Comments on: Surprise! I'm a Libertarian!

By: Winton Bates

Winton Bates — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:27:23 +0000

Mike
The link is:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:46:17 +0000

Link for this test?

By: winton_bates

winton_bates — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:27:23 +0000

Mike
The link is:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:46:17 +0000

Link for this test?

By: winton_bates

winton_bates — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:15:04 +0000

There was nothing surprising about the test results for myself.
So I did the test on behalf of Australia's Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. According to my understanding of their views, the P.M. is very definitely a Statist and slightly left of centre, as I would have predicted. The surprise result is for the Oppostion leader (the leader of the Liberal Party, which is usually thought of as being on the conservative side of politics) who shows up as a Centrist (actually further left of centre than the PM).
I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps the political centre in Australia is more statist than in the U.S., but no further to the left.

By: tgb1000

tgb1000 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:26:12 +0000

That little quiz seems to leave out a lot of important ideas. I don't know what a libertarian foreign policy is, but it seems like it ought to matter. After the last 8 years, I have no idea what constitutes conservative foreign policy, either.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:47:05 +0000

It is an interesting question. Perhaps it is better to ask whether people should be free to be tribal, because sexism and (particularly) racism tend to come with tribalism.
Tribal is how we started.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:43:49 +0000

Perhaps it is better understood as a right constraining the ability of the State to arbitrarily lock you up. I suppose you have to ask which comes first, the person or the state. If the state is a creation of people for a purpose then the right to a jury trial is part of the definition of the state's realm.
If on the other hand you say that the state is the embodiment of the people then individuals perhaps have no rights, just prvileges.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:27:50 +0000

I thought you were dead? How about a come-back tour?

By: Dangerous Idea

Dangerous Idea — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:45:55 +0000

No, I haven't read whatever nonsense you're referring to, as my fields are Economics and Computer Science. As a layperson to this field I don't particularly appreciate being talked down to by self-appointed internet philosophy experts, particularly when they make only assertions and not arguments. We're searching for truth here, not trying to zing each other with gotchas.

And yes, Liberty is only negative. I may think the “right” to a jury trial and a free lawyer is a damn good idea but it is not a “right”, it is a privilege granted to me by the state.

By: webgrrl

webgrrl — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:13:59 +0000

"'liberty' is all the things the state can't tell you that you can't do, plus the things it can't force you to do.."

I think you're reaching towards the idea of negative liberty, but wording it poorly. So poorly you're rather leaving yourself open here. . .

Word to the philosophically wise: if you don't ensure that your liberty originates in, derives from, or is defined as some other relationship than that with, toward or dependent on the state - then you're screwed. Seriously.

At best you're going to have an ugly date with Georg Lukacs, where he will kindly explain how only praxis of the Marxist method can end your reification and deliver you into freedom - the liberty that will appear with the development of true class consciousness after the end of ideology.

Remember only praxis in a Marxist structure can produce true human existence, and thus, true human liberty in the "realm of freedom." At worst, you'll end up as mere property of the state. So Dangerous, just don't go there.

I swear, don't people read these things anymore?

By: Number 6

Number 6 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:57:55 +0000

Also, I apologize for the double post.
Wil: I tend to agree with the ideas you've expressed in the past two posts, but I'm troubled by what seems like an embrace of positive liberty. (Am misreading you here?) While positive liberty is certainly a valid and valuable concept, it's also a slippery one. At what point do we put on the brakes and say that coercion is unjustified, even if it achieves just ends? This is, of course, the classic challenge to utilitarianism, and I believe that your thinking is much more subtle than that of traditional utilitarians.
So, here's my question: what underpins your conception of what coercion is and is not just? Do you draw your ideas in this area from any particular thinker(s)? If so, I'd appreciate any reading recommendations you may have.

By: Number 6

Number 6 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:51:33 +0000

Tom Jackson- IIRC, Friedman addresses the negative income tax in Free to Chose. I don't recall if Hayek covers the idea of a safety net in Road to Serfdom, but wouldn't be surprised if he did. Both of those books are accessible to non-economists. Hayek is, however, a little more difficult to digest. It's not that his ideas are especially complex-he just wasn't a very good writer.

By: Number 6

Number 6 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:51:11 +0000

By: Dangerous Idea

Dangerous Idea — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:09:36 +0000

I think we're still struggling with definitions. To me, “liberty” is all the things the state can't tell you that you can't do, plus the things it can't force you to do. So if the state either cannot or should not stop you from being racist or sexist, then those things are part of liberty, rather than liberty-limiting, by definition.

I see your point about external limitations on what you can do, but I see a very bold line between state and non-state limitations. Perhaps that's just where we disagree.