How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[slow lurker]

I think I want to be a lawyer in Libertopia.
The court battles would never end.

The Mississippi is used for drinking water, irrigation, fishing, recreation, shipping, etc. With its tributaries, it spans 31 states and parts of Canada. I don't know how to even start estimating how many private properties line its banks and estuaries. Suffice it to say: lots and lots. They are all inextricably linked.

How on earth do you expect a private contract system to provide the efficiency and simplicity that are the hallmarks of free-market capitalism on a natural resource this large, dynamic, and complex?

It would be a nightmare of legal battles. In a case like this, central oversight, with standard regulations, mediation, and enforcement, is FAR simpler and more efficient.

This is just incredibly obvious.

 

[stilicho]

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.

How prevalent is libertarianism period? Libertarianism is primarily an American phenomenon and a fringe philosophy even there.

 

[Humes fork]

How prevalent is libertarianism period? Libertarianism is primarily an American phenomenon and a fringe philosophy even there.

But it could be more prevalent among skeptics than the general population. I dare say with certainty that atheism is.

 

[Darat]

Libertarians keep in mind that government is a necessary evil, while progressive liberals feel that there is good in it..

And pragmatically what difference would that make even if it was true?

 

[Minoosh]

Here's a thought experiment, to get away from things like "how would Libertarians manage the Mississippi River" because that is so BIG and I wondered if there could be such a thing as functional, incremental contraction of government.

What if the U.S. said, no federal dollars used to promote birth control, beyond a 2-week middle school unit on the biology of conception and contraception.

Is it possible that private concerns could step up and totally fill whatever gap ensued? I bet plenty of individuals would heartily support a United Condom Campaign. The Gates Foundation could take over in Africa. Anti-AIDS activists surely could run seminars on safe-sex harm reduction (safe sex and conception being mutually exclusive). Churches could educate on abstinence and monogamy or even contraception (there is a religious left; there are also plenty of people who don't like abortion who endorse birth control).

As it stands, if any one federal program is targeted, NGOs etc. put effort into preserving public funding; what if the effort were put into organizing a network of private donors instead?

And perhaps private enterprise could step up with stuff like the Pepsi Challenge grants: Rewards for plausible ideas to support incremental contraction of government.

 

[stilicho]

But it could be more prevalent among skeptics than the general population. I dare say with certainty that atheism is.

There are plenty of reasons why atheism would be popular with sceptics. A specific political philosophy? Not so much.

I would have thought a concept such as patriotism would be anathema to sceptics but I've discovered I'm utterly wrong about that. How about smoking pot? I'd have thought that would have been uncommon but I'm wrong there too. Some activities, habits, and beliefs I'd have thought sceptics would shun are actually quite popular.

It could be because scepticism isn't really a unifying philosophy.

 

[Merko]

I think there is a reason why doctrinaire political systems would especially appeal to skeptics. By this, I mean systems such as orthodox Libertarianism or Marxism, that proscribe a simple central theory or insight, and which then builds a complete political framework around this theory, arguing far-reaching conclusions on subjects based on no or very little specific data.

I think that such a world-view is attractive to a certain kind of intelligent people. Intelligence is often defined as being able to find general patterns. Intelligent people, striving to find such patterns in politics, may therefore be especially keen to embrace a theory that appears to fulfill this promise.

Now, skepticism is also attractive to intelligent people, although (I hope) for different reasons. But what this means is that some intelligent people who have bought into doctrinaire systems because the theoretical neatness attracts them, will also be attracted to skepticism.

If this were true, we would however expect more doctrinaire tendencies than libertarianism to be prevalent. I can't really recall many such skeptics on the left. On the other hand, because of the huge backlash against hard doctrinaire thought on the left since the 60's and 70's, one would perhaps expect such views to be less common, or at least less publicly flaunted.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think there is a reason why doctrinaire political systems would especially appeal to skeptics. By this, I mean systems such as orthodox Libertarianism or Marxism, that proscribe a simple central theory or insight, and which then builds a complete political framework around this theory, arguing far-reaching conclusions on subjects based on no or very little specific data.

I think that such a world-view is attractive to a certain kind of intelligent people. Intelligence is often defined as being able to find general patterns. Intelligent people, striving to find such patterns in politics, may therefore be especially keen to embrace a theory that appears to fulfill this promise.

Now, skepticism is also attractive to intelligent people, although (I hope) for different reasons. But what this means is that some intelligent people who have bought into doctrinaire systems because the theoretical neatness attracts them, will also be attracted to skepticism.

If this were true, we would however expect more doctrinaire tendencies than libertarianism to be prevalent. I can't really recall many such skeptics on the left. On the other hand, because of the huge backlash against hard doctrinaire thought on the left since the 60's and 70's, one would perhaps expect such views to be less common, or at least less publicly flaunted.

This is an interesting and I think important point. Skeptics want to understand the world - and as such systems that paint the world in clear, not necessarily simple, colours would reasonably appeal to skeptics. Doctrines such as Marxism have, as you noted, received negative publicity (and orthodox Marxism is very easily refuted, any way) while neoliberal tendencies may be more socially acceptable, and also carries a message of individualism and individual freedom that probably appeal to some atheist philosophies.