Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (163701)	6/6/2005 8:52:06 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've spent too much time on SI so this is probably one of my last posts for a while. As you may have guessed I am a libertarian at heart. However, perhaps arrogantly, I think most libertarians (both philosophers and laymen) are too rigid in their approach for practical use. The short version is this: The primary goal is to provide for as much freedom for everyone as possible. The one line definition can be formulated as "you are free to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on my freedom". Implicit in above is the notion of equality, otherwise your right to breath may be construed as the infringing on my right to choke you to death. The other implication is the ability to make informed decision. Freedom to choose means little if you are ignorant of (or worse deceived into) what you are choosing. Keep these fundamental notions in mind as you read. There are two main arguments for the libertarian philosophy of maximum freedom: Morality: Which is to say it is immoral to restricts the rights of others just because you (personally or collectively) can and Freedom is Best for All: it is believed that the society is served best when everyone is free to explore various approaches to life, in a manner akin to how free enterprise results in the best allocation of resources in economy. Much has been made about libertarian views on property rights. But that is only a subset of views. It is individual freedom that is the key and not some economic regime or collective good. So a libertarian will have no problems with polygamy, polyandry, collective bargaining, or religious assembly. The problem with most libertarians is that in their quest for maximum freedom they seem to miss that most human beings will use their success to limit freedom of others. So if we were to set everyone "free" today, by the end of the year we'd most likely have totalitarian or at least feudal regimes everywhere. True freedom in a society is achieved only when one category of power is pit against another. The break down of government into Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches was an attempt at such a feat. It was a good first draft, but that is all it was it is in need of major overhaul, imo...but I digress..this means we must all give up some of our freedoms so that we can be guaranteed most of our freedoms. However the principle of maximum freedom for the individual remains and we must give up as little of our freedoms as possible. With that in mind here are my comments about your specific points: The basic problem I have with any 'free market' analysis is the erroneous assumption that people act in a rational manner. I had actually read articles on this topic and am familiar with it. But why is this a problem? The issue is not rationality or some hypothetical "best solution" to conditions. The issue is freedom and the fact that nobody has the right to be your "parent" and second guess your decisions in life. So what if you make the wrong decision? It was yours to make. And what if the government, being made of irrational humans, makes the wrong decision on what you may or may not do? I'd rather face the consequences of my own irrational mistakes than that of others. I also have a problem that any 'free market' analysis also makes the erroneous assumption that markets are perfectly free of friction and costs and information is perfectly available to all participants at all times. Same type of answer as above. It may not be perfect, but it is as good as you can expect. So long as there is no deception, freedom of choice rules supreme. I also do not think that Democracy is a natural condition of the human species. Then you have not studied nature enough. Not only some notion of democracy is fundamental to human species, it is even part of all social mammals. For example it is not the biggest and meanest gorilla that becomes the leader of the pack, but rather the one who has the support of most of the members. Such support is won in part by helping in child rearing, in part by sharing one's food, and by not abusing one's position of power. Wolves and dolphines have similar schemes. You really need to dig into this deeper. It is enlightening. Ditto individualism. Also incorrect. We are willing to give up some of our freedoms for benefits that society brings us. These benefits range from simple pleasures of companionship to security and survival to more abstract concepts. However, numerous studies have shown that nothing is as distressing to human beings than the feeling of not having control over their lives. In other words, we are social individuals and want it all. Taken to the extreme, both solitary (but free) life and total lack of freedom (albeit as part of a group) will drive most people to suicide. I also like mandated education because an educated populace is our only true defence against tyranny. And who will decide what, how much, and for how long your kids are to be educated/indoctrinated with? The incontrovertible fact of the 20th century is that most parents everywhere want their children better educated, so there is no need to mandate anything. This is as true in sub-Saharan Africa as it is in US. But what you are asking for a big tyranny in itself rather than being a solution to it. ST