Inside the Cold, Calculating Libertarian Mind

Quote from Xygonn : There are absolutely a class of more pragmatic Libertarians that support temporary government relief, antitrust, public education, labeling and other information assymetry solutions enforced by government for the purposes of increasing the efficiency and/or productiveness of the market beyond pure capitalism.

Sure, but at what point does the label stop being meaningful? I like all those things, too, and abhor authority for sake of it. Am I a libertarian as well?

Quote : Seems to be working really well with Iran and Pakistan. They are totally in line now! /sarcasm.

They are. Can you imagine them moving beyond mere rhetoric against our say so? OTOH, we do what we want in their region. But "we're the good guys", right?

Quote : I missed a step somewhere, because I'm not sure how this follows what I said.

Much like the idiosyncrasies of public health targets from one party to object to, surely there are many negatives of founding law on religion from the other choice which libertarians might find troubling.

Quote from agent00f : Sure, but at what point does the label stop being meaningful? I like all those things, too, and abhor authority for sake of it. Am I a libertarian as well?

Democrats and Republicans have all sorts of beliefs. So do Libertarians. If you are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, voting for the Libertarian candidate could make a great deal of sense. Labels aren't always accurate, and there is room for nuance in each of those positions. Not all libertarians are slaves to a textbook ideology (or religion as you like to call it).

Quote : They are. Can you imagine them moving beyond mere rhetoric against our say so? OTOH, we do what we want in their region. But "we're the good guys", right?

Iran has not slowed down its nuclear program, not even a little bit. I'm not sure what good we are doing in the region.

Quote : Much like the idiosyncrasies of public health targets from one party to object to, surely there are many negatives of founding law on religion from the other choice which libertarians might find troubling.

Ah, sure. Law based on religion is something that libertarians don't like, if the religion has morals conducive to non-voluntarism. If you take the ten commandments as an example, libertarians have no problem with, "don't kill", "don't steal", and "don't bear false witness". Some might even be ok with civil penalties for adultery. The whole "false idols", "no other god before me", "don't work on the sabbath","don't covet things" would be right out. Libertarians generally do believe parents have a special relationship with their children, so "honor they father and mother" aren't really anything to base laws on, but we recognize parents should have some authority over their children that is very different than the relationship between adults, or adults and other people's children. Luckily, blue laws have largely gone the way of the dodo. You don't see a lot of Republicans running on a platform of closing liquor stores on Sundays.

Quote from Danman114 : Next up, when Europeans came to the New World they were peaceful mostly peaceful with the Natives. They would barter, inhabit uninhabited land, and act friendly toward one another. It was some years later, after a government with a large army was established, that the government would go on to murder the Natives (which to this point only the libertarian seems to have a problem with).

Me thinks you left out a step or two.

Conflict started much earlier than large standing armies: [wikipedia.org]

Quote : At first, the natives had been more than happy to trade provisions to the colonists for metal tools, but by 1609 the English governor, John Smith, had begun to send in raiding parties to demand food. This earned the colonists a bad reputation among the Native Americans and precipitated conflict.[3][4] They isolated the Native Americans, burned down houses, and stole their food supplies.[5] The English violence merely served to alienate the natives further; besieged within Jamestown fort for several months and unable to secure more food supplies, many colonists died during the "starving time" in 1609-10.[6]

and [wikipedia.org]

Quote : From the very beginning, the process of European settlement of what would later become United States territory was accompanied by armed conflicts that periodically erupted between the natives and the settlers in the areas that were being colonized. The wars, which ranged from the 17th-century (Jamestown Massacre of 1622, Pequot War of 1637, Anglo-Powhatan Wars, King Philip's War, King William's War, as well as Queen Anne's War, Tuscarora War, Yamasee War and Dummer's War at the opening of the 18th century) to the French and Indian War, Pontiac's Rebellion and Lord Dunmore's War after the middle of that century until the Wounded Knee massacre and "closing" of the American frontier in 1890, generally resulted in the opening of Native American lands to further colonization, the conquest of Native Americans and their assimilation, or forced relocation to Indian reservations.

Europeans encroached on (stole) Native American land and precipitated violent attacks in defense of said land, which were countered with violent reprisals, etc.

