[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

COVID-19 - Lazy8 - Jul 4, 2020 - 10:44pm
 
Things You Thought Today - kcar - Jul 4, 2020 - 10:34pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 4, 2020 - 10:34pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jul 4, 2020 - 10:27pm
 
Ask the Libertarian - kcar - Jul 4, 2020 - 9:55pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - KarmaKarma - Jul 4, 2020 - 9:48pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - KarmaKarma - Jul 4, 2020 - 9:14pm
 
Trump - R_P - Jul 4, 2020 - 8:44pm
 
Name My Band - Isabeau - Jul 4, 2020 - 8:38pm
 
Gardeners Corner - kcar - Jul 4, 2020 - 7:55pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jul 4, 2020 - 6:40pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Antigone - Jul 4, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
Why are 2 of the best albums of the last decade completel... - Steely_D - Jul 4, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
Movie Quote - kcar - Jul 4, 2020 - 2:51pm
 
Race in America - kcar - Jul 4, 2020 - 2:29pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Jul 4, 2020 - 2:13pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jul 4, 2020 - 12:58pm
 
In My Room - Coaxial - Jul 4, 2020 - 12:26pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Lazy8 - Jul 4, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - buddy - Jul 4, 2020 - 8:13am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - BlueHeronDruid - Jul 4, 2020 - 12:37am
 
Baseball, anyone? - buddy - Jul 4, 2020 - 12:26am
 
RP stops playing after a few minutes on iPod (iOS) - gtufano - Jul 3, 2020 - 11:33pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jul 3, 2020 - 6:50pm
 
Canada - westslope - Jul 3, 2020 - 3:38pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - Antigone - Jul 3, 2020 - 2:39pm
 
how do you feel right now? - miamizsun - Jul 3, 2020 - 1:54pm
 
US Empire - R_P - Jul 3, 2020 - 12:46pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 10:39am
 
• • • PUZZLES • • • - BlueHeronDruid - Jul 3, 2020 - 10:02am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - buddy - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:48am
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:20am
 
Bluos App and Vault 2 Streamer. Is it playing in Flac? - BillG - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:05am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:04am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:01am
 
Questions. - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 7:47am
 
• • • Things Musicians Exclaim • • • - - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 7:46am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 7:43am
 
How are you coping/dealing with the crisis? - kurtster - Jul 3, 2020 - 2:44am
 
Oh, The Stupidity - haresfur - Jul 3, 2020 - 2:40am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2020 - 10:01pm
 
NASA & other news from space - R_P - Jul 2, 2020 - 7:45pm
 
What are you listening to now? - black321 - Jul 2, 2020 - 7:14pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jul 2, 2020 - 6:04pm
 
Vinyl for old timer - Steely_D - Jul 2, 2020 - 6:00pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jul 2, 2020 - 5:03pm
 
Now that is a great story! - miamizsun - Jul 2, 2020 - 4:14pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - miamizsun - Jul 2, 2020 - 4:12pm
 
Watch Now ! - miamizsun - Jul 2, 2020 - 4:06pm
 
Automotive Lust - Red_Dragon - Jul 2, 2020 - 1:53pm
 
Less Tori and more anything else ;p - hellojofo - Jul 2, 2020 - 10:13am
 
sonos service - mjvander - Jul 2, 2020 - 8:53am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - Red_Dragon - Jul 2, 2020 - 8:02am
 
Florida - rgio - Jul 2, 2020 - 8:01am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Isabeau - Jul 2, 2020 - 7:47am
 
Hey Baby, It's The 4th O' July - miamizsun - Jul 2, 2020 - 6:57am
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - rochesimpson - Jul 1, 2020 - 3:31pm
 
Official date for our 20th Anniversary? - Windspirit - Jul 1, 2020 - 3:16pm
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Jul 1, 2020 - 11:40am
 
Can't add RP service to Sonos - donot_spam - Jul 1, 2020 - 10:28am
 
Fox Spews - kurtster - Jun 30, 2020 - 9:21pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 30, 2020 - 8:47pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jun 30, 2020 - 8:44pm
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - haresfur - Jun 30, 2020 - 6:56pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jun 30, 2020 - 2:24pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jun 30, 2020 - 2:21pm
 
American Justice - cc_rider - Jun 30, 2020 - 1:08pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Jun 30, 2020 - 11:48am
 
More detailed album version tag? - anonym - Jun 30, 2020 - 11:24am
 
Nederland / The Netherlands - theo1 - Jun 30, 2020 - 10:32am
 
What is "Sonos" tracking in web browser - yobyot - Jun 30, 2020 - 7:57am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Red_Dragon - Jun 30, 2020 - 5:28am
 
