Political Theory

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

malgratloprekindle — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:43:55 GMT

AJ:
the libertarian/AnCap solution in a given area is generally purported to be an improvement in every single aspect. In other words, libertarian solutions almost always seem to be better both morally and from a utilitarian perspective.

This is precisely why I'm a Libertarian in favor of either small government Mini-Archism, or no government Anarcho-Capitalism.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Conza88 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:08:38 GMT

AJ:

Then essentially the State is an adulteration of those rights, so it should be no surprise that eliminating the state restores society to an unequivocally superior condition, in all areas of human endeavor.

Yeppers. I'm yet to try that on the minarchists / layman. - "What creates civilization?" End result: no sign or need for the State.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

AJ — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:53:12 GMT

Solomon:
The first and last lesson of libertarianism is that human society is self-ordering.

Right, so we are here only discussing what we theorize the free market of human interactions free from government will in fact decide on as common law. All other (archist/statist) political theories are of a fundamentally different nature in that they decree something. (In fact, AnCap seems not a political theory, but rather a complete rejection of politics. I like it! I always did feel there was something dirty about politics in general.)

Conza88:
It's essentially what creates civilization. Division of labor & private property rights.

Then essentially the State is an adulteration of those rights, so it should be no surprise that eliminating the state restores society to an unequivocally superior condition, in all areas of human endeavor.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Conza88 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:51:30 GMT

AJ:

But that still doesn't answer the question of why there exists such a singular, simple rule as "no coercion against property rights" (or just the NAP)? Why does that one rule make everything work out so well? I submit that this is a separate question that of how we define "justice." It's more, why does this simple rule entirely define such a great justice system, where so many things work out so neatly?

To take a punt, it stems from the division of labor. Humans at some point discovered, that with the division of labor, they could get much more done & because of specialisation; become much more productive and efficent. They would then trade! It was realised that, instead of fighting to the death over food i.e scarcity. It was much better to work together, peacefully and everyone would be better off.

It's essentially what creates civilization. Division of labor & private property rights.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Solomon — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:29:08 GMT

The first and last lesson of libertarianism is that human society is self-ordering. The reason for having a prescription for justice as minimalistic as the NAP is not because it is some grand "secret of the universe", but rather because humans have no direct role in making society function; it is just a simple solution to (what is supposed to be) a simple problem. (On the other hand, showing that it is in fact a solution requires correct knowledge of economics and human nature).

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

AJ — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:56:07 GMT

Solomon:
See (the last section of) Long's article Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences.

Having read this, I suppose libertarians chose the rule of "no coercion against property rights," and defined it in the way that they have because that definition works best in real life vis a vis human action. Long concludes that if the Austrian praxeological arguments are sound, then libertarian social order must produce good consequences because the social and economic concepts are defined in such a way that libertarian economic and social laws would maximize their benefit.

But that still doesn't answer the question of why there exists such a singular, simple rule as "no coercion against property rights" (or just the NAP)? Why does that one rule make everything work out so well? I submit that this is a separate question that of how we define "justice." It's more, why does this simple rule entirely define such a great justice system, where so many things work out so neatly?

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

AJ — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:58:13 GMT

Conza88:
Welcome! Good work on making it here and *applause* for the open mindedness to check out Anarcho-Capitalism.

My response would be Natural Law. (Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard)

Thank you very much. I'll read it now. It's not as much open-mindedness as that I was a Ron Paul supporter and extremely curious how AnCaps could possibly defend their viewpoints, but the answers have turned out to be fascinating. I've been reading frantically for the past few days and my worldview is being turned inside-out.

I'd say this is one more argument in favor of not watering things down, and taking the AnCap case directly to the people. Even supposing minarchy is really the correct solution, spreading AnCap ideas helps (and it seems important for strategy to note that the converse is not strictly true).

nazgulnarsil:
preference utilitarianism is a sort of consequentialist libertarianism. natural righters are a deontological flavor of libertarianism.

Whoah, nazgulnarsil could you elaborate? I would google these terms, but I don't really trust Wikipedia for an accurate interpretation.

Wesley Bruce:
Any society that overly centralizes power creates a situation where this 'sin' can harm many people.

Makes sense. So if we say coercion=sin, then government is just sin writ large. Not just because of the coercive minority rule of political elites, but also because of the coercive majority rule of voters insofar as the democratic decisions cannot be opted out of. Could be a good way to explain it to Christians. Does Christan theology prohibit all kinds of coercion (even "for the greater good")? All I remember is, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Solomon:
See (the last section of) Long's article Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences.

Thanks! Sounds like just what I'm looking for.

whipitgood:
p.s. Read Rothbard's 'For a New Liberty' if you have time. I recommend that book to anyone who's walking the line between minarchism and anarchism.

