101 sats \ 4 replies \ @elvismercury 20 Oct 2023 \ parent \ on: Personal Responsibility - Part 2 bitcoin
I think there are many areas where it's super obvious what the public good ought to be, and the public is usually pretty clear about a lot of it -- e.g., don't poison the air or the groundwater, don't beat people to death or enslave them, don't harvest all the fish out of the lake, etc.
The utopian fantasy where all this shit just sort of takes care of itself with everyone worrying only about their own affairs -- or, just as good, trying to formulate every kind of interaction as a derivative of property rights -- is the main reason Libertarians have been a fringe political philosophy since forever.
That's an interesting point, thanks for sharing. I agree that it seems pretty obvious in certain areas that the "common good" is also to everyone's individual benefit as well. But in today's day and age, there are areas where it's less clear. Take for example climate change and differences in exposure/risk between regions, and also different needs from an energy perspective.
It's all well and good that established, advanced economies should try to find ways to transition to more renewable forms of energy. But is it fair to ask still-developing countries to do the same, for the common good of reduced emissions?
Or in the case of affordable housing or a livable wage in the USA. On the face of it, both those ideas sound amazing and commendable. No doubt about that. But what is livable? What's affordable? Does it depend on the region of the country you live in? What if your definition of affordable is different? What if the mainstream concept of a livable wage isn't livable for your family situation? What happens then? Who is in charge of adjudicating those differences?
Would be curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!
Edit: also, I don't believe that libertarianism is a fringe political philosophy because it's utopian or lacks merit. It's clear that the two-party system in the US actively works to suppress other options for people to consider. And I don't believe that it's an all-or-nothing proposition either; I'm confident that a lot of people on both sides (American left and right) would agree with libertarian principles like strong property rights, minimized government interference in their personal lives and affairs, and strong skepticism of the USA's penchant for military interventionism around the world.
reply
I don't disagree with much of anything that you said. I suppose I was speaking to the ambient Libertarians who act like everything is simple, that if we just shitcanned the current government, which has been oppressing us, then utopia would ensue.
It would not. We'd find ourselves in a new system, with new affordances, and new pathologies. And a great many of the same old ones.
While you may be right that the two-party system resists other parties cropping up, I think you're wrong that this is to blame for L's marginalization. The L tenets have been there in plain sight for anyone throughout the world. Bastiat was writing about it 200 years ago. Is the American two-party system to blame that it has never taken hold anywhere, ever?
I propose a different explanation: when push comes to shove, people don't want it. And even if they do want it, it is out-competed by other systems. It is not viable in the real world, with actual humans as we find them. In the absence of a state, what arises is something like cartels and warlords, or some plucky troupe that is either annihilated or assimilated upon contact with an actual state. What does not arise is the paradise that has been predicted for all these years.
A political philosophy that cannot exist due to the exigencies of actual life is a fairy tale. It is not serious.
reply
It may very well be true that it's unviable. I struggle with that balance between theory and pragmatism myself. It's hard to know whether it'd be unviable because it's a bad idea or because the rest of the world is either a form of democracy or authoritarianism already. Status quo is a powerful thing when it comes to entrenched forms of government and mindshare among the populace. Certainly it's not an idea that could succeed if surrounded by countries of the current paradigm.
I think what would be more optimal is the introduction of some of these libertarian elements back into society. The ideas of personal accountability and responsibility are important no matter the system of governance, I believe.
There's a lot of nuance to be had in a discussion like this. A follow-up question along the same lines of your comment would be, would leading countries even allow this sort of experiment to take place? If the answer is no, then that puts a premature halt to any of this utopian babble from me.
Thanks for engaging with me on this, it was very thought-provoking.
reply
It's hard to know whether it'd be unviable because it's a bad idea or because the rest of the world is either a form of democracy or authoritarianism already.
Agreed. I would be less testy about the topic, I think, except the argument is that not only is L morally superior (according to its advocates) it's literally better. Except, apparently, it is not better for a pretty important definition of better: ecological fitness. Viability.
The ideas of personal accountability and responsibility are important no matter the system of governance, I believe.
100%. The question is, what could give rise to such a thing? I find the:
hard times > strong men > good times > weak men
thing pretty compelling. Maybe the personal responsibility comes invariably in the next part of the cycle?
would leading countries even allow this sort of experiment to take place?
A thing I understand now, after seeing how the sausage is made at a really big and successful company, is that systems resist change. Non-trivial reformation happens when something dies, or is killed. What that implies for our current governmental situation is not optimistic.
Thanks for engaging with me on this, it was very thought-provoking.
Back at you. A pleasure. Keep posting.
reply