Electronic Music - R_P - Jun 29, 2020 - 8:50pm
 
RightWingNutZ - haresfur - Jun 29, 2020 - 8:24pm
 
China - KarmaKarma - Jun 29, 2020 - 7:10pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 167, 168, 169  Next
Post to this Topic
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 4, 2020 - 9:55pm



 miamizsun wrote:


every business here has a sign that says something to the effect that you must wear a mask to enter

and to social distance (including my office building)

it's their business so they make that choice 

since masks were requested indoors, i've only seen a few younger people without (or pulled down around their necks)

some of this was in the mall common area

of course people can't stuff their pie hole while wearing a mask

it looked to me that most protesters wore something, but at times very close together

they probably dropped cover to drink water or maybe to speak, but still 

i'm also disappointed in fauci/birx for not knowing or not telling the public to wear some sort of covering/mask

even if it was only a repurposed t-shirt

south korea, taiwan, japan all knew about that "science" long ago (or that it was a smart idea)

fauci has been there what? over thirty years and he doesn't know this?

if he did, to level with everyone up front?

peace


 

"i'm also disappointed in fauci/birx for not knowing or not telling the public to wear some sort of covering/mask"


In defense of Birx and Fauci, there was a great deal of uncertainty during the early weeks of the coronavirus outbreak in the US as to the benefits of wearing masks.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...


https://khn.org/news/to-curb-c...

The "Friday" mentioned early on in the KHN piece was Friday April 3, 2020. The CDC on that day recommended  wearing a mask, so the CDC wasn't that late to the masked ball.


https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 3, 2020 - 1:30am



 miamizsun wrote:


random thoughts

i'm pleasantly surprised to see you reading anything from bhl (rip) or niskanen

i've been a jerry taylor fan for a while and i also like brink lindsey along with steve teles

for obvious reasons, jerry has sort of an axe to grind and can tend to flare up occasionally

in other words i tend to disagree with some of his strong characterizations of people, esp on twitter

but most of the time on niskanen he does a good job trying to appeal to both sides of the isle

i do like that he has embraced a general position of a prudent but generous "social safety net"

and he's smart enough to know that you'll need an even more robust production system to fund it

i can agree with both of those thoughts

brink lindsey and steve teles wrote a great book called "the captured economy"

for me bhl was never about matt and jason, it was all about the comments

some brilliant folks commenting there from time to time

regards
 

I can't say I know any of these people, nor have I figured out what Niskanen is about. Some sort of attempt at a 3rd way, I guess. In any case, Lindsey seems to know his libertarians, having long been one of them, I gather. And he sure shreds them. Parts 2 & 3 are also worth a read.

Re masks: Wearing masks was part of the culture throughout East Asia long before Covid-19 came along. They've had a number of health scares but also pollution problems etc. and generally a different attitude towards keeping others safe.. Here in Europe (and the U.S., I suspect) not so much. We're still learning. One can't read faces, for example, which is a big part of our communictions culture. If you watch Chinese politicians speak, it always feels like you're watching a robot. She could just as well be wearing  mask, right?

Infections are rising sharply again, here in Switzerland, after they lifted the lockdown sanctions. It is clear that wearing masks, say in public transport, would help prevent some infections. Everybody knows it, polls suggest everyone wants to wear masks. But look into a tram or train and hardly anybody does. The sentiment seems to be: if you're not wearing one, why should I? We feel stripped of a right we're used to having and so demand the new rule apply equally to all. Dumb, schizophrenic? Maybe. Unscientific? Yes. But also very human, as epidemiologists will tell you. Any theory of human action has to take into account how people actually behave, not how the theory would like them to behave. People here overwhelmingly want a rule, imposed from above which applies to all. And no, impose does not mean people are shot or jailed if they don't comply. Possibly fined, but probably not even that, at least here in Switzerland (other countries, France for example, love themselves some more authority. But then the French are notoriously non-rule-abiding). They tried delegating the decision on whether to impose wearing masks in public transport to the Cantonal governments. Nothing happened, except, eventually in Geneva (which has been hit hardest). And so the Federal gvt. had to step in and impose a nationwide ban, which is effetive as of next Monday. Let's see. My guess is, nothing much will change because night life has also been reopened. Bars and clubs seems to be the new hot spots. And with young adults, hanging out in groups, under the influence of alcohol, empathy is hard to come by. Clubbers are obliged to leave their name and number for contact tracers. A club that became the epicenter of a super-spreading event had a list full of Mickey Mouse + fake number entries. And many of those who could be contacted derided the contact tracers and were uncooperative. I'm sure many also not self-isolating. And so the drama continues...
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 1, 2020 - 4:00pm

 steeler wrote:
Within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic,  a question oft-raised is whether to wear a mask is — and should be — a matter of individual choice. There is scientific evidence that wearing a mask provides those who are near you with additional protection from being infected by you. And vice versa. One choosing not to wear a mask is not just choosing to assume the risk for himself or herself. He or she also is assuming the risk for others.
 