Quote from 124nic8 : Me thinks you left out a step or two. Conflict started much earlier than large standing armies: [wikipedia.org] and [wikipedia.org] Europeans encroached on (stole) Native American land and precipitated violent attacks in defense of said land, which were countered with violent reprisals, etc.

Wikipedia:

At first, the natives had been more than happy to trade provisions to the colonists for metal tools, but by 1609 the English governor, John Smith, had begun to send in raiding parties to demand food. This earned the colonists a bad reputation among the Native Americans and precipitated conflict.

Danman:

Next up, when Europeans came to the New World they were peaceful mostly peaceful with the Natives. They would barter, inhabit uninhabited land, and act friendly toward one another. It was some years later, after a government with a large army was established, that the government would go on to murder the Natives (which to this point only the libertarian seems to have a problem with).

Soooo, I don't see the same conflict of facts that you seem to.

Quote from Xygonn : Democrats and Republicans have all sorts of beliefs. So do Libertarians. If you are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, voting for the Libertarian candidate could make a great deal of sense. Labels aren't always accurate, and there is room for nuance in each of those positions. Not all libertarians are slaves to a textbook ideology (or religion as you like to call it).

I'm socially liberal and advocate fiscal responsibility, yet can't identify at all in general american libertarians. Seems like the critical differences lay elsewhere.

Frankly I have no idea why someone who supports all those things above because they understand that society is too complex to reduce to individual voluntary transactions would be a libertarian in the US.

Quote : Iran has not slowed down its nuclear program, not even a little bit. I'm not sure what good we are doing in the region.

Seems like a good idea in their own self-interest to have the material available for a ready to assemble bomb.

What we're doing in the region is pushing our interests against theirs. For example, we're aware of the consequences of a major disruption in worldwide oil supply. Why else would they be spending so much money on defensive weaponry?

Quote : Ah, sure. Law based on religion is something that libertarians don't like, if the religion has morals conducive to non-voluntarism. If you take the ten commandments as an example, libertarians have no problem with, "don't kill", "don't steal", and "don't bear false witness". Some might even be ok with civil penalties for adultery. The whole "false idols", "no other god before me", "don't work on the sabbath","don't covet things" would be right out. Libertarians generally do believe parents have a special relationship with their children, so "honor they father and mother" aren't really anything to base laws on, but we recognize parents should have some authority over their children that is very different than the relationship between adults, or adults and other people's children. Luckily, blue laws have largely gone the way of the dodo. You don't see a lot of Republicans running on a platform of closing liquor stores on Sundays.

Has public religion ever really been about anything much more than inflicting cultural mores on others? I mean, I'm not concerned about the bible per se here.

Quote from 124nic8 : Me thinks you left out a step or two. Conflict started much earlier than large standing armies: [wikipedia.org] and [wikipedia.org] Europeans encroached on (stole) Native American land and precipitated violent attacks in defense of said land, which were countered with violent reprisals, etc.

Steven Pinker has an excellent book out which deals with the systemic reasons for the noted decline in violence. Unfortunately has a lot of science so it won't reach the audience which needs the message the most.

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Quote from Xygonn : Iran has not slowed down its nuclear program, not even a little bit. I'm not sure what good we are doing in the region.

So all those centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet just magically repaired themselves?

Quote from Xygonn : Wikipedia: At first, the natives had been more than happy to trade provisions to the colonists for metal tools, but by 1609 the English governor, John Smith, had begun to send in raiding parties to demand food. This earned the colonists a bad reputation among the Native Americans and precipitated conflict. Danman: Next up, when Europeans came to the New World they were peaceful mostly peaceful with the Natives. They would barter, inhabit uninhabited land, and act friendly toward one another. It was some years later, after a government with a large army was established, that the government would go on to murder the Natives (which to this point only the libertarian seems to have a problem with). Soooo, I don't see the same conflict of facts that you seem to.

"Raiding parties" =/= "large standing armies"

Quote from agent00f : I'm socially liberal and advocate fiscal responsibility, yet can't identify at all in general american libertarians. Seems like the critical differences lay elsewhere. Frankly I have no idea why someone who supports all those things above because they understand that society is too complex to reduce to individual voluntary transactions would be a libertarian in the US.

