How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[geni]

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

1)Koch brothers and co. "types who may want to end the drug war" lack a low tax agender and those who want to cut certain social programs are already catered for by the republican party.

2)Because "types who may want to end the drug war" at this point includes a very large percentage of the pre myspace internet popultion. Thus another round of otherwise extremely strait laced people trying to pretend they are still something of a rebel by suggesting we should legalise cannabis will get rather boring.

3)It's very hard from the libertarian POV to defend any given goverment service which makes stopping short of anarcho-capitalism tricky.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

From comments you made in the past I am surprised by this, I had gotten the impression of you as "I got mine, so screw the social safety net" type of libertarian.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

So the moderates who believe the ideal government was around 1850.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the problem with the identification with "liberal" is how the word has been denigrated, mauled and fed through the shredder in the USA! In the rest of the world it doesn't mean "pinko-commie-facist-child-murderer"

Does it mean something different than the Libertarian Party Platform I cited earlier?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

I'm curious about why that should be the case. I think perhaps it's that libertarians have a tendency to want to build a political philosophy from universal ironclad principles, whether Ayn Rand's or somebody else's, and so it pushes them into reasoning like "all taxation is theft, theft is wrong, government requires taxation, therefore government is wrong." Whereas people who identify themselves more on the traditional left-right spectrum seem more accepting of the notion of grey areas and balancing the benefits of government with the costs. But then I suppose that just invites the question of why libertarians have that fondness for universal ironclad principles.

So how would you distinguish the Libertarian who recognizes there is a role for some publicly funded investment/services from the Progressive liberal who thinks a balance between public and private investment/services is the best option?

 

[Dunstan]

So how would you distinguish the Libertarian who recognizes there is a role for some publicly funded investment/services from the Progressive liberal who thinks a balance between public and private investment/services is the best option?

I'm not sure that I would or could, at least not in a bright-line way. No more than I could tell you definitively where the dividing line is between "progressive liberals" and "centrists." I would say that as a general matter, the libertarian is likely to think that the proper role for publicly funded services is less than the progressive, but I don't have a clear test for you.

 

[Antiquehunter]

From comments you made in the past I am surprised by this, I had gotten the impression of you as "I got mine, so screw the social safety net" type of libertarian.

Thats a bit harsh, I would say...

Certainly I have elected to vote with my feet, I won't deny that. And I'm definitely not a huge fan of the 'social safety net' as it exists in Canada. I don't know enough about the US system to comment intelligently.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I read the article. I'd classify myself as an outsider looking in. I don't attend TAM, listen to the podcast, etc. I have no vested interest per se in the "movement." I just like to discuss and stay informed on various topics and receive input from as many people as possible from all walks of life. It appears this author wants skepticism to focus on two goals. The first is to promote science. The the second is to protect consumers.

Apparently he doesn't believe that enough attention is payed to science in public education. Let's at least agree to one thing, science doesn't and never will solve all the problems we face. Remember the discussion on cargo cult? I find it best to balance life. My best guess is that the author wants to promote science to educate the masses. Does he really get that upset when people believe in ghost or astrology? Ok, yes he does. Come on, a little Santa Clause here and Easter bunny there never hurt anybody, does it? Well, if he wants to dedicate his life, and apparently yours too to this cause I wish you'll the best of luck. IDK. Does he think the world will become a better place if people didn't hold these "false" beliefs?

Regarding the second suggested goal. I can stand behind that, but isn't it the responsibility of the government and more importantly the individual to protect themselves from fraud in commerce? AFAIK there are various private, state and federal agencies responsible for just this. The CPSC, FTC, BBB, consumer reports, etc.

When do you give up on a given paranormal notion?

I say never. This doesn't mean that you review it every week, but you have to give it an honest look every now and then. Personally I think the attitude of skeptics in discussions should be more humble than it currently is.

I agree with the author whole-heartily on one point, though I noticed the obvious stabs he takes at the beliefs contrary to his own. I don't believe that it's a good idea to tie skepticism to a belief in God or lack there of. Nor do I think it's a good idea to tie any particular political belief system to skepticism.

Personally I have great compassion for the idea of Libertarianism. I also understand, and Darat said it best so I'll let her do so again

I don't think it's as much a double standard as simply a belief about how the world should operate in a particular way. And to me when those beliefs are used as part of an ideology the ideology fails to model the real world since the real world is not simple (all ideologies suffer from this flaw).

At the end of the day I don't classify myself as any one political position and I personally think that's the best way to be. I'd like to consider myself a pragmatist, but that's more difficult to do than say. As far as God...perhaps another day.

 

[corbin]

Seems everybody is confusing libertarianism (very limited government restricted to national defense, police/courts, standards, and a few other things) with anarchism (no government for police or defense - such matters will be accounted for by the market).

Sure they are close to each other on the sliding scale of liberty, but, IMO, anarchism isn't an extreme form of libertarianism.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems everybody is confusing libertarianism (very limited government restricted to national defense, police/courts, standards, and a few other things) with anarchism (no government for police or defense - such matters will be accounted for by the market).

Sure they are close to each other on the sliding scale of liberty, but, IMO, anarchism isn't an extreme form of libertarianism.

Kind of like a lot of people try to conflate progressive liberals with communists and socialists.

I don't see Libertarian as anarchists but I can empathize with your post. The Libertarians seem to be more about all free market and no public funding of anything except the military. And rather than no regulations they seem to think any regulation that benefits the whole rather than simply keeping the market honest is bad.

Do I have that right?