every business here has a sign that says something to the effect that you must wear a mask to enter

and to social distance (including my office building)

it's their business so they make that choice 

since masks were requested indoors, i've only seen a few younger people without (or pulled down around their necks)

some of this was in the mall common area

of course people can't stuff their pie hole while wearing a mask

it looked to me that most protesters wore something, but at times very close together

they probably dropped cover to drink water or maybe to speak, but still 

i'm also disappointed in fauci/birx for not knowing or not telling the public to wear some sort of covering/mask

even if it was only a repurposed t-shirt

south korea, taiwan, japan all knew about that "science" long ago (or that it was a smart idea)

fauci has been there what? over thirty years and he doesn't know this?

if he did, to level with everyone up front?

peace


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 1, 2020 - 2:35pm

Within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic,  a question oft-raised is whether to wear a mask is — and should be — a matter of individual choice. There is scientific evidence that wearing a mask provides those who are near you with additional protection from being infected by you. And vice versa. One choosing not to wear a mask is not just choosing to assume the risk for himself or herself. He or she also is assuming the risk for others.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 1, 2020 - 1:50pm

 rexi wrote:

To quote the article I linked to below which nobody seems to be interested in reading or debating (emphasis mine):
 

random thoughts

i'm pleasantly surprised to see you reading anything from bhl (rip) or niskanen

i've been a jerry taylor fan for a while and i also like brink lindsey along with steve teles

for obvious reasons, jerry has sort of an axe to grind and can tend to flare up occasionally

in other words i tend to disagree with some of his strong characterizations of people, esp on twitter

but most of the time on niskanen he does a good job trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle

i do like that he has embraced a general position of a prudent but generous "social safety net"

and he's smart enough to know that you'll need an even more robust production system to fund it

i can agree with both of those thoughts

brink lindsey and steve teles wrote a great book called "the captured economy"

for me bhl was never about matt and jason, it was all about the comments

some brilliant folks commenting there from time to time

regards
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 1, 2020 - 6:26am



 rexi wrote:

 

To quote the article I linked to below which nobody seems to be interested in reading or debating (emphasis mine):



It is quite simply impossible to lead any institution capably without believing in the fundamental integrity of that institution and the importance of its mission. And the modern libertarian movement, which has done so much to shape attitudes on the American right about the nature of government and its proper role, is dedicated to the proposition that the contemporary American state is illegitimate and contemptible. In the libertarian view, government is congenitally incapable of doing anything well, the public sphere is by its very nature dysfunctional and morally tainted, and therefore the only thing to do with government is – in the famous words of activist Grover Norquist – “to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”The gradual diffusion of these anti-government attitudes through the conservative movement and the Republican Party has rendered the American right worse than irrelevant to the project of restoring American state capacity. It has become actively hostile, undermining the motivations needed to launch such a project and the virtues needed to pull it off.As I’ve already argued, none of this means that libertarians are wrong about everything, or that libertarian ideas are worthless. But it does mean that skepticism about government, standing alone, is an insufficient foundation for good governance. The insights of libertarian thought – suspicion of centralized power, alertness to how even the best-intended government measures can still go horribly wrong, recognition of the enormous fertility of the marketplace’s decentralized, trial-and-error experimentation – are genuine and abiding. But they are not sufficient. The ideology of libertarianism claims otherwise: It asserts that a set of important but partial and contingent truths are in fact a comprehensive and timeless blueprint for the ideal political order. The error of this assertion has been made painfully obvious by the pandemic, but it was increasingly evident for many years beforehand. The overlap between genuine libertarian insights and the pressing challenges facing the American polity has been steadily shrinking since the end of the 20th century.(…)For those of us who continue to believe in the indispensability of a critical stance toward government power, the task before us is one of intellectual reconstruction. We must reject minimal government as the organizing principle of policy reform. Making or keeping government as small as possible is an ideological fixation, not a sound principle of good governance. Small government is a false idol, and it is time we smash it. In its place, we should erect effective government as the goal that guides the development and evaluation of public policy. For maxims, we can look to America’s greatest stateman. “The legitimate object of government,” wrote Abraham Lincoln, “is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.”

Guided by the principle of effective government, we will sometimes conclude that government needs to be smaller, and sometimes that it needs to be larger – depending on the circumstances. Given where things stand today, we will often conclude that government can be made simpler. We will continue to champion the ideals of free markets and limited government, but we must reconceive those ideals to free them from their libertarian baggage.Free markets are the foundation of our prosperity and an important motor of social advance. But we need to see them, not as something that exists in the absence of government, but rather as complex achievements of good government. Free markets as we know them today are impossible without the modern state, and they function best when embedded in and supported by a structure of public goods that only government can adequately provide. The guiding principle of effective government, meanwhile, continues to impose important limits on the exercise of state power – but the contours of those limits are quite different from those demanded by libertarian ideology. Here the limiting principle addresses not the scope or subject matter of government action, but rather the effect of that action: The government policy or program in question must actually succeed in advancing its stated public purpose, and under no circumstances may benefit narrow private interests at public expense. The limiting principle, then, grows out of commitment to the public interest, not antipathy to government. The critical stance associated with policing the proper limits of state action thus shifts from anti-government to anti-corruption.

