How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[Humes fork]

I'm sure most people here are familiar with Daniel Loxton's piece Where Do We Go From Here?. Among other things, he worries that skepticism is becoming too closely associated with atheism, humanism and libertarianism. I can see why he worry about the first one (I don't find it very troublesome, but that's another dicsussion), the overwhelming majority of skeptics are atheists. As for humanism, the term seems rather vague to me, but again I see his point, as the CFI (a major skeptical organization) actively promotes humanism.

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

 

[goodm0urning]

I agree with libertarians on a lot of social issues, though I find that they have a tendency to turn things up to 11. Extremism of any stripe is rarely the answer.

And then there are some libertarians (Ron Paul comes to mind) whose distrust of the government crosses the line into paranoia.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I would have assumed that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was most closely associated with skepticism.
That's certainly the vibe I get on this board.

 

[Varanid]

I've never seen the venomous reactions to libertarians that happens here, happen many other places (could be sampling error).

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

Republicans are wrong about both halves of their platform...


(I do think that the skeptic community leans slightly left- IME).

ETA: Sorry, that's "I lean American-left". I forget JREF is so global...Euro-left is a whole other thing...

 

[jj]

This is a confusing question, taking the thread as a whole, because at least in the USA, "right" has been thoroughly tied to radical religions reactionaries. So most skeptics are a wee touch leery of creationism and such, and are going to look "left" by that standard. Most skeptics also know something about the tragedy of the commons, and are thence also skeptical of the religion that is hard-core libertarianism. But I would hesitate to say that they are left-leaning in their social policies, I see a lot of "let them starve" comments, "I've got mine, too bad" comments, and other social-Darwinist comments hither and yon, along with the progressivist "we are all guilty" version of religion-free Catholicism.

So, I think the issue is clouded by the rest of the world.

 

[lomiller]

If Libertarians held fewer views that required sceptical scrutiny then there would be more Libertarian sceptics.

The basic problem isn’t with Libertarianism itself per say but with the main flavour of it practiced in the US. Libertarians, at least people in the US who label themselves such tend to be idealists, and idealism and scepticism will usually end up conflicting because the sceptic s untimely following the science, which is itself a highly pragmatic endeavour.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Liberal views of social issues (say, Marijuana), which happen to coincide with libertarian views, seem common. But the "Hurf dee durf, who's John Galt, screw you got mine" kind of Libertarian doesn't seem too common - probably because those tend to make testable claims which fall apart upon sceptic scrutiny. I personally find them the most difficult to stomach, let alone understand, of all political leanings.

 

[C_Felix]

There's that term I don't like that much called, "intellectual honesty".

I think what the term entials could easily be applied to both libertarians and skeptics.


I'm hungry and invovled in a facebook chat conversation with an old friend, so I don't feel like explaining

 

[daenku32]

Here's my theory:

Back in the 90s when the whole computer/internet craze was taking off a lot of the people (who were barely nerds anymore, due to easiness of getting into the computer field) were used to stealing any software they needed for their home built computer. As these same people got to the internet chat rooms and forums that anarchism easily adopted both skepticism and libertarianism. They didn't care for legal enforcement, but neither were they signing up to OSS movement, because that would have required effort and acceptance of a structure that you couldn't circumvent while pretending to own something expensive.

Since those days I've see increasing numbers of non-skeptics and non-libertarians on the 'internets', putting their ideology out there as well. Because now you don't have to be an off-grid anarchist to have a nice rig with a broadband.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't get it that any skeptics are Libertarians, but then I don't get it that we have our share of right wingers either yet we do. And at least a couple of those right winger skeptics are pretty reasonable off the politics threads.

Shermer went too far. His version of libertarianism as expressed in is book before last was not that different from religious fundamentalism. I asked him if he seriously thought we'd be better off with privatized police like Blackwater and he said yes. That was after the Bush admin had hired Blackwater to police New Orleans after Katrina where they were unaccountable and shot up the place, and after they committed murders in Iraq for which they were never held accountable.


The best economic system is a mix of public and private systems and anyone thinking one size fits all isn't too keen on evidence.

 

[psionl0]

From what I have seen, what passes for "libertarianism" in this forum is really "anarchism".

Many skeptics here do not believe that the government should be dictating personal choices (such as using marijuana) and that could be considered a libertarian view but they still believe in the right of governments to make laws and levy taxes (authoritarian?)