I think you are just too focused on the idealistic libertarians. Perhaps it's not a perfect label for my ilk. Maybe "liberaltarian" coined by someone else is more accurate.

Quote : Seems like a good idea in their own self-interest to have the material available for a ready to assemble bomb. What we're doing in the region is pushing our interests against theirs. For example, we're aware of the consequences of a major disruption in worldwide oil supply. Why else would they be spending so much money on defensive weaponry?

Military-industrial complex?

Quote : Has public religion ever really been about anything much more than inflicting cultural mores on others? I mean, I'm not concerned about the bible per se here.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by public religion. But people go to church not necessarily to influence other adults but to teach their children morals and a sense of community. I think the general aims to that end are good. Unfortunately it's served on a platter of mysticism.

Quote from 124nic8 : So all those centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet just magically repaired themselves?

I was unaware that our war in Iraq and Afghanistan is what allowed Stuxnet to be deployed.

I'm saying diplomacy in the region has not improved.

Quote from Xygonn : Iran has not slowed down its nuclear program, not even a little bit. I'm not sure what good we are doing in the region.

Quote from 124nic8 : So all those centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet just magically repaired themselves?

Quote from Xygonn : I was unaware that our war in Iraq and Afghanistan is what allowed Stuxnet to be deployed.

Who said that it was? We did Stuxnet in the region.

Quote from Xygonn : Military-industrial complex?

Are you referring to us or them? I suppose they have in part such a self-perpetuating industry, too, but might still makes right in the world.

Quote : I'm not sure exactly what you mean by public religion. But people go to church not necessarily to influence other adults but to teach their children morals and a sense of community. I think the general aims to that end are good. Unfortunately it's served on a platter of mysticism.

Yeah, that's all fine. What I'm referring to is the public religion, or the religion outside of the pew. Fox's "christian nation" resonates not just because people want to help the poor and all that hippy jesus jazz. Eg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2...7/iraq.usa or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...Bible.html

Quote : I'm saying diplomacy in the region has not improved.

Well, hegemony is not really the same thing as diplomacy.

Quote from 124nic8 : Who said that it was? We did Stuxnet in the region.

I was saying invading Iraq, Afghanistan, and attacking Lybia has not made Iran any more wary of us. They continue on their path. Stuxnet has nothing to do with it. When I said Iran hasn't slowed down, it was in reference to the fact that our military foreign policy is ineffective at deterring our other enemies.

Quote from agent00f : Are you referring to us or them? I suppose they have in part such a self-perpetuating industry, too, but might still makes right in the world.

Might ensures rights. It cannot create them, and it can certainly destroy them.

Quote : Yeah, that's all fine. What I'm referring to is the public religion, or the religion outside of the pew. Fox's "christian nation" resonates not just because people want to help the poor and all that hippy jesus jazz. Eg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2...7/iraq.usa or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...Bible.html

Yes, forcing your mores on others is bad. I'm of the opinion that the GOP is generally less forceful in forcing mores on others than Dems are in forcing others to avoid risk to oneself.

Quote : Well, hegemony is not really the same thing as diplomacy.

True.

Quote from Xygonn : Might ensures rights. It cannot create them, and it can certainly destroy them.

It seems "ensure" and "create" is just a semantic distinction here. For example, women in japan were basically force fed the vote post-WWII. Might is simply how the world goes around. I very much recommend Steven Pinker's book about violence to any libertarian if you didn't catch the recommendation in the other thread.

However, I still want a crack at the claim that our hegemony is ineffective. Our PR is pretty much working overdrive at vilifying Iran to anyone who'll listen, while we have no issue with working with if not installing far worse dictators. Unless the claim is that PR is ineffective, short of dropping bombs, they're already backed into a corner for basically looking at us wrong. Similarly, the US pulls on China's strings for "human rights" (surely a joke considering who's talking) which has a real impact on the political mood of the entire west.

Quote : Yes, forcing your mores on others is bad. I'm of the opinion that the GOP is generally less forceful in forcing mores on others than Dems are in forcing others to avoid risk to oneself.

I think you understand that these aren't necessarily individual risks. For example, poor health effects pretty much everything. It's really a matter of where to draw the line, or balancing incentive vs. disincentives. Personally I find "liberals" more willing to entertain discussions about nuance, which ironically/unfortunately translates to a political weakness on their part.