Excellent. Absolute ideology/goals are a dead end (outside of an individual's religious choice).  
Gov should be fluid, and shift depending on the circumstances.
Inhale, exhale, always looking for the right balance.
How do we get there from here? Revolution?


rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 1, 2020 - 2:28am



 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
There are no ranks, only individuals, remember? Seriously, if current affairs are not enough for you to question individualism as an abolute moral imperative, then I can't help you. Of course, each one of us has to think for him or herself, in fact that is true more so than ever, certainly in my lifetime. But that just isn't enough! With stakes so high, putting petty differenes aside and coming together to achieve a common goal, even if that means temporarily suspending certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy, cannot be a matter of contention. Sadly, that is precisely what that mindless Mises quote implies. 

There are lots of ranks, filled with individuals. We act collectively to solve problems we can't handle alone. No one contests this, no SirD, not me, not Ludwig Von Mises.

What you can imply from the body of Mises' life's work (not specifically from that quote, which is simply a statement that each individual is alone responsible for his/her own actions) is that collective action—requiring the suspension of "certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy"— the is only moral (and effective) when it is voluntary.

That is the core of libertarianism. If you want my cooperation convince me. If you don't get it leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone* to pursue your own goals—by yourself or with others.

You seem to want to attach your own baggage to that concept, and seem to have a particular animus for old Ludwig. I don't know what you've read of his, if anything; he is one of the boogeymen who get trotted out to frighten children in academia these days whose ideas are so dangerous they must only be seen thru the lens of caricature and paraphrasing.

If you have actually read Mises perhaps you could quote a passage that implies what you claim. Go ahead, I'll wait.



*By "leave you alone" I mean I will refrain from using the threat of force to prevent you from doing something within your rights to do. You don't have a right not to be disagreed with.
 

Re ranks, see my initial reply to SirD. To assume that social causation runs only from tha individual to the group and not vice versa is an unnecessary constraint on social reasoning and not borne out by reality.

Re Mises, particularly Praxeology / apriorism, I would say that an axiomatic approach to reasoning, i.e. arguing from first principles, is widely used in all sciences and fine as such, if not exclusively so. But all that can ever emenate from such reasoning is a hypothesis or theory, not an absolute moral truth. In any sound science, there will be a number of competing hypotheses and theories, the plausibility of which can only be argued in relation to an ends, but which do not constitute ends or 'moral codes' in themselves. That's called circular reasoning. It is at that point that scientific reasoning becomes ideological dogma - which is precisely what Mises has been accused of, even by his peers. And then there was his soft stance on fascism. But in that he is in good company of other figures of the right such as Hayek.

Re individual responsibility for actions. What about unintended consequences? Who coordinates group ations to minimise externalities and maximise average or overall wellbeing?

It is you who is drawing a caricature of society and the role of government within it. It is you who has apparently been persuaded that the possiblity of government overreach and necessity to keep checks and balances on its scope and use of force (has anyone disputed that?) means that all government ever does or ever should do is use force. And, quite ironically, it is in the U.S., where Libertarianism is most deeply engrained in the constitution and culture that the executive branch has indeed morphed into the very caricature its founders were apparently seeking to prevent.

To take the example of anti-vaxers from below. Who says that government should not aim to persuade its citizens to wear masks or temporarily refrain from certain activities to prevent the spread of a disease and / or protect the vulnerable. Which depraved, indoctrinated soul cannot conceive of an endless number of non-violent means by which it might effeticely encourage most all people to engage in mutually beneficial behaviour? Anti vaxer parents could be prevented from sending their offspring to public schools, for example or forbidden from being treated in public hospitals. Et. etc. And who communicates public messages through which channels? Is there an official public space for reasonable public debate or are there only for-profit private channels that will peddle any half truth to its truncated audience that promises to create a hype and a buck? Do Fox News Viewers actually know what being said in the fake news? Who controls and oversees the media landscape by which means? Rupert Murdoch? Is that in the public interest?

To quote the article I linked to below which nobody seems to be interested in reading or debating (emphasis mine):



It is quite simply impossible to lead any institution capably without believing in the fundamental integrity of that institution and the importance of its mission. And the modern libertarian movement, which has done so much to shape attitudes on the American right about the nature of government and its proper role, is dedicated to the proposition that the contemporary American state is illegitimate and contemptible. In the libertarian view, government is congenitally incapable of doing anything well, the public sphere is by its very nature dysfunctional and morally tainted, and therefore the only thing to do with government is – in the famous words of activist Grover Norquist – “to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”The gradual diffusion of these anti-government attitudes through the conservative movement and the Republican Party has rendered the American right worse than irrelevant to the project of restoring American state capacity. It has become actively hostile, undermining the motivations needed to launch such a project and the virtues needed to pull it off.As I’ve already argued, none of this means that libertarians are wrong about everything, or that libertarian ideas are worthless. But it does mean that skepticism about government, standing alone, is an insufficient foundation for good governance. The insights of libertarian thought – suspicion of centralized power, alertness to how even the best-intended government measures can still go horribly wrong, recognition of the enormous fertility of the marketplace’s decentralized, trial-and-error experimentation – are genuine and abiding. But they are not sufficient. The ideology of libertarianism claims otherwise: It asserts that a set of important but partial and contingent truths are in fact a comprehensive and timeless blueprint for the ideal political order. The error of this assertion has been made painfully obvious by the pandemic, but it was increasingly evident for many years beforehand. The overlap between genuine libertarian insights and the pressing challenges facing the American polity has been steadily shrinking since the end of the 20th century.(…)For those of us who continue to believe in the indispensability of a critical stance toward government power, the task before us is one of intellectual reconstruction. We must reject minimal government as the organizing principle of policy reform. Making or keeping government as small as possible is an ideological fixation, not a sound principle of good governance. Small government is a false idol, and it is time we smash it. In its place, we should erect effective government as the goal that guides the development and evaluation of public policy. For maxims, we can look to America’s greatest stateman. “The legitimate object of government,” wrote Abraham Lincoln, “is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.”

Guided by the principle of effective government, we will sometimes conclude that government needs to be smaller, and sometimes that it needs to be larger – depending on the circumstances. Given where things stand today, we will often conclude that government can be made simpler. We will continue to champion the ideals of free markets and limited government, but we must reconceive those ideals to free them from their libertarian baggage.Free markets are the foundation of our prosperity and an important motor of social advance. But we need to see them, not as something that exists in the absence of government, but rather as complex achievements of good government. Free markets as we know them today are impossible without the modern state, and they function best when embedded in and supported by a structure of public goods that only government can adequately provide. The guiding principle of effective government, meanwhile, continues to impose important limits on the exercise of state power – but the contours of those limits are quite different from those demanded by libertarian ideology. Here the limiting principle addresses not the scope or subject matter of government action, but rather the effect of that action: The government policy or program in question must actually succeed in advancing its stated public purpose, and under no circumstances may benefit narrow private interests at public expense. The limiting principle, then, grows out of commitment to the public interest, not antipathy to government. The critical stance associated with policing the proper limits of state action thus shifts from anti-government to anti-corruption.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2020 - 11:27am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Can see that working a treat with the anti-vaxxers.
Why don't we just all get infected with Covid now and save us all the breath.

Why don't we treat each other as grownups instead of the caricatures we can imagine?

How would you propose to coerce people into getting vaccinated, for Covid or anything else? Let's see your proposal. I'm sure it's no worse than what the most paranoid anti-vaxxer is imagining, but I doubt it's anything like workable.

Voluntarism goes both ways: I won't force you to get vaccinated at gunpoint. You have sole responsibility for your self, your health, and your body, and I with mine. You also have no right to force others to include you in their activities because of it.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2020 - 8:08am



 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
There are no ranks, only individuals, remember? Seriously, if current affairs are not enough for you to question individualism as an abolute moral imperative, then I can't help you. Of course, each one of us has to think for him or herself, in fact that is true more so than ever, certainly in my lifetime. But that just isn't enough! With stakes so high, putting petty differenes aside and coming together to achieve a common goal, even if that means temporarily suspending certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy, cannot be a matter of contention. Sadly, that is precisely what that mindless Mises quote implies. 

There are lots of ranks, filled with individuals. We act collectively to solve problems we can't handle alone. No one contests this, no SirD, not me, not Ludwig Von Mises.

What you can imply from the body of Mises' life's work (not specifically from that quote, which is simply a statement that each individual is alone responsible for his/her own actions) is that collective action—requiring the suspension of "certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy"— the is only moral (and effective) when it is voluntary.

That is the core of libertarianism. If you want my cooperation convince me. If you don't get it leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone* to pursue your own goals—by yourself or with others.

You seem to want to attach your own baggage to that concept, and seem to have a particular animus for old Ludwig. I don't know what you've read of his, if anything; he is one of the boogeymen who get trotted out to frighten children in academia these days whose ideas are so dangerous they must only be seen thru the lens of caricature and paraphrasing.

If you have actually read Mises perhaps you could quote a passage that implies what you claim. Go ahead, I'll wait.



*By "leave you alone" I mean I will refrain from using the threat of force to prevent you from doing something within your rights to do. You don't have a right not to be disagreed with.
 

Can see that working a treat with the anti-vaxxers.
Why don't we just all get infected with Covid now and save us all the breath.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2020 - 7:44am

rexi wrote:
There are no ranks, only individuals, remember? Seriously, if current affairs are not enough for you to question individualism as an abolute moral imperative, then I can't help you. Of course, each one of us has to think for him or herself, in fact that is true more so than ever, certainly in my lifetime. But that just isn't enough! With stakes so high, putting petty differenes aside and coming together to achieve a common goal, even if that means temporarily suspending certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy, cannot be a matter of contention. Sadly, that is precisely what that mindless Mises quote implies. 

There are lots of ranks, filled with individuals. We act collectively to solve problems we can't handle alone. No one contests this, no SirD, not me, not Ludwig Von Mises.

What you can imply from the body of Mises' life's work (not specifically from that quote, which is simply a statement that each individual is alone responsible for his/her own actions) is that collective action—requiring the suspension of "certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy"— the is only moral (and effective) when it is voluntary.

That is the core of libertarianism. If you want my cooperation convince me. If you don't get it leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone* to pursue your own goals—by yourself or with others.

You seem to want to attach your own baggage to that concept, and seem to have a particular animus for old Ludwig. I don't know what you've read of his, if anything; he is one of the boogeymen who get trotted out to frighten children in academia these days whose ideas are so dangerous they must only be seen thru the lens of caricature and paraphrasing.

If you have actually read Mises perhaps you could quote a passage that implies what you claim. Go ahead, I'll wait.



*By "leave you alone" I mean I will refrain from using the threat of force to prevent you from doing something within your rights to do. You don't have a right not to be disagreed with.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2020 - 2:55am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 
 

I used 'you' and 'me' purely for illustrative purposes. I don't know you, nor do I think it matters whether you are, in any way, virtuous or not. Funnily, all self proclaimed libertarians think of themselves as particularly virtuous, which I find hard to believe. What I am trying to get at is that your religion has nothing to say about the consequences of your actions for others. This is a gross shortcoming which is particularly evident when applied, in theory, to situations such as the current pandemic where collective action is so obviously imperative.

Again, read the article. It is by libertarians (of the reconvalescent type) for libertarians (of the more pervicacious type, such as Misesians).
 
I think I am virtuous because I want to leave you alone.  Well if that is virtuous, then so be it.  Though I can think of no greater insult than being called virtuous especially in today's age. I want nothing to do with that label.  I think the world is chock full of the "virtuous", I certainly have no inclination to join those ranks.
{#Lol}
 

There are no ranks, only individuals, remember? Seriously, if current affairs are not enough for you to question individualism as an abolute moral imperative, then I can't help you. Of course, each one of us has to think for him or herself, in fact that is true more so than ever, certainly in my lifetime. But that just isn't enough! With stakes so high, putting petty differenes aside and coming together to achieve a common goal, even if that means temporarily suspending certain 'lesser' freedoms we otherwise, rightly, enjoy, cannot be a matter of contention. Sadly, that is precisely what that mindless Mises quote implies. 
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 11:55am

 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 
 

I used 'you' and 'me' purely for illustrative purposes. I don't know you, nor do I think it matters whether you are, in any way, virtuous or not. Funnily, all self proclaimed libertarians think of themselves as particularly virtuous, which I find hard to believe. What I am trying to get at is that your religion has nothing to say about the consequences of your actions for others. This is a gross shortcoming which is particularly evident when applied, in theory, to situations such as the current pandemic where collective action is so obviously imperative.

Again, read the article. It is by libertarians (of the reconvalescent type) for libertarians (of the more pervicacious type, such as Misesians).
 
I think I am virtuous because I want to leave you alone.  Well if that is virtuous, then so be it.  Though I can think of no greater insult than being called virtuous especially in today's age. I want nothing to do with that label.  I think the world is chock full of the "virtuous", I certainly have no inclination to join those ranks.{#Lol}
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 11:08am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 

I used 'you' and 'me' purely for illustrative purposes. I don't know you, nor do I think it matters whether you are, in any way, virtuous or not. Funnily, all self proclaimed libertarians think of themselves as particularly virtuous, which I find hard to believe. What I am trying to get at is that your religion has nothing to say about the consequences of your actions for others. This is a gross shortcoming which is particularly evident when applied, in theory, to situations such as the current pandemic where collective action is so obviously imperative.

Again, read the article. It is by libertarians (of the reconvalescent type) for libertarians (of the more pervicacious type, such as Misesians).


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 8:52am

 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 
 
A unified theory of how individuals do act is, in fact, just one more libertarian mansplainer telling us how he believes we all should act, in order for his back-of-the-envelope calculation of society to materialize. The idea behind claiming that all human action is always purposeful, after all, is to place the blame for all human ills on individual shoulders. How convenient to rule out social determinants of human suffering a priori. Serious social science (note the word social) is open and pluralistic in its approaches to theorizing. You can have your freedom dogma, by all means, but I'll have my group-think, thank you very much.
 1. Libertarians strive to NOT tell you how you or anyone else should act unless it affects others, it's kinda of a basic fundamental of libertarianism.

 

2. Good luck with that!

{#Wave}

 

So they tell themselves. Sadly, they're actually very bad at doing what they think they're doing, because they have chosen to think along one dimension only. Just as one cannot not communicate , non-action also has consequences for others - often dire consequences. But of course, if one elevates ignoring consequences for others to a moral principle (see apriorism), that doesn't matter.

