Political Theory

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Sage — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:04:15 GMT

JAlanKatz:
Yes, well, I think Friedman was wrong about that, but the situation for praxeology is different from that in ethics.

I've started a new thread here.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

JAlanKatz — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:38:10 GMT

Sage:
If you and I are both praxeologists, and we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We can yell, we can argue, we can try to find a logical flaw in one another’s thing, but in the end we have no way to resolve it except by fighting, by saying you’re wrong and I’m right. - Milton Friedman (quoted here)

Yes, well, I think Friedman was wrong about that, but the situation for praxeology is different from that in ethics.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

abskebabs — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:12:25 GMT

Jeremiah Dyke:

How do you respond when someone claims your beliefs are utopian and that your neverending optimism for free market solutions resembels Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss?

As an extension, do you often find even people who can see problems of the democratic state with its rentseeking and corruption, invariably seem to usually have an almost unending optmisim for what could be achieved if only a "strong man" could be put in place to "get things done" (I think my dad is one example).

I think this is really the ideal of statism ultimately, to get rid of the little 'obstacles' to 'getting things done.' Everything in between private property rights and the unhampered decisions and contracts of individuals, to supreme strong man rule occupies the contradictory set of affairs in most modern day polities. The fact that people tend to root for the latter to my mind seems to be predicated entirely to a bad or a lack of understanding of basic economics.

Perhaps if we framed the debate in such a way, much progress could be made.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Sage — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:59:04 GMT

JAlanKatz:
While I'm not a deontologist, I do tend to take a moral position - it is wrong to hit people, and so on. Very well. However, this leads nowhere in discussion. I maintain that it's wrong to hit people, they respond that it isn't, and we're stuck, or we can shout at each other, or whatever, but basically, we're at an impasse.

If you and I are both praxeologists, and we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We can yell, we can argue, we can try to find a logical flaw in one another’s thing, but in the end we have no way to resolve it except by fighting, by saying you’re wrong and I’m right. - Milton Friedman (quoted here)

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

JAlanKatz — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:10:07 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
I'm a deontologist as well, but many statists are not (or, perhaps more commonly, don't want to hear arguments about libertarian ethics). Economics provides compelling consequentialist arguments as well, because you can say, "Even given your desired end X, government intervention is the wrong way to accomplish it."

Or especially. While I'm not a deontologist, I do tend to take a moral position - it is wrong to hit people, and so on. Very well. However, this leads nowhere in discussion. I maintain that it's wrong to hit people, they respond that it isn't, and we're stuck, or we can shout at each other, or whatever, but basically, we're at an impasse. On the other hand, once I get them to state their goals, we're having an entirely different discussion. See, when we're talking about morality, it seems as if their goals in life involve setting up coercive institutions to abuse people. If that's your goal, you're not going to become a libertarian. On the other hand, when we talk about outcome, they say they want more income equality, more opportunities, better education, and so on - now I actually have something to say about how government produces inequality and takes away opportunities.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Justin Spahr-Summers — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:55:37 GMT

assimilateur:
Cabal:
We simply contend that a free society is more beneficial, across the board, than a statist society.

Not all of us. Adhering to deontologist libertarian principles, I focus more on the immorality of a statist society. I'm not saying that it wouldn't also be better (as in, people being freer, safer, richer, etc.), but the moral or rights-theoretical factors are overriding.

I'm a deontologist as well, but many statists are not (or, perhaps more commonly, don't want to hear arguments about libertarian ethics). Economics provides compelling consequentialist arguments as well, because you can say, "Even given your desired end X, government intervention is the wrong way to accomplish it."

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Cabal — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:42:00 GMT

assimilateur:

Not all of us. Adhering to deontologist libertarian principles, I focus more on the immorality of a statist society. I'm not saying that it wouldn't also be better (as in, people being freer, safer, richer, etc.), but the moral or rights-theoretical factors are overriding.

I also give much emphasis to morality in this respect; but again, as you acknowledged, this is also a more beneficial factor--hence, "across the board".

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

assimilateur — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:39:35 GMT

Cabal:
We simply contend that a free society is more beneficial, across the board, than a statist society.

Not all of us. Adhering to deontologist libertarian principles, I focus more on the immorality of a statist society. I'm not saying that it wouldn't also be better (as in, people being freer, safer, richer, etc.), but the moral or rights-theoretical factors are overriding.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Cabal — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:16:49 GMT

A common misconception about libertarian ideals is that they are utopian, when this simply isn't the case. We do not contend that a state of perfection or universal peace/good/order will spawn from a libertarian society, for instance. We simply contend that a free society is more beneficial, across the board, than a statist society.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

JAlanKatz — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:27:12 GMT

"A free world is not perfect. I do not claim it is. Your arguments every other time we've spoken have consisted of pointing out problems that may arise in a free world. I presume that, if you think those are good arguments, you think that somehow having a state can produce a perfect world. Who is the utopian, again?"

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Giant_Joe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:37:00 GMT

Dondoolee:

Say they commited a logical fallacy. If all they are doing is assertng something and calling you some negative name there is no argument or position by the opponent.

Good point. Often times, people will look into things bearing an empty mind and not an open one.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

William — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:35:53 GMT

Say they commited a logical fallacy. If all they are doing is assertng something and calling you some negative name there is no argument or position by the opponent.

Re: The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Giant_Joe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:35:45 GMT

When people say stuff like that to me I say "ok." and just shrug my shoulders. Then I ignore them for a very, very long time. :)

The Libertarian Dr. Pangloss

Jeremiah Dyke — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:30:38 GMT

How do you respond when someone claims your beliefs are utopian and that your neverending optimism for free market solutions resembels Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss?