pull down to refresh
23 sats \ 16 replies \ @SimpleStacker 15h \ parent \ on: The Archipelago econ
Eh, I skimmed the first few paragraphs... and I think he's attacking a strawman (whether he realizes that is another question)
I just didn't detect any semblance of a characterization in there that resembles my own thought.
He talks as if libertarians believe that every individual can be self sufficient and that trade only arises optionally out of that state of self existence. I'm not sure that's what libertarians believe. I'm pretty sure most would agree that trade between individuals is necessary for survival and for civilization.
So... "starting points matter"... well the starting point of this article matters too...
What is the "attack" that you're detecting?
reply
Kinda tricky to talk about this because I am trying to explain his view on libertarianism, which he thinks is wrong, but that I think his view of libertarianism which leads him to think it's wrong is itself wrong.
He says that libertarians start from these three points:
I'm not sure that's the starting point for most libertarians(?). I'm not a capital L Libertarian so I wouldn't really know, but I consider myself "libertarian leaning" and I certainly wouldn't agree with those three points.
reply
I share your impression and reaction. I didn't want to say that it's a strawman, because you do see people who sort of fit his description, but it definitely doesn't describe my thinking or any of the libertarians who interest me.
I actually think libertarians appreciate our interdependence more than almost any other ideological group.
I found it most ironic that he brought up the complex supply chain as something libertarians don't appreciate, when that idea was most famously articulated by the libertarian author Leonard Reed in "I, Pencil".
reply
The reality is different. The pencil is certainly created by a massive chain of people, but each of them is not fundamentally free, because there is no option to ‘walk off’ and not be part of the meta supply chain any more. There’s no fundamental ‘independence’ that precedes and follows acts of interdependence. In fact, what we call ‘independence’ is just a secondary phenomenon situated within the strictures of interdependence.
From his prev essay.
reply
I just don't see how he's countering anything that anyone is actually saying. He's using the same words but not in the same way. We all realize that we exist in the world and that inherently means we influence things around us.
It reminds of silly pseudo philosophy like "Are you really free if you can't even fly?" That's just not what we're talking about.
reply
-
It's a fair point to not want to argue about vague prognostications about "them" or what "they" say or believe, whoever "they" are -- I hate when people do that.
-
However, I think the "individual is foundational over the group as a unit of concern" belief set is deeply held by many, and wrong enough (and consequential enough in its wrong-ness) to be interesting that it is called out explicitly here.
You are under no obligation to agree with me, obviously.
Yeah I think the libertarian point is that such complex supply chains can only really arise out of many rational actors making individual decisions on their own. A planner couldn't have envisioned these things on their own.
reply
Right, but it's basically our version of "We need each other to survive in the modern world." Absent cooperative decentralized production, we'd all be much poorer, likely to the point of starvation.
reply
Got it. I might be in the same boat as you -- Libertarian-curious, but don't have the membership card. Do you know what your own "axioms of pseudo-Libertarianism" would be?
reply
Good question. I certainly would agree with Brett Scott that we're not self sufficient as individuals and that we need interdependence in order to survive. But where I'd explain my own leaning towards libertarianism / individualism is more like the following:
- The individual mind actually does exist. It can be influenced by society, but is still does exist on its own and is capable of forming thoughts contrary to prevailing societal views.
- Every individual has different preferences and desires
- No individual can fully know the desires and preferences of another individual
- The desires and preferences of one individual can and often do run in contrary to those of other individuals
- Resources for helping individuals achieve their desires are limited
I think these are pretty non-controversial. Next come some moral statements. I'm less confident that I can justify these apart from the existence of some transcendent morality (which I do hold to.)
- The moral right to property exists. That is, individuals can own resources, and no individual has the right to steal resources owned by another individual.
- The moral right to life exists. If we consider our biological life as a resource, then it fits in the above category.
- If someone violates one of the above moral laws, it becomes morally justified to enact some kind of punishment in order to deter future violations of the moral law. The level of the punishment should be restorative and deterrent, but not punitive. Punishment must also only be enacted under some standard of evidence.
I'm literally thinking of these off the top of my head, so apologies if they're pretty half baked.
Lastly, come the pragmatic arguments.
-
Because society is made of many individuals with different needs and preferences, it is impossible for one individual (or group of individuals) to make decisions about resource allocation that would be broadly satisfactory for the whole group
-
The best way to allocate resources is therefore for people to trade freely between the resources they own and are able to produce out of their own effort.
I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I missed... but this is broadly how I view my libertarian bent
reply