Your (and everybody else's freedom to go on a pub crawl during a pandemic forces me, who, for argument's sake is old or has pre-existing conditions, to take extra precautions just to survive. 

Have a look at the 2nd article I linked to below.

 
I bet I am more careful than you are regarding pandemic and I am a libertarian at the same time, imagine that.  Broad strokes you have.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 8:33am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 
 
A unified theory of how individuals do act is, in fact, just one more libertarian mansplainer telling us how he believes we all should act, in order for his back-of-the-envelope calculation of society to materialize. The idea behind claiming that all human action is always purposeful, after all, is to place the blame for all human ills on individual shoulders. How convenient to rule out social determinants of human suffering a priori. Serious social science (note the word social) is open and pluralistic in its approaches to theorizing. You can have your freedom dogma, by all means, but I'll have my group-think, thank you very much.
 1. Libertarians strive to NOT tell you how you or anyone else should act unless it affects others, it's kinda of a basic fundamental of libertarianism.

 

2. Good luck with that!

{#Wave}


 



So they tell themselves. Sadly, they're actually very bad at doing what they think they're doing, because they have chosen to think along one dimension only. Just as one cannot not communicate , non-action also has consequences for others - often dire consequences. But of course, if one elevates ignoring consequences for others to a moral principle (see apriorism), that doesn't matter.

Your (and everybody else's freedom to go on a pub crawl during a pandemic forces me, who, for argument's sake is old or has pre-existing conditions, to take extra precautions just to survive. 

Have a look at the 2nd article I linked to below.





sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 7:24am

 rexi wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 
 
A unified theory of how individuals do act is, in fact, just one more libertarian mansplainer telling us how he believes we all should act, in order for his back-of-the-envelope calculation of society to materialize. The idea behind claiming that all human action is always purposeful, after all, is to place the blame for all human ills on individual shoulders. How convenient to rule out social determinants of human suffering a priori. Serious social science (note the word social) is open and pluralistic in its approaches to theorizing. You can have your freedom dogma, by all means, but I'll have my group-think, thank you very much.

 1. Libertarians strive to NOT tell you how you or anyone else should act unless it affects others, it's kinda of a basic fundamental of libertarianism.

 

2. Good luck with that!{#Wave}

rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 26, 2020 - 4:54am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 
Yes, but individuals tend to think, reason and act differently, depending e.g. on whether they're acting on their own or someone else's behalf, whether their life / livelyhood depends on it, whether peers are watching, on hormonal disposition, mood, stress, air temperature, time of day etc. etc. and may often not be acting purposefully at all. This means that theories about how groups act or, to translate this into language a libertrarian might understand, how indivuals within a specific set of external circumstances are likely to act, often have more explanatory power than theories that aggregate supposedly universal truths about what drives all human behaviour at all times. All theories are wrong, but there is nothing that makes atomistic theories inherently truer than others.

A unified theory of how individuals do act is, in fact, just one more libertarian mansplainer telling us how he believes we all should act, in order for his back-of-the-envelope calculation of society to materialize. The idea behind claiming that all human action is always purposeful, after all, is to place the blame for all human ills on individual shoulders. How convenient to rule out social determinants of human suffering a priori. Serious social science (note the word social) is open and pluralistic in its approaches to theorizing. You can have your freedom dogma, by all means, but I'll have my group-think, thank you very much.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 25, 2020 - 5:16am

rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2020 - 4:51am

Broken Hearts

Bleeding Heart Libertarians is no longer publishing new material. The final post is here. It’s an end worth noting, because it seems to me (I have no very specific knowledge, and have deliberately not asked any of the principals involved) to say something bigger about what is happening to libertarianism.


What the Pandemic Revealed

(...) But if the pandemic has shown that a critical stance toward government is always needed in formulating and evaluating policy, it has demonstrated even more forcefully the limitations and shortcomings of libertarians’ exclusive focus on government excess. The gravest failuresin the government response to the pandemic were sins of omission, not
commission – not unnecessary and ill-advised interference with the private sector, but the inability to accomplish tasks for which only government is suited.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jun 11, 2020 - 9:08pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
kcar wrote:
Way too much to quote, and too much to respond to in my current state

Um, thanks for sharing. I get it: the way to appeal to you is to make my party just like your party, to see every problem as a nail to government's hammer.

Still curious tho, since you never got around to this: why should the political contest come down to just two parties—yours (of course!) and the Republicans? What makes Donald Trump a worthwhile alternative but Jo Jorgenson not?
 

I'll try to keep this brief. I know I rabbit on a lot.

1. You and I have sparred in the past. I have been really unpleasant to you at times. I apologize for that behavior. For the most part you didn't deserve my harsh words.
1a. OTOH , you have a bad habit of putting people down in your posts, or trying to. This quote for instance patronizes and exaggerates: 

"...the way to appeal to you is to make my party just like your party, to see every problem as a nail to government's hammer."

