*Deleted*

Deleted thread

Edited by Marc_Geddes, 02 February 2007 - 09:33 AM.

Marc, Thanks for posting your article. I suspect we'll see more libertarian flourishing as technology further empowers the individual more so than the state.

Would you happen to know the growth world-wide and in the US over the past few decades in registered members?

Edited by Mind, 15 November 2003 - 11:28 AM.

How about, "Libertarianism isn't practical because most people aren't very good at being self-reliant, even when they have to"?

I have spent many years in businesses where I have to deal with the public, and I've concluded that at least a third of the adult population needs some level of zoo keeping just from neurological problems alone -- low IQ's, learning disabilities, schizophrenia, impulse control problems, senile dementia, etc. Social democracy arose as an pragmatic attempt to construct a prosthetic environment to reduce the amount of harm the less abled people can stumble into. It also arose because of the reality of the human condition: We'll all become less abled if we live long enough, sometimes a lot sooner than we planned. Consider winding up like Christopher Reeve or Stephen Hawking without their ability to earn a substantial income even while handicapped.

Libertarianism also seems to make a fundamentally irrational risk assessment. Libertarians overestimate their own competence, and underestimate their own vulnerabilities. Even under a utopian capitalist system (which has never existed, I might add), you have only a tiny chance of becoming wealthy before you lose the ability to work, whereas under any system you have an near-unity chance of becoming chronically ill or disabled if you live long enough. And there is always the prospect of permanently getting thrown out of the high-paying career you studied and worked towards at considerable expense, as American tech workers are discovering now when their jobs leave for places like India. Considering that many techies in the 1990's embraced libertarianism because they thought "the market" judged them indispensible for building the future, I find the current irony delicious. I'm wondering if such Asperger's cases will fit into the corporate culture of Wal-Mart, their new lifetime employer.

I agree about the surprising inability of many people to reason and support themselves (some psychological research exists to support this).

None of these problems are unique to libertarianism.

None of their solutions are unique to coercion.

Some people in communist and socialist countries still starve and some people in America still give to charity.

Imminst is a wonderful example of voluntary association. No one is forced to join. No one is forced to stay. There is an explicit social contract. It is fundementally a Libertarian social organization.

Mark, I hear you about the segment of the adult population that seems to need care-taking. The thing is...in a libertarian system these people are free to join the zoo.

Mind: Mark, I hear you about the segment of the adult population that seems to need care-taking. The thing is...in a libertarian system these people are free to join the zoo.

What about the children who are born into the “zoo” where their parents have “chosen” to partake?

Everyone else who has chosen not to join the zoo should not generally be complacent with the fact that people choose to join zoos and, therefore, “so be it.” Individuals are not closed systems having no stake in anything going on beyond them. Like all living things they are open systems. Ultimately everyone is an open system and, thus, has the same stake in the basic elements of life.

The real danger for those who make the “right” choices by not joining zoos lies is being unable to distinguish between “what should be known” and “what should be built.” Those things that are built to increasingly isolate the zoo are also available to those compassionate toward the zoo children (and their future generations; hence the “chosen” word above in quotes) of few choices.

In a libertarian society I wonder who is overlooking the engineering, consumer, and usage choices. After all, the free man can make anything happen until the very moment he decides to destroy it along with anything else that is targeted within the vicinity of the acquired power.

advancedatheist: Libertarianism also seems to make a fundamentally irrational risk assessment. Libertarians overestimate their own competence, and underestimate their own vulnerabilities.

Jace

What about the children who are born into the “zoo” where their parents have “chosen” to partake?

The underlying assumption from Geddes' original post is that people will be able to make voluntary associations once they are capable, thus can leave or join the zoo when they grow up.

The alternative that is present in most of the world today is FORCING people to join the zoo, and FORCING others to support the different level's of zoo-keeping.

Take health care for example. For all those who would like to see a national health care system in the U.S. why not just start your own health cooperative? You can all join it voluntarily - but do not FORCE me to join it! But unfortunately, I will be FORCED to join, if it does come to pass in the U.S.

