Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Alain Delors » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:37 pm

Welcome back, EEL. I'm no longer active on here but I do stometimes drop by to check on what's going on on Particracy. You returning is certainly good news for the quality and pace of RP in my opinion. I'm somewhat disappointed that you've renounced libertarianism, but at least utilitarianism can in many cases lead to the same policy outcomes in practice (Mises himself used a utilitarian ethical legitimation for his laissez-faire economics). I do think you can support a social safety net and certain exceptions to the negative freedom concept on without having to renounce libertarianism in principle, unless you interpret it in a fundamentalist, Rothbardian sense. The 'Bleeding Heart Libertarians' blog has some interesting content on the issue.
GRAND NATIONAL PARTY/RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC
300 years of Dranish libertarianism
Liberty will prevail
User avatar
Alain Delors
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:54 pm
Location: Germany

Re: EEL is returning

Postby EEL Mk2 » Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:41 pm

Alain Delors wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed that you've renounced libertarianism, but at least utilitarianism can in many cases lead to the same policy outcomes in practice
"Renounced" is a bit of a dramatic word. ;) Anyway, I was interested to see what you might think. That said, I think that, as you've said, substantively many policy outcomes are the same. I just think that some of the more doctrinaire positions cannot be justified.

Alain Delors wrote:I do think you can support a social safety net and certain exceptions to the negative freedom concept on without having to renounce libertarianism in principle, unless you interpret it in a fundamentalist, Rothbardian sense.
My view now is that if you interpret libertarianism in a non-fundamentalist way, you are being intellectually inconsistent if not slightly self-delusional. (This is especially true in the case of libertarianism because it has a very clear premise. It is a bit harder to pin down the premise for conservatism, for say.) If you believe that liberty has to be balanced against other considerations, then surely there has to be some higher criteria, some higher principle by which the right balance can be determined (utility in my case, obviously). And given that for a libertarian liberty by definition has to be the highest ideological principle, once exceptions are introduced, I don't think that you can truly be a libertarian anymore. And that, of course, is the conclusion that I have come to in my own case.

Also, I think that most self-proclaimed libertarians who support a welfare state, for example, have made up their minds on the issue because supporting a welfare state is considered the reasonable thing to do in our society, then tried to justify it working backwards. In my view, it is better to have a premise, and then work to conclusions from there, instead of the other way around. Under libertarian premises, it is very difficult to see how one can arrive at such a conclusion (i.e. that a welfare state is a good thing) in that way.
Image
EEL Mk2
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:11 am

Re: EEL is returning

Postby Alain Delors » Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:43 am

I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian. Maybe it's better to opt for the term classical liberal instead of libertarian, because the latter is perhaps a bit misleading as it is mostly associated with the United States libertarian movement whose more radical factions tend to start from ultra-dogmatic premises such as an unabashed Non-Aggression-Principle which shapes their definition of the term "liberty". In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent. So I think it is possible to run a basic social safety net and have some form of central authority for security purposes (without which liberty and security of property cannot be guaranteed universally to every individual) as long as it does not come with invasive levels of coercion or taxation. I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance. It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.

As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable. At most, libertarians would endorse a Swiss-style "welfare state" with very low taxation and very high levels of economic freedom where health care is mostly provided privately (in most First-World countries, this would, in practice, result in a quite radical shrinking of the welfare state). That's why I always say that I'm in favor of a basic social safety net, not a welfare state, because the latter term is associated with existing regimes whose scope and tax burden cannot be justified from the classical liberal point of view. And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.
GRAND NATIONAL PARTY/RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC
300 years of Dranish libertarianism
Liberty will prevail
User avatar
Alain Delors
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:54 pm
Location: Germany

Re: EEL is returning

Postby Amazeroth » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:28 pm

Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian. Maybe it's better to opt for the term classical liberal instead of libertarian, because the latter is perhaps a bit misleading as it is mostly associated with the United States libertarian movement whose more radical factions tend to start from ultra-dogmatic premises such as an unabashed Non-Aggression-Principle which shapes their definition of the term "liberty". In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent. So I think it is possible to run a basic social safety net and have some form of central authority for security purposes (without which liberty and security of property cannot be guaranteed universally to every individual) as long as it does not come with invasive levels of coercion or taxation. I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance. It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.

As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable. At most, libertarians would endorse a Swiss-style "welfare state" with very low taxation and very high levels of economic freedom where health care is mostly provided privately (in most First-World countries, this would, in practice, result in a quite radical shrinking of the welfare state). That's why I always say that I'm in favor of a basic social safety net, not a welfare state, because the latter term is associated with existing regimes whose scope and tax burden cannot be justified from the classical liberal point of view. And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.



This is exceptionally well said.
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: EEL is returning

Postby EEL Mk2 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:51 am

Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian.
With respect, it's not my problem if they choose to be intellectually inconsistent.

