General

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

C.H. Hellstrom — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:31:44 GMT

GilesStratton:

I don't think it is wise to limit oneself to either of the choices. I merely pointed out that philosophy tends to be a deeper subject. If you're speaking to somebody educated about philosophy (and I mean, educated) by all means adopt the appropriate angle. However, most people you speak to don't care for your natural rights, whether or not they're correct. They'd rather a system that prevents widespread poverty and unemployment than anything else.

Yes, philosophy is a deeper subject, but you don't have to be well educated about philosophy to be convinced that the initiation of force is wrong. But you are correct in your assertion that people tend to be more open to arguments from effect.

GilesStratton:

Why? One might say capitalism will cause less destruction to the enviromnent. I wouldn't advise even talking to those people about these issues though...

Environmentalists (at least radical ones), the ones that I'm refering to, are against industrial sociaty as such, and is against human exploitation of nature.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

liberty student — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:27:52 GMT

GilesStratton:

Try contributing next time Juan.

As Juan goes, that was a pretty substantial contribution lol

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

hayekianxyz — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:26:37 GMT

Try contributing next time Juan.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

Juan — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:22:02 GMT

That's how you got your "conservatism=libertarianism" revelation ? Interesting...

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

hayekianxyz — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:08:20 GMT

Ron Paul and Gene Callahan did everything for me. Then came Rothbard and finally, and most importantly, Hoppe.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

hayekianxyz — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:07:31 GMT

Sage:
I think the most compelling approach is a combination of both morality and practicality. Why do we have to choose between the two?

Because time is scarce and there are better things to do. Actually I think this is one of the greatest contribution of Professor Hoppe. Most people are convinced of the omnipotence of democracy. Monarchy, dictatorship or whatever else one can think of are, correctly, understood to be flawed. Whereas most individuals worship democracy to the extent that it is seen as the institutionalization of freedom. Now it is merely necessary to prove that the incentive structure of democracy is inferior to that of monarchy and from then proceed to the conclusion, applying the same logic, that the natural order is superior to both.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

hayekianxyz — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:59:31 GMT

C.H. Hellstrom:
Well, in my experience most converts to libertarianism have heard a mixture of both moral and economic arguments, and I don’t think there is any reason to exclusively focus on one of them. And I don’t think that it’s the case that only one of them have merit (though I’m not saying that you think so!)

I don't think it is wise to limit oneself to either of the choices. I merely pointed out that philosophy tends to be a deeper subject. If you're speaking to somebody educated about philosophy (and I mean, educated) by all means adopt the appropriate angle. However, most people you speak to don't care for your natural rights, whether or not they're correct. They'd rather a system that prevents widespread poverty and unemployment than anything else.

C.H. Hellstrom:
So I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to them the economic argument won’t work at all.

Why? One might say capitalism will cause less destruction to the enviromnent. I wouldn't advise even talking to those people about these issues though...

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

C.H. Hellstrom — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:58:53 GMT

GilesStratton:

It would appear that using economic reasoning to convince people will be far more effective. Since we do not have to convince them about the ends, only that the means they wish to use to attain these ends will not bring about the results they wish for. Hence the emotional reaction from the statist will not be as pronounced as it would be if one had tried to convince them that the state is "evil", which is essentially meaningless, and perhaps even insulting, to the average person.

Moreover, it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights, moreover it is far more real to most people. My final point is that culture has the potential to be far more effective in bringing statists around to the anarchist point of view than philosophy. For the conservative this means explaining that upon abolishing the state we are likely to see a stronger family structure amongst other results and to the liberal this could take a number of forms such as lower income inequality.

Well, in my experience most converts to libertarianism have heard a mixture of both moral and economic arguments, and I don’t think there is any reason to exclusively focus on one of them. And I don’t think that it’s the case that only one of them have merit (though I’m not saying that you think so!).