I am perfectly happy overestimating my competence and underestimating my vulnerability. I am well aware of the choices/risks involved in life and I am willing to live with the consequences.

Edited by Mind, 15 November 2003 - 02:50 PM.

Mind: I am perfectly happy overestimating my competence and underestimating my vulnerability. I am well aware of the choices/risks involved in life and I am willing to live with the consequences.

I see that the distinguishing issue and the open system idea were conveniently dodged. It is admirable that you are willing to live with the consequences of your choices and risks. But those consequences may have further implications than the little sphere of you. It is certainly arguable what the precise extension of these consequences would be. However, I do not know how someone can always assume that they will be the only one who pays for their own mistakes. Is this a false observation?

Jace

Mind: The alternative that is present in most of the world today is FORCING people to join the zoo, and FORCING others to support the different level's of zoo-keeping.

This is said as though this is the only alternative. Is that true?

Mind: The underlying assumption from Geddes' original post is that people will be able to make voluntary associations once they are capable, thus can leave or join the zoo when they grow up.

Ah, yes. Stupid me forgot about the resourcefulness and options available to impressionable children of parents whose values are inhibitively distorted.

Jace

Jace: This is said as though this is the only alternative. Is that true?

Yes. The only alternative to voluntary association is involuntary association (ie. FORCE!)

Jace: Ah, yes. Stupid me forgot about the resourcefulness and options available to impressionable children of parents whose values are inhibitively distorted.

You raise a good point here. However, what is the alternative? The alternative is politicians (dictators, tyrants, socialists, or whomever) deciding what is good for children, or what is the correct form of parenting. How is that better than volunteer association? Are you presuming to know what is best for every single parent and child on earth?

Jace: I see that the distinguishing issue and the open system idea were conveniently dodged. It is admirable that you are willing to live with the consequences of your choices and risks. But those consequences may have further implications than the little sphere of you.

I apologize for not addressing that issue. What is the alternative? The alternative is someone else defining what actions may have consequences outside my little sphere. The alternative is forcing me to live a certain lifestyle that is acceptable to someone else's definition of safety. You don't seem like the type of person who would support that. You seem like a free thinker and a free spirit.

Mind,

Alright, we both know that Government is the issue here, that it is either us or them making the decisions, and the blurry distinction as to who is right.

I think we both agree that companies and organizations tend to develop standards—many times tentative, but nonetheless standard. Standards procure order, because without order everything that is otherwise pre-established would have to be reworked through trial-and-error. This, of course, is not desirable.

The dilemma is whether order should only be focused within local economies, the range extending only so far as the percepts of the organization and its partners, or be focused to include more of these local economies. It is my assumption that local economies are myopic. They will generally focus on immediate interests and deny broader repercussions on the notion that just because they think they are smart there is no reason to be a dionysian fool.

It is a dilemma nevertheless and probably unsolvable within the scope of this thread. I personally have begun finding it difficult to accept Libertarianism despite its appeal. The alternatives, as you point out, may not be any better. We are probably then left with using our incredible intelligence that could be left to a Libertarian structure and find better solutions.

Jace

BJ, I think most of the adherents of Libertarianism live in the States.  Overseas membership is extremely minimal.  There is a Libertarian party in N.Z - but only a miniscule fraction of people vote for it.  Hopefully the situation will improve as Libertarian ideas become more widely known.

Australia has a Libertarian Party!! It hasn't been around very long but it's there. Here's the website: http://www.ldp.org.au/index.jsp (vote for them! )

I think Libertarianism is the right ideal, but as a purely pragmatic matter people are probably not ready for it at this point in history.  As people learn to take responsibility for their own lives Libertarianism will grow more popular.  Taking responsibility for your own life is hard to do.  Most people want someone else to take the blame for things and to do the hard work.  But at the end of the day people don't like being told what to do so I think Libertarianism will win in the end.

We can't just drop everything right now and go to a free market. Progressive policies are needed that encourage unregulated and unsubsidised markets to flourish and replace the current system. Unfortunately there are too many lefties who will do anything to stop that happening. [angry]