Alain Delors wrote:In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent... I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance.
My view is that so long as you have more than one basic principle - even if one is more basic than the others (liberty in this case) - there is some need to balance those principles. In that sense there is a need for a higher principle to exist, in which case why say that liberty is your highest principle?

Alain Delors wrote:It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.
Ah, but that's making your mind up and then coming up with an excuse to substantiate it. Let's say that the only thing you knew, principally speaking, was the fact that liberty was your core principle. Is there a way for you to arrive at a conclusion that would morally permit the existence of social welfare, for example, working from that premise alone? I suspect not.

Alain Delors wrote:As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable.
That's not the point. If you defend any type of welfare state at all, you are, I think, being inconsistent if you consider yourself a libertarian.

Alain Delors wrote:And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.
I am not sure that something being a tradition necessarily means that it is intellectually coherent.
Image
EEL Mk2
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:11 am

Re: EEL is returning

Postby EEL Mk2 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:55 am

I'd also make the point that I don't think that there is an intellectual justification for liberty being the highest value or indeed a value at all that does not, eventually, make reference to some form of utilitarianism. I've found that almost all moral claims eventually do so. And if the legitimacy of liberty as a social and moral objective relies on its utility, then surely utility is the principle you are looking for.

(BTW, Aquinas, can we move the part of this thread after Alain's first contribution (inclusive) into the off-topic section. I think that that'd be more appropriate.)
Image
EEL Mk2
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:11 am

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Aquinas » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:11 am

Done.

BTW, I'm delighted to see you here again Alain and I hope you'll be hanging around!
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby EEL Mk2 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:26 am

Aquinas wrote:BTW, I'm delighted to see you here again Alain and I hope you'll be hanging around!
I second that, notwithstanding our new-found ideological differences. I still have fond memories of Dranland and Hulstria.
Image
EEL Mk2
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:11 am

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Alain Delors » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:43 am

Well, but the other principles apart from liberty that classical liberalism may have and the way they need to be "balanced" among each other are again shaped by a reference to the primary value, as other considerations may only be taken into account as long as liberty isn't excessively harmed. So liberty itself again determines how we deal with potential secondary values.

But even if your critique is right, you could apply it to all ideologies, I don't see why it should be an exclusively libertarian weakness (you didn't claim that, but I'd still like to point it out). For example, let's say conservatism's core value is preserving traditional social structures and institutions. Yet, judging by what Burke said, conservatism also permits progress, but only with reference to the primary value of tradition, that is to say, it permits change as long it does not fundamentally alter the timeless truths enshrined in tradition. But your criticism of libertarianism would imply that conservatives are also incoherent unless they are arch-reactionaries. The same applies to Socialists tolerating some degree of market economy. You could dismiss basically all main ideologies with that critique.

Also, I think when libertarians cite utility to strengthen their points, their intention is rather to provide empirical evidence for the soundness of their theoretical presumptions. Alternatively, I don't think it is contradictory to defend liberty as a moral principle while simultaneously pointing out how it enhances utility.

That being said, thanks for the warm welcome back. I've thought of joining you guys in Kazulia but right now my usual ideology is pretty much occupied. Maybe there's room for a conservative party though.
GRAND NATIONAL PARTY/RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC
300 years of Dranish libertarianism
Liberty will prevail
User avatar
Alain Delors
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:54 pm
Location: Germany

Re: EEL is returning

Postby Kubrick » Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:26 pm

Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian. Maybe it's better to opt for the term classical liberal instead of libertarian, because the latter is perhaps a bit misleading as it is mostly associated with the United States libertarian movement whose more radical factions tend to start from ultra-dogmatic premises such as an unabashed Non-Aggression-Principle which shapes their definition of the term "liberty". In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent. So I think it is possible to run a basic social safety net and have some form of central authority for security purposes (without which liberty and security of property cannot be guaranteed universally to every individual) as long as it does not come with invasive levels of coercion or taxation. I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance. It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.

As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable. At most, libertarians would endorse a Swiss-style "welfare state" with very low taxation and very high levels of economic freedom where health care is mostly provided privately (in most First-World countries, this would, in practice, result in a quite radical shrinking of the welfare state). That's why I always say that I'm in favor of a basic social safety net, not a welfare state, because the latter term is associated with existing regimes whose scope and tax burden cannot be justified from the classical liberal point of view. And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.


I'll do as Amaz did and quote this to show how much I agree with your text. I don't identify as a Libertarian at all, mostly because of your first paragraph. Added to that, the Dutch Libertarian Party (only a local movement) is filled with.. How to say this politely.. Fools? They are a big joke and want to split off from the Netherlands to form their own "free state" or something. So I usually go as a "classical liberal" or "paleo-liberal" but that last bit of text, that's exactly how I feel.
"see yah i think kubs is right" ~Zanz

"I’m pretty sure your buddy Kubrick was upset he couldn’t just resort to his old ways" ~Auditorii

"You can blame Polites and Kubrick for that nightmare" ~Doc
User avatar
Kubrick
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:47 pm

Next

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron