Anything That's Peaceful
- Thread starter bordsilver
- Start date
I can't find anywhere in David Boaz's writing where he claims that Libertarianism is a Utopian philosophy. So I'm not sure where RCS's concern is...
What David Boaz writes seems pretty standard fare with what most Libertarians agree on.
"A libertarian society is only a framework for utopia. In such a society, government would respect people's right to make their own choices in accord with the knowledge available to them. As long as each person respected the rights of others, he would be free to live as he chose."
What David Boaz writes seems pretty standard fare with what most Libertarians agree on.
"A libertarian society is only a framework for utopia. In such a society, government would respect people's right to make their own choices in accord with the knowledge available to them. As long as each person respected the rights of others, he would be free to live as he chose."
yennus said:
I am just waiting to hear bad from Admin and then as far as I am concerned the police can sort it out.
Can you two take this somewhere else? I don't want this thread deleted because of a slander fest between 2 members.
I read the article that was linked the other day and I think RCS didn't actually read the content and just judged the article by its title. It was actually sensible reading.yennus said:
Bullion Baron took me to task the other day arguing that in order for a Libertarian society to function effectively there must be some shared goals or philosophy amongst the members of the society.
I interpreted this to mean that there must be a consensus of opinion among all the citizens or in other words some uniformity of values. Naturally I disagreed, arguing from a position that in a Libertarian society the only common philosophy would be don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff. Explaining further that such a philosophy is already accepted in our society so a Libertarian one would not require anything more than is already generally accepted practice in our own society. Bullion Baron in attempting to discredit the Libertarian philosophy, as evidenced by his reference to Utopia, was attempting to portray it as an impossible dream, an unachievable goal because it would hinge upon everyone sharing the same moral code. Something which apparently must be lacking in our own society, or absent in the behaviour of most humans and therefore requires a State to enforce. I totally dispute this belief.
Henry Hazlitt puts what I was trying to say better than me:
"Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt
I'll concede to Bullion Baron that there would be the need for a shared goal, as distinct from my first interpretation of his comment being the need for a uniform value system, but I will clarify my concession by arguing that such goals are already present in our society and wouldn't require us to rise to some new ethical plane of existence, rather, what would be required is merely the recognition that morality cannot be enforced by the State.
I interpreted this to mean that there must be a consensus of opinion among all the citizens or in other words some uniformity of values. Naturally I disagreed, arguing from a position that in a Libertarian society the only common philosophy would be don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff. Explaining further that such a philosophy is already accepted in our society so a Libertarian one would not require anything more than is already generally accepted practice in our own society. Bullion Baron in attempting to discredit the Libertarian philosophy, as evidenced by his reference to Utopia, was attempting to portray it as an impossible dream, an unachievable goal because it would hinge upon everyone sharing the same moral code. Something which apparently must be lacking in our own society, or absent in the behaviour of most humans and therefore requires a State to enforce. I totally dispute this belief.
Henry Hazlitt puts what I was trying to say better than me:
"Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt
I'll concede to Bullion Baron that there would be the need for a shared goal, as distinct from my first interpretation of his comment being the need for a uniform value system, but I will clarify my concession by arguing that such goals are already present in our society and wouldn't require us to rise to some new ethical plane of existence, rather, what would be required is merely the recognition that morality cannot be enforced by the State.
The necessity for some point of commonality to exist in the minds of the participants in some social situation has long be thought a key ingredient for the creation of a stable society. (This is also called a Schelling point.) There are many ways of describing it but I believe the non-aggression principle is itself been regarded as a viable Schelling point (c.f. David Friedman and Hawkeye used to argue that this was largely sufficient).
Libertarians have long recognised this and have written extensively on the topic. Indeed one of Henry Hazlitt's last books before he died was centred around this (Foundations of Morality ). Even the father of Classical Liberalism, Adam Smith saw it as a key element which is why he wrote Theory of Moral Sentiments which should be read in conjunction with Wealth of Nations (but it is a stupidly wordy book). Mises of course wrote on the broader ethics that underpin a peaceful, stable society and I myself started The Good Person thread for essentially the same reason. The shared morality/philosophy was also a key principle of the Friendly Societies (read Trust Among Strangers by Penelope Gwynn Ismay, for example) and indeed is still a core element of the service clubs such as Lions and Rotary.
As you point out though, you can't simply legislate such morality and needs to be a background element for any peaceful society worth living in.
Personally, I don't know how widespread the shared value system has to be or how many facets there need to be beyond a basic recognition and respect for other people's rights and a willingness to resolve disputes peacefully. I don't think it really needs to be universal; more it just needs to be present across a sufficient share of the population - particularly those core to positions of trust.
Edit: Grammar.
Libertarians have long recognised this and have written extensively on the topic. Indeed one of Henry Hazlitt's last books before he died was centred around this (Foundations of Morality ). Even the father of Classical Liberalism, Adam Smith saw it as a key element which is why he wrote Theory of Moral Sentiments which should be read in conjunction with Wealth of Nations (but it is a stupidly wordy book). Mises of course wrote on the broader ethics that underpin a peaceful, stable society and I myself started The Good Person thread for essentially the same reason. The shared morality/philosophy was also a key principle of the Friendly Societies (read Trust Among Strangers by Penelope Gwynn Ismay, for example) and indeed is still a core element of the service clubs such as Lions and Rotary.
As you point out though, you can't simply legislate such morality and needs to be a background element for any peaceful society worth living in.