You are correct that “it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights…”, but the argument from effect, i.e. that capitalism/the free market is more efficient, may not always be the most effective argument. Capitalism, in order to become accepted by a majority of people, must be founded on morality. If not people may accept that capitalism is more effective, but that it’s immoral or amoral. As long as socialism/egalitarianism and closely related ideologies are viewed as the more moral social systems capitalism will never triumph. In many debates I have had with center-left people they have agreed that capitalism is effective, but that it’s unfair, and as long as they think that how are they going to be converted?

There are also groups that won’t accept the economic argument at all, just because of the argument itself. I am of course talking about environmentalists. They are against capitalism because it’s effective, and they regard that as immoral. So I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to them the economic argument won’t work at all.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

gocrew — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:54:27 GMT

DougM:

I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity.

No Austrian worth his salt would ever claim this. Scarcity is a condition of the universe we live in. It is the very reason we must act and why a science studying and explaining this action exists.

DougM:

I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals.

This issue is how best to deal with problems, whether they get solved or not.

DougM:

I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.

AnCap will not change human nature. Of course there will be people who beat their spouses. How is this to be dealt with best is the question we need to ask.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

Cork — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:03:56 GMT

justinx0r:

Cork:
That JLS issue is indeed amazing

Link?

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004869.asp

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

DougM — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:11:40 GMT

Ixtellor:

In libertarianism, the bad guy is the State and the good guy is the capitalist. If you could only remove the State, the capitalists would create a near utopian society, where free markets solve all problems. Crime? check. Waste of resources? check. Oppression? check. Freedom? check.

Every single problem or question to its legitimacy and 'workability' is always easily explained by a market force.

I had a feeling that you might be starting to feel that way. Keep in mind that there are three kinds of people in this forum, anarchists, minarchists, and those of us who choose not to participate in the debate. My personal opinion is that no political or economic system can solve all the world's problems. I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity. I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals. Resources are certainly wasted in free markets but, perhaps counter-intuitvely, more resources are wasted in any other economic system. I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.

You're comment kinda reminds me of the public choice argument, where the loudest voices take precedence over the majority.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

John Ess — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:31:45 GMT

Utilitarian economics and ethics are not mutually exclusive.

As Mises pointed out, the many different causal factors in a given economic situation cannot be disentangled. Which is one of the problems of showing cause and effect in economics. And in general why economic argument often times fails to convince anyone. For instance, statists often think about policy based on "growth" (though not compared to anything, since they advocate monopolies) -- which they attribute to public schools, universities, public roads, union control by state, city planning boards, subsidies, etc. instead of to free markets that lower prices, make quality goods, that hire university students, that train people who've wasted their time in public schools, etc. All the while, in the Hazlitt sense, ignoring some of the bad effects of these "public goods": like what their costs were to possible competition for schools, roads, wages, etc. that could have been far better (but that we can't really measure just how different even if all other things were equal).

I think it's a personal preference. Some people are bothered by fiat currency and inflation (and think the Fed is the sole evil). While others may be more shocked about the shere number of individuals murdered by the state. The former you may not even need a deep knowledge of economics to understand and the latter you don't need a PhD in philosophy to know is perhaps beneath human dignity or most people's ethical standards. You may notice that lewrockwell.com has people in both camps. The state is generally a mix of evil and bad economic thinking, so there's room for both arguments.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:29:34 GMT

That was hilarious.

It is counter to her own intentions, but only fitting. With the notion of positive rights out of the way, any objections to anarcho-capitalism withered in turn too, including her own.

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

C.H. Hellstrom — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:57:38 GMT

ladyattis:
Oddly, Rand convinced me to be an Agorist, and Heinlein convinced me to be an egoist (more or less from the consequentialist point of view).

Mazel tov!

Re: Making Libertarianism Credible.

Nerditarian — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:51:24 GMT

Cork:
Block's response was brilliant. Reisman's article was not just a critique; it was a slaughter. I don't think I've ever seen a political philosophy torn to shreds so mercilessly (or masterfully). Carson did the best he could, but I don't think he got out of the choke hold.

Putting Carson up against Block and Reisman is like putting your average suburban white boy up against a pack of gray wolves. It wasn't a far fight. At all. Loved reading it though.