1b. You write well and are quite intelligent. You really don't need to be arrogant and snarky. It just weakens the appeal of your thoughts.

2. I don't expect the libertarian party to be like the GOP or Dems. I don't believe that every problem should be a nail to government's hammer.

3. I DO expect the LP to come up with credible policy suggestions when faced with: 

3a. one of the worst public health crises in this country's history.
3b. one of the worst economic crises in this country's history.
3c. the biggest global ecological crisis in humankind's history.


4. I understand that the LP believes in limited government and AFAICT a vigorous promotion of individual rights over government powers. However, those two beliefs do NOT serve a nation well in times of major, time-sensitive crises. In fact, those beliefs fail the US entirely.

4a. I don't think Jorgenson offered a realistic response to the coronavirus pandemic. Appealing to people's common sense isn't enough to maintain sufficient quarantining of the general population. As you pointed out, popular opinion was far more cautious about lifting the quarantine than were our governors. Yet without enforced restrictions in place, the incautious group of the population would have dramatically increased the number of infections and risked overwhelming our hospitals and health-care workers.

4a1. Do you have a LP-oriented proposal for fighting Covid19 without government mandates such as social distancing, wearing of masks in public, contact tracing, public funding of accelerated research and testing of medical treatments and preventatives? 

4b. Do you have an LP-oriented proposal for addressing 40 million unemployed Americans, a crash in economic activity, the looming threat of massive evictions and foreclosures? Can you explain how the federal government could address those problems without government programs in place? Can you explain, for instance, how private citizens would pick and choose which businesses should get money to stay afloat and which should not? Again, that was Jorgenson's proposal.

4b1. Do you have objections to existing European government programs to shore up employment and businesses during a crisis such as Germany's Kurzarbeit? Germany used this program to recover from the Great Recession far more quickly than the US did.

Three pieces on Kurzarbeit below:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...       (This piece notes that Tucker Carlson praised the program. Very surprising).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.ft.com/content/927...


4c. Do you have an LP-oriented proposal for combating global warming? We might have been able to rely more on free markets to fight global warming had we started decades ago. We don't have time anymore, thanks in part to scientists failing until recently to accurately gauge the severity of the crisis. AFAICT we'll have to look at massive geo-engineering projects to save ourselves.

Gary Johnson largely punted on the issue. The last time I checked the LP's Web page on the matter, it suggested IIRC that we could address this problem primarily by vigorous adherence to private property rights. Such adherence is one of the main reasons that we're in an ecological crisis—that and the failure of our capitalist society to price the cost of destroying a public good such as the climate into the costs of goods and services.

5. There will be problems that a free-market economy and promotion of individual rights cannot solve. We've got three such massive problems right now.

5a. I think that any responsible government or political party should be able to adapt its policies to meet the needs of the times. A pro-union government, for instance, should decrease its support of unions if they are crippling the economy with general strikes.

5b. I don't see that flexibility from LP politicians. In fact, Johnson and Jorgenson are so wedded to LP philosophy that their proposals to our pandemic, economic collapse and global warming are ridiculous and divorced from reality.

5c. I don't think that the GOP is much better when confronting these problems. The GOP is so shackled to the notion of tax cuts as the only pro-active means of government action that it can barely acknowledge the existence of global warming. It has no plan to contain Covid19 apart from a too-brief quarantine period. And it seems largely content to wait and see if the economy can't get up off the canvas.

5d. The GOP and the LP are both irresponsible on these matters. Size of party and number of elected seats held are not the problems here. Inflexible adherence to inappropriate policies is the problem. 



You wrote: 

"Still curious tho, since you never got around to this: why should the political contest come down to just two parties—yours (of course!) and the Republicans? What makes Donald Trump a worthwhile alternative but Jo Jorgenson not?"

A fair question. In general I don't have a problem with multi-party system provided it doesn't devolve into over-representation as occurred in inter-war Europe. I am very skeptical of third parties in American national elections because they typically don't have a sufficient grassroots base to have a big enough bloc of politicians elected to ensure an effective and sustained presence in power.

Yes, elected independent politicians and LP politicians have been able to work with Dems and the GOP but I don't view that as representing a sustained and organized political presence independent of the two parties. Third-party issues tend to get co-opted by the Big Two parties.

My big concern with third parties in presidential elections is that they can split the vote and let undesirable candidates win. Ralph Nader in 2000 comes to mind. I haven't looked at the results of the 2016 election to form an opinion as to whether Jill Stein and Gary Johnson helped cost HRC the election.

Finally, third-parties and their candidates often run on one or two issues and aren't ready to offer fleshed out policy proposals on a broad spectrum of issues. I see someone like Ralph Nader running for president and I view him as just stroking his ego and lacking in real plans to get his core ideas and values enacted.



This is not so short...sorry. Thanks for reading.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 167, 168, 169  Next