of liberty. It's much harder to understand what liberty is.
" What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment . . . inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose." - Thomas Jefferson

We are blind to our motivations. We create what we fear. The man who fears slavery irrationally makes slaves of others to save us from slavery.

 

[Zaap]

OK, so what if employers don't care about competitiveness, or wish to sacrifice this for choosing their own kind?

Try as you might, you can't mandate that employers don't do this. And they do. All the time. But the company with the better people working for it, that has better ideas, that's faster on it's feet will win. Others will go out of business. That happens all the time.

 

[UberNeuman]

The Libertarian idea is as rational as a rusty ice pick plunged into the frontal lobes....

 

[Zaap]

(smog in Beijing)

That's pretty much the result of statism on steroids.

 

[Vic]

I wouldn't say no one is hurt by that. If you can't afford something, no one should be forced by some stupid government policy to "sell" it to you. I don't really see this equation as having a thing to do with libertarianism.

Was there a gun to the borrowers' head to buy it?

 

[Vic]

That's pretty much the result of statism on steroids.

Says the guy who thinks we should build the border wall. .

 

[Vic]

We are blind to our motivations. We create what we fear. The man who fears slavery irrationally makes slaves of others to save us from slavery.

Fear reminds people of death, and no action is irrational in the face of death.

 

[Zaap]

Was there a gun to the borrowers' head to buy it?

Is there a gun to your head to buy a Ferrari? So then what's stopping you, dumbass?

Says the guy who thinks we should build the border wall. .

Says the guy who loses every argument and so has to make up strawmen.

 

[Vic]

Is there a gun to your head to buy a Ferrari? So then what's stopping you, dumbass?

Says the guy who loses every argument and so has to make up strawmen.

Whatever, buddy. So why were you blaming government policy for the people who bought Ferraris?

 

[nehalem256]

I wouldn't say no one is hurt by that. If you can't afford something, no one should be forced by some stupid government policy to "sell" it to you. I don't really see this equation as having a thing to do with libertarianism.

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

The problem is that when this happens millions of times it also impacts society.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

 

[Zaap]

Whatever, buddy. So why were you blaming government policy for the people who bought Ferraris?

Geeze you're stupid. Just shut up already. You're too stupid to even effectively start an argument over nothing.

 

[UberNeuman]

Whatever, buddy. So why were you blaming government policy for the people who bought Ferraris?

Even more fun is that he's dropping his "wisdom" over what began as a government project with ARPAnet....

 

[Vic]

The problem is how do you determine that?

Say one person buys a house they really cant afford and defaults on it. No one is really hurt by that and life goes on.

Now say 10 million people buy houses they really cant afford and default on them. All of a sudden its RIP economy.

And that is the real flaw in libertarianism. It relies on the number of people who screw up being small enough to not completely screw everyone else over.

This is likely the one and only post from Nehalem that I will not only agree with, but defend.

There is no freedom without accountability.

 

[Zaap]

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

I disagree. The whole thing started with the Community Reinvestment Act, and subsequent jerking around with changes made to it that pressured banks into making risky loans. It's pretty well documented- the whole thing caused lending practices to slide. Banks figured out a way to make money off the whole rotten deal, and ultimately since they're in bed with government, they knew it'd be the taxpayer (as always) that takes it in the ass when the bottom dropped out.

No libertarian I know of wanted anything to do with any of it if, and saw most of it as more big government/crony capitalism bullshit from day one.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

Once more, without the CRA meddling that took place, most banks would not have chosen to lend money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back, any more than you're going to walk into a Ferrari showroom and drive out with one without a credit check. Libertarians are not fans of crony capitalism, and know full well the results when government and big business get together and pat each other's back. There was a LOT of that going on with the financial crisis, from it's origins all the way to the bailouts.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

You're using a flawed example for this, one that's born of big government meddling, not just something that millions of people decided to do out of thin air.