Personally, I don't know how widespread the shared value system has to be or how many facets there need to be beyond a basic recognition and respect for other people's rights and a willingness to resolve disputes peacefully. I don't think it really needs to be universal; more it just needs to be present across a sufficient share of the population - particularly those core to positions of trust.
Edit: Grammar.
And let's not forget one of Old Soul's favourites: J.S. Mill.
When Newtosilver finally makes bis way back to this forum, here's a link he may find interesting The problems with libertarianism.
The opening sentences:
There's a host of other threads about libertarianism on the philosophy reddit if that's your bent, including some ventures into free-will v determinism, which has been touched on in this forum by hawkeye.
The opening sentences:
There's a host of other threads about libertarianism on the philosophy reddit if that's your bent, including some ventures into free-will v determinism, which has been touched on in this forum by hawkeye.
This is probably one of the places that NTS likes to copy and paste from 
1. First and foremost it's a political philosophy that also happens to be consistent with universal morality.
2. Many Libertarians are/were primarily Libertarians because of the ends. L.V. Mises and Hayek were two very prominent ones who argued extensively that the best ends are obtained from people being free to pursue their peaceful projects.
Everyone is interested in the ends. Libertarians simply say that you need to pursue your ends in a peaceful way. The food example that the guy posts is easily solved through peaceful mechanisms (indeed I discussed a couple of potential ones in the Free Market Regulation thread that I started a while ago).
1. First and foremost it's a political philosophy that also happens to be consistent with universal morality.
2. Many Libertarians are/were primarily Libertarians because of the ends. L.V. Mises and Hayek were two very prominent ones who argued extensively that the best ends are obtained from people being free to pursue their peaceful projects.
Everyone is interested in the ends. Libertarians simply say that you need to pursue your ends in a peaceful way. The food example that the guy posts is easily solved through peaceful mechanisms (indeed I discussed a couple of potential ones in the Free Market Regulation thread that I started a while ago).
Further, his "people are so dumb that they will fall for advertising" argument is laughable. If people are so easily swayed by such things then what prevents the public officials from being manipulated as well? Either these bureaucrats are super-humans who know what is best for everyone else and incapable of being manipulated by lobbyists/advertisers or they are subject to the exact same power of manipulation as other people are. In the real-world latter case, concentrating the decision making into the hands of a small group of individuals then makes it easier for the lobbyists/advertisers to get what they want.
bordsilver said:
Or public officials manipulating the means to their own ends?
^ but hang on, that's an argument against our position!! 
Take your pick:
Humans are easily manipulated.
Public officials are humans.
Therefore public officials are easily manipulated.
Humans manipulate others.
Public officials are human.
Therefore public officials manipulate others.
Humans are easily manipulated.
Public officials are humans.
Therefore public officials are easily manipulated.
Humans manipulate others.
Public officials are human.
Therefore public officials manipulate others.
It's that time of year again, so here's another:
Gratuitous advert - The 2017 Annual Friedman Conference
Sydney, April 28 - April 30 2017
The Early Bird special is just $275 for concession, or $350 for adults. This is amazing value, and includes a full day training workshop, 2 full days of conference, lunches, Friday night drinks, a 3 course dinner with 4 hour wine package at the Gala Dinner, access to the screening of PovertyInc. and a T-shirt.
This year, the ALS is proud to announce a new format which will go beyond simply speakers and panels, and include interactive activities, competitions, debates and an 'un-conference' session so that everyone can get the most out of this experience!
Note - the $100 early bird discount ends 28th February.
Based on the current speakers list, Mark Latham will be back again this year who can generally be trusted to make plenty of non-PC remarks.
Website
Gratuitous advert - The 2017 Annual Friedman Conference
Sydney, April 28 - April 30 2017
The Early Bird special is just $275 for concession, or $350 for adults. This is amazing value, and includes a full day training workshop, 2 full days of conference, lunches, Friday night drinks, a 3 course dinner with 4 hour wine package at the Gala Dinner, access to the screening of PovertyInc. and a T-shirt.
This year, the ALS is proud to announce a new format which will go beyond simply speakers and panels, and include interactive activities, competitions, debates and an 'un-conference' session so that everyone can get the most out of this experience!
Note - the $100 early bird discount ends 28th February.
Based on the current speakers list, Mark Latham will be back again this year who can generally be trusted to make plenty of non-PC remarks.
Website
^ I used to think Easter and Xmas were the only indicators of how quickly a year has flown. Now Ive got the Annual Friedman Conference as a calendar metric.
Gonna get myself to one of them conferences one day. When I can afford the train fare.
Gonna get myself to one of them conferences one day. When I can afford the train fare.
Any speakers in particular that you've got your eye on seeing bordie?
There's so many.mmm....shiney! said:
I'd like to hear Matthew Sinclair simply because his Mash the Beer Tax campaign in the UK was apparently successful in getting the government to cut beer taxes.
People like Naomi Brockwell, Sara Scarlett and Ross Cameron will no doubt be interesting but I'd probably go out of my way to hear what Zoltn Ksz from the Hungarian parliament has to say.
Last year there was an escapee from North Korea - Yeonmi Park - as a keynote speaker. She was absolutely brilliant to hear (albeit with a shocking story of what her life was like in North Korea and what she and her family went through to escape that brought many people to tears).
From the Foundation For Economic Education: https://store.fee.org/products/anything-peaceful-t-shirt