However, the people most strongly associated with libertarianism seem to deny any role for government whatsoever. This is not realistic since in any society, more powerful groups will dominate the less powerful. The more powerful group might just as well be government as any warlords or gang leaders.

A debate that implies that the only two choices are no government and unlimited government is not useful. It might be more useful to decide where libertarianism ends and totalitarianism begins.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I haven't seen any definition of 'libertarian' I could throw myself behind. (I am not a US resident.) There are aspects of 'libertarianism' that intrigue me, and if asked to define my political beliefs, I usually say 'libertarian' but with 'a small 'l''.

Non-loopy libertarian?

 

[BStrong]

I've never seen the venomous reactions to libertarians that happens here, happen many other places (could be sampling error).

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

Republicans are wrong about both halves of their platform...


(I do think that the skeptic community leans slightly left- IME).

ETA: Sorry, that's "I lean American-left". I forget JREF is so global...Euro-left is a whole other thing...

A friend of mine puts it this way:

"The problem with the left is they don't like guns, and the problem with the right is they don't like rights."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't seen any definition of 'libertarian' I could throw myself behind. (I am not a US resident.) There are aspects of 'libertarianism' that intrigue me, and if asked to define my political beliefs, I usually say 'libertarian' but with 'a small 'l''.

Non-loopy libertarian?

FWIW, if you look at the Libertarian Party platform it's pretty loopy.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

There's a lot in the platform that is totally unrealistic. Are roads supposed to zig zag around property owners wouldn't sell? And when there is a contract dispute, how are the parties supposed to resolve the problem if no government can intervene?

It's loopy extremism.

 

[Leif Roar]

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

I think it comes about as a "skeptical anti-body reaction" to the dogma and zealotry of many of the more visible libertarians.

 

[Leif Roar]

I don't get it that any skeptics are Libertarians, but then I don't get it that we have our share of right wingers either yet we do. And at least a couple of those right winger skeptics are pretty reasonable off the politics threads.

Oh, that's simple: full-blooded skeptics don't exist. Everybody have blindspots and areas where they, more or less consciously, don't apply skepticism. Often, those areas involve political standpoints.

 

[randman]

I'm sure most people here are familiar with Daniel Loxton's piece Where Do We Go From Here?. Among other things, he worries that skepticism is becoming too closely associated with atheism, humanism and libertarianism. I can see why he worry about the first one (I don't find it very troublesome, but that's another dicsussion), the overwhelming majority of skeptics are atheists. As for humanism, the term seems rather vague to me, but again I see his point, as the CFI (a major skeptical organization) actively promotes humanism.

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

I think there was a time when many skeptics were libertarian but that's changed. Just my opinion from experience, but seems skeptics today are often statists and that libertarians are often people of faith with very conservative political views being largely libertarian except on a few social issues like abortion. But one could argue protecting life is a libertarian stance. Certainly Ron Paul does and likely most tea partiers.

 

[Sophronius]

Hm, I do remember the majority of Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias declaring themselves to be libertarian. I've wondered about this myself. It does seem overly idealistic to me. Sure, it would be nice if humans were free to do as they please with no government intervention, but just as with communism humanity just isn't the right species for it.

 

[Robin]

I think there was a time when many skeptics were libertarian but that's changed. Just my opinion from experience, but seems skeptics today are often statists and that libertarians are often people of faith with very conservative political views being largely libertarian except on a few social issues like abortion. But one could argue protecting life is a libertarian stance. Certainly Ron Paul does and likely most tea partiers.

People of faith with very conservative political views appear to be the very opposite of libertarian on subjects like homosexuality.

 

[Twiler]

From what I have seen, what passes for "libertarianism" in this forum is really "anarchism".

Many skeptics here do not believe that the government should be dictating personal choices (such as using marijuana) and that could be considered a libertarian view but they still believe in the right of governments to make laws and levy taxes (authoritarian?)

However, the people most strongly associated with libertarianism seem to deny any role for government whatsoever. This is not realistic since in any society, more powerful groups will dominate the less powerful. The more powerful group might just as well be government as any warlords or gang leaders.

A debate that implies that the only two choices are no government and unlimited government is not useful. It might be more useful to decide where libertarianism ends and totalitarianism begins.

What's the difference between dictating personal choices and making laws?