Also, you're letting big govt and its cronies off the hook at the opposite end of the scale as well: most people know better than to try and make wild financial transactions they can't actually afford: do you routinely show up in Bel Air and attempt to buy a house next to your favorite movie star? Are you down at the exotic car showroom every other day expecting 2-way hysteria to allow you to drive off in a $500,0000 car you have no way to pay for? Do you think these are common occurrences- common enough to merit worry over the economy? But if you've got big government telling you: "Sure, go ahead! You deserve those things! You're being discriminated against if someone won't sell you those things! Go get what should be yours! We'll do what we can to pressure the seller to make things fair for you" your tune might change, drastically.

 

[Vic]

Lol

 

[Vic]

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

The problem is that when this happens millions of times it also impacts society.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

Who doesn't want to win the lottery?

 

[hans030390]

I think you can rationally argue for most types of societies, but it all comes down to the societal situation at hand and the people that make up the society.

Too often people will confuse their personal convictions and philosophies on life as the most rational answers to whatever issues a society might be facing at the time. In other words, they forget that personal principles are not always the most rational answers for an entire society. Sometimes these convictions happen to line up as a perfect solution, but most times it is rarely that simple.

I think pure Libertarianism falls into that category. It's one of those philosophies that makes sense in principle and has a simplistic but captivating core message.

The problem is that humans so far have proven to be largely pieces of shit that sometimes do great things, and Libertarianism would only make many issues we're seeing today worse. The same could be said about the opposite political spectrum. The people that make up societies, humans, have just not shown themselves capable of handling these ideals. That's not to say an individual or relatively small group could not, but nations of hundreds of millions of people and lands spanning thousands of miles top to bottom? It's rarely that simple.

Really, the level of rationality comes down to the difference of hypothetical vs. real situations. The most rational answer is the one that happens to benefit a particular society overall the most at a given time, however "benefit" is defined.

I think the most rational answers are generally somewhere in the middle of what all the voices are saying, and often said answers are both more complex than most expect and don't have the same "zing" of simpler ideologies that captivate the minds of others so easily.

 

[justoh]

There are problems with the word rational. In the first place everybody thinks he or she is rational and they judge everything from their level of understanding. Secondly rational can refer to a couple of different things. One person may reason logically and arrive at an absurd conclusion that people with practical rationality reject instantly. If we all saw rational in the same way things would go swimmingly.

p -> p?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No. As Senseamp said, it is Simplistic. If it was Rational, it would address the variables that make it unworkable. Instead, it simply ignores those variables.

It is too Idealistic.

As are "isms". "Oh he's a Conservative. Oh I'm a libertarian. I'm a Liberal and better than you."

What utter nonsense that people would seek to pigeonhole themselves.

 

[kia75]

I am a libertarian and believe in freedom without hurting others. But then I get the impression that libertarianism is too rational.

People don't act rationally, and logic equates with emotion/whim and impulse in human behaviour and decision-making.

Take employment as an example. Libertarians invariably say that without anti-discrimination laws, employers will always choose the best candidates since it's economically rational. lolwut? OK, so what if employers don't care about competitiveness, or wish to sacrifice this for choosing their own kind?

Surely libertarianism should be revised to account for, well....human nature..

I'd argue that taking into account people's emotions and human nature would be rational, pretending that people are machines is irrational. Logic only works if the premise is sound, after all, if Charles Westhall can run a mile in 5 minutes then one can use logic to come to the conclusion that a bunch of children should be able to run 5 miles in 25 minutes but that conclusion is irrational. Children can't run as fast as the worlds fastest person, and I doubt even Charles Westhall could do 5 miles in 25 minutes since he's used to sprinting, not long runs.

One Libertarian flaw is the idea that businesses want or need the best person for the job, when a lot of times anyone adequate will do. You could hire world renowned Indy Racer Jeff Gordan as your pizza delivery driver, but truth be told any monkey with a car would be able to deliver pizza to you as well as Jeff Gordon would. There is no benefit to getting the best pizza delivery driver when adequate pizza delivery drivers do just as well. And since there is no benefit to getting the best driver, why not hire your friend as a driver instead of the black\gay\weird guy that's better?