I'm putting this on my short list of must-reads.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

whipitgood — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:21:11 GMT

Number 3.

People with an ideological bias against government will be more open to utilitarian arguments against it. Conversely, people with an emotional or ideological attachment to the state will generally not be open to arguments in favor of laissez-faire.

p.s. Read Rothbard's 'For a New Liberty' if you have time. I recommend that book to anyone who's walking the line between minarchism and anarchism.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Solomon — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:32:32 GMT

Austro-libertarian utility theory (rightly) discounts notions of social welfare (like equality and externalities); so if one consistently applies this standard, libertarian morality must, ipso facto, be utility maximizing (relative to uncertainty).

See (the last section of) Long's article Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Wesley Bruce — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:30:27 GMT

AJ's divine providence (No. 1) is a little more elucidating to someone with a little Christian Theology.

The bible teaches that people are sinful and prone to cutting corners for selfish gain. Regardless of how you define sin and whether you believe in original sin, this proposition has an economic and political consequence. Any society that overly centralizes power creates a situation where this 'sin' can harm many people. Tax, war, conscription, pork barrel legislation, etc, etc are all good examples.

A society that divides up power into many business sized chunks is safe guarded to a great extent. With many direct buyer/ seller relationships the freemarket limits power of one individual to ripping off only one other while giving the other the power to penalize by both boycotting the robber and reporting the event to all.

This leaves only a few cases where the moral tenancy to greed, selfishness, etc can impact on unsuspecting individuals. We don't have prefect liberty some dangerous and negligent acts are still available but they are limited to harming a small group of intimate contacts not a huge population.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

nazgulnarsil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:17:31 GMT

preference utilitarianism is a sort of consequentialist libertarianism. natural righters are a deontological flavor of libertarianism.

Re: Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

Conza88 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:49:11 GMT

Welcome! Good work on making it here and *applause* for the open mindedness to check out Anarcho-Capitalism.

My response would be Natural Law. (Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard)

Natural Law and Reason
Natural Law as "Science"
Natural Law versus Positive Law
Natural Law and Natural Rights
The Task of Political Philosophy

Is the link between libertarian morality and utilitarianism mere coincidence?

AJ — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:33:35 GMT

Other (statist) political philosophies seem to involve trade-offs in every area: higher taxes, slower economy, and less freedom for every new government goodie.

In sharp contrast, the libertarian/AnCap solution in a given area is generally purported to be an improvement in every single aspect. In other words, libertarian solutions almost always seem to be better both morally and from a utilitarian perspective. The uninitiated could be forgiven for saying they sound almost "too good to be true."

Incidentally, Walter Block's video on road privatization mentions this uncanny coincidence, where maximizing liberty tends to maximize utility (at around the 1hr. 28min. mark).

How can we account for this amazing coincidence? Here are three possibilities:

1) Divine providence, etc.: "This is the way things are meant to be, so it all works out magically." (Pleasing on some aesthetic level, but not very elucidating.)

2) Argumentation and selection bias: Libertarian ideologues looking for evidence to justify their beliefs gravitate toward Austrian economics and try hard to discover ways for the free market to handle things effectively. In other words, we want it to be true so much that we devote the vast part of our energies and intellects to proving each aspect of the theory true and listening to others who have done the same. (This must exist to some degree, but Keynesians and Statists likewise have ideological motivations and yet their conclusions decidedly do not harmonize morality with utility.)

3) The "state as disease" paradigm: It's not that free markets are magical (they're just natural). It's that having one big parasitic monopoly in the critical areas of security, justice, and defense with tendrils sucking away at nearly every other area of life is an unmitigated burden. Since government curses everything it touches, it should come as no surprise that each step against government encroachment (even on purely moral grounds) tends strongly to improve actual conditions (utility). Would we be surprised if every single area of a someone's health improved after they defeated a major disease like cancer?

I like this third one, because armed with the explanation provided by #3 we no longer have to suffer objections based on #2 (which Block had to contend with in one of his older debate videos), and it reinforces the anti-state message.

It also helps explain why even the craziest-sounding libertarian ideas always end up having good, rational arguments in their defense. And it goes some way toward explaining why people talk of "libertarian utopias" (sarcastically) and say it's too extreme and "needs balance" or is not "nuanced" enough. What we have here is people believing the myth that the cancer is necessary and good, and the tumor needs nutrients, and it would be "extreme" to kill off the tumor completely or even sever some of its tendrils. They've lived with the tumor so long that the tumor has become their "keeper." They would call a return to normal health, with such a long and stupendous-sounding list of improvements, an unrealistic utopian scenario.

But I am new to this, in fact only seriously started looking into AnCap 5 days ago, so does anyone have a better explanation for the apparent coincidence?