 

[Humes fork]

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

I'm curious about why that should be the case. I think perhaps it's that libertarians have a tendency to want to build a political philosophy from universal ironclad principles, whether Ayn Rand's or somebody else's, and so it pushes them into reasoning like "all taxation is theft, theft is wrong, government requires taxation, therefore government is wrong." Whereas people who identify themselves more on the traditional left-right spectrum seem more accepting of the notion of grey areas and balancing the benefits of government with the costs. But then I suppose that just invites the question of why libertarians have that fondness for universal ironclad principles.

I agree with this. If libertarianism wasn't that extreme, it would have an easier time getting a following. Being in favor of capitalism and free trade and legalization of drugs is all good, but abolishing public education and privatize roads are ridiculous propositions. I'd imagine moderate libertarianism being something like The Economist's editorial stance.

A fallacy that many commit (on both left and right) is to think that capitalism is somehow in opposition to a safety net. It is not.

 

[stevea]

If the question was restated - "how common is libertarian bashing, mischaracterization and strawmanning amongst liberal self-described skeptics" then this thread would be solid evidence.

 

[Humes fork]

If the question was restated - "how common is libertarian bashing, mischaracterization and strawmanning amongst liberal self-described skeptics" then this thread would be solid evidence.

I don't get this. I've seen many people say that there is too much libertarianism floating around in the skeptical community, and at the same time the libertarians say they're being bashed.

How is it? Maybe Loxton should sort it out, he brought it up.

 

[Chaos]

I don't get this. I've seen many people say that there is too much libertarianism floating around in the skeptical community, and at the same time the libertarians say they're being bashed.

How is it? Maybe Loxton should sort it out, he brought it up.

Of course libertarians say they´re being bashed.

People disagree with them and rip libertarians´ claims to bloody shred ever time they bring them up. In the weird parallel universe with libertarians inhabit and in which their philosophy is self-evidently true, this means everybody hates them for being right.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

My main problem with libertarians is that they don't seem to have any useful ideas. I may disagree with fiscal conservatives on some points, but at least they have well-grounded ideas and something can be learned from the exchange. Same thing with neoclassicals.

With libertarians, it's all just "But the free market takes care of that". I feel that they want to destroy rather than build something.

 

[Humes fork]

My main problem with libertarians is that they don't seem to have any useful ideas. I may disagree with fiscal conservatives on some points, but at least they have well-grounded ideas and something can be learned from the exchange. Same thing with neoclassicals.

With libertarians, it's all just "But the free market takes care of that". I feel that they want to destroy rather than build something.

It seems your main beef with libertarians are that they are not very pragmatic, is that right?

In the Swedish political blogosphere, the libertarian blogs are by far the best, but libertarianism as a vision for society is not realistic. Privatize roads and abolish public education, wtf? Open borders is a nice ideal that one day can hopefully be achieved, but is at this point completely unrealistic.

Btw, I'm probably what you would call a "fiscal conservative" (though I strongly reject the label "conservative"), at least by Swedish standards (certainly not by American standards).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, I'm strongly pragmatical when it comes to politics and economics. I actually know some libertarians who when cornered admit that their society wouldn't be very fun to live in (unless you were one of the elite, which I presume they all imagine themselves to be), yet that it's the right thing because of some apparently metaphysical concept of justice.

I find it seriously difficult to care much about Swedish economic policies these days. Regardless of party, they usually do the same thing one or another way, with different labels applied to their actions, and in the end most of the parties seem reasonably competent. Social policies is a somewhat different beef, though, but even there I simply don't find the interest to engage myself in it enough to have a strong opinion. Generally I'd say I'm a bit left of the Social Democrat, possibly a bit right of their left wing in certain economic issues. Basically I favour a free, but regulated markets in the areas where it is practical (which would be most), and a government monopoly in areas where there is adequate reason for such (e.g. Systembolaget, Svenska Spel, etc)

I think the social democratic big business model generally has its advantages, but there are also drawbacks, especially when subsidies are overused.

 

[Humes fork]

Yes, I'm strongly pragmatical when it comes to politics and economics. I actually know some libertarians who when cornered admit that their society wouldn't be very fun to live in (unless you were one of the elite, which I presume they all imagine themselves to be)

I don't know if a libertarian society would necessarily be less fun. No forced closing time for clubs, alcohol at Ica and so on. But we can have that without adopting libertarianism.

However, privatized roads would be seriously messy, and abolished public education would be disastrous.

yet that it's the right thing because of some apparently metaphysical concept of justice.

Yeah, many libertarians believe in some sort of Lockean or Nozickian concept of natural rights, which I regard as a philosophical superstition.

I find it seriously difficult to care much about Swedish economic policies these days. Regardless of party, they usually do the same thing one or another way, with different labels applied to their actions, and in the end most of the parties seem reasonably competent.

I agree somewhat. This is certainly true for the Soc Dems and the Moderates, but it's not true for all of the smaller parties. But the big two generally agree on all important things, and usually overblow the differences between them.

Basically I favour a free, but regulated markets in the areas where it is practical (which would be most), and a government monopoly in areas where there is adequate reason for such (e.g. Systembolaget, Svenska Spel, etc)

I don't like the monopolies. At all. I want to be able to buy all aclohol at Ica or Willys or whatever.

And our zero tolerance drug policy is a disaster.

I think the social democratic big business model generally has its advantages, but there are also drawbacks, especially when subsidies are overused.

I think a too close cooperation between big business and the state is a poor idea for an international, globalized economy such as ours.

 

[Humes fork]

To return to the topic at hand, if libertarianism isn't as prevalent as Loxton says, then which (if any) ideology is?

 

[Chaos]

To return to the topic at hand, if libertarianism isn't as prevalent as Loxton says, then which (if any) ideology is?

I´d say that, in general, a disenchantment with all kinds of ideology is most prevalent.