Quote from skiman : Read the sequence of events. You wanted to tout this as an example of a successful piece of infrastructure built across diverse areas and interests negotiated in the Libertarian model. Of course, that model is a fantasy. The railroad didn't negotiate shit with the affected parties. It acquired cheap land that had been "given" to another railroad by a government that simply claimed the land and defended the claim by force. That's it. If I simply take something you claim to own, and sell it to someone else, the new buyer does not magically become a morally entitled rightful owner with inalienable right to ownership (unless Libertarian Jesus says so!) and that new owner damn sure did not acquire the "thing" by making a voluntary agreement with all interested parties. The idea that you think at some point a competition for resources magically stops being a competition for resources and becomes an inalienable right is craaaaazy.

I read it. You said the North Pacific Rail fails (accurate, that happened a couple times actually), and then you said it was acquired by the Great Northern. That happened in 19-f'ing-70. Are you kidding me with that? Because the railways eventually merged almost 100 years later, your going to negate the fact that a private railway was established via buying very small bankrupt lines (mostly near cities), negotiating peacefully with property owners, and with little if any government muscle? Please.

Quote from skiman : Imagine that, folks are peaceful until their claims are in conflict. If only we lived in a world of infinite resources...

No, conflicts largely started when one government was larger than the other. Sure there were cultural problems, but we wouldn't be here today if cooperation wasn't more common than not.

Quote from skiman : Again, it's fantastically easy to be successful if all you have to do is convince people that you are entitled to sell the shit that someone else stole and then granted to you. Huzzah for liberty! Dan, there are two ways to capture and retain scarce resources. 1. You can personally use force and threat of force to claim and defend the resource against other claims 2. You can participate in an arrangement in which others use force or threat of force to preserve your claim against other claims

Ski, I bought 11 gallons of gas two days ago for roughly $44 dollars. Did I engage in 1 or 2 in your myopic example? Or did I acquire scarce resources via peaceful trade, that happens more often than many care to admit.

Quote from skiman : Conflict yes. Bloodshed is certain only if neither claim can be otherwise resolved.

So a third party (maybe private police or insurance company) might be nice. Fair. But I was talking disagreements, which are far more common. Surely you agree not every disagreement leads to violence, only 'conflicts' which exist with or without a giant government.

Quote from skiman : You don't understand the nature of ownership. You think of it as some sort of real, metaphysical state. Hence, you are continuing to ask the wrong question. I don't think I "own" it. I'd think I have it. I think I'd want to keep it, and if I want it enough, and there are now low-energy alternatives, I'll defend it. Again, two ways to capture a scarce resource, my force, or submitting to communal arbitration and enforcement.

So in your eyes the word 'own' doesn't exist absent a government authority? Does it get zapped from your brain too? Or is there just a yearning for government so you can own again? Absent government, is there no trade (because 'again' it doesn't seem to be in your world of no government).

Quote from skiman : Oh, a "rightful" claim. Do you mean righteous claim? As determined by Libertarian Jesus? Point being (again) that nothing distinguishes one claim from another beyond your preference. You want us to think that homesteaders had a rightful claim? Or the Great Northern Railroad? What makes these claims rightful in any objective way? What makes them better than my claim to the same land- oh, not to mention the claim of the people who used to use that land. And magically it all becomes rightful!

You don't think, as a human being, you could (or an arbitrator) could use reason to determent the rightful claim? Isn't that what government is suppose to do? Or is government your messiah?

Quote from skiman : It's subscription cable. You buy the package even if you don't like every channel. It's a system designed to compromise our rights. We trade our rights for other advantages. Enjoy!

if your theory is based on Comast's operation model, chances are I will take issue with it.

Quote from skiman : No, Dan, it sucks to be on the losing side. Always has. Whether it's one bully grabbing more, an small alliance grabbing more, a tribe grabbing more, or a formal government grabbing more. Inalienable rights are a statement of intent rather than an observation of fact.

It sucks... I guess that's one way of putting genocide by government.

As far as rights, I have a hard time thinking they are not observable. Can you not watch someone express themselves one way or another?