Liberterians have this grand and false notion that the best will rise to the top and the inferior will fall to the bottom, but a cursory look at real life shows it doesn't work that way. A manager for McDonalds might be the world's best restaurant manager, but unless he somehow manages to get his hands on enough money to start his own restaurant, he'll never be rich. A rich man can throw his money away at bad investments and still do fine (i.e. Donald Trump, who would be richer now if he had just taken all of the money his daddy gave him and put it in a bank. Instead Trump has made bad investments and lost a large amount of his daddy's money and still has more then you or I will ever make).

 

[Matt1970]

I'd argue that taking into account people's emotions and human nature would be rational, pretending that people are machines is irrational. Logic only works if the premise is sound, after all, if Charles Westhall can run a mile in 5 minutes then one can use logic to come to the conclusion that a bunch of children should be able to run 5 miles in 25 minutes but that conclusion is irrational. Children can't run as fast as the worlds fastest person, and I doubt even Charles Westhall could do 5 miles in 25 minutes since he's used to sprinting, not long runs.

One Libertarian flaw is the idea that businesses want or need the best person for the job, when a lot of times anyone adequate will do. You could hire world renowned Indy Racer Jeff Gordan as your pizza delivery driver, but truth be told any monkey with a car would be able to deliver pizza to you as well as Jeff Gordon would. There is no benefit to getting the best pizza delivery driver when adequate pizza delivery drivers do just as well. And since there is no benefit to getting the best driver, why not hire your friend as a driver instead of the black\gay\weird guy that's better?

Liberterians have this grand and false notion that the best will rise to the top and the inferior will fall to the bottom, but a cursory look at real life shows it doesn't work that way. A manager for McDonalds might be the world's best restaurant manager, but unless he somehow manages to get his hands on enough money to start his own restaurant, he'll never be rich. A rich man can throw his money away at bad investments and still do fine (i.e. Donald Trump, who would be richer now if he had just taken all of the money his daddy gave him and put it in a bank. Instead Trump has made bad investments and lost a large amount of his daddy's money and still has more then you or I will ever make).

Did you really just use a pizza driver as an example?

 

[Genx87]

Did you really just use a pizza driver as an example?

Im trying to figure out how Jeff Gordon is the best pizza delivery driver in his example.

 

[kia75]

Did you really just use a pizza driver as an example?

Are you having trouble understanding my post? Yes, a pizza delivery driver is a job that you don't necessarily need the best person for the job, just an adequate person.

 

[DrPizza]

I am a libertarian and believe in freedom without hurting others. But then I get the impression that libertarianism is too rational.

People don't act rationally, and logic equates with emotion/whim and impulse in human behaviour and decision-making.

Take employment as an example. Libertarians invariably say that without anti-discrimination laws, employers will always choose the best candidates since it's economically rational. lolwut? OK, so what if employers don't care about competitiveness, or wish to sacrifice this for choosing their own kind?

Surely libertarianism should be revised to account for, well....human nature..

How overwhelmingly simplistic. "Freedom without hurting others." You completely ignore that for many choices, someone is getting hurt. In fact, I dare say that for the vast majority of business and political decisions, there are winners and there are losers. If that wasn't the case, decision making would be pretty simple, and would all boil down to this: "Let's see, if I push the green button, 100,000 people get blown up. But, if I push the red button, it's rainbows for everyone."

But, I do agree about revising it to account for human nature, like this: "Libertarianism is a wild dream from those who choose to ignore how impossible it is due to human nature." Or, if you think it's possible, point to one society where it has worked.

 

[Jhhnn]

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

The problem is that when this happens millions of times it also impacts society.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

This is likely the one and only post from Nehalem that I will not only agree with, but defend.

There is no freedom without accountability.

Well said.