Libertarianism doesn't promise perfect society and rests on idea that a less than perfect society based on freedom is better than a society attempting perfection using coercion to achieve it. It never promises utopia, which you seem to demand from it. And much of what you describe couldn't happen -- enslavement of women or killing of Jews or blacks - violates non aggression. That regulates behavior pretty well, don'tcha think?
Perhaps you're confused about Libertarianism?! Your argument about slavery is invalid and holds no water. Libertarian principles are responsible for ending slavery. Libertarianism, at the core, is about self ownership, NOT owning other people.
GTist doesn't simply believe that individuals are out simply for money. At a macro level this may be the simplest way to apply GT, but a true GTist. Interviews individuals in search of what ones interests are. So you will take into account the racist, the poor, the weak, etc. & attempt to play these pieces out as best as you can. GT in its simplest form Is a critical part of lib-ism, since for such lose rules to exist, there needs to be a belief that @ "in-game" players evolve, and equal out.
Most libertarian conceptions of government (Randian, Lockean) posit a constitutional government (democratic or otherwise) which uses force to protect individuals from violations of their freedom. That would preclude slavery and killing of Jews, etc.
Thanks for the condescending reply that means nothing.
Libertarianism is a concept. It has no guns and has absolutely no power to allow or disallow anything. There is no magic Libertarian god to invoke the nature of the will of Libertarianism and force people to do things. What do you mean by doesn't allow?
Democracies disallow things by making an organization that points a gun at peoples heads and steals their money ... and than voting how those funds should be used to have the organization point more guns at more people.
What is the process that you are saying libertarians use to disallow something?
@ j.scott "The concept of demcy allows the majority to direct gov. Not physically, but conceptually. "
What you said is False, See Condorcet or see K. Arrow's impossibility theorem. In addition you can suppliment this with P. Converse on rational ignorance as well as M.Olson on "logic of collectives" dmocrcy does not provide a proper discovery of global preference order. Democrcy is terrible at creating efficient institutions. Ignorance n error do not cancel Macknzie (03) "use of knwld ab soc"
A Beautiful Mind is a horrible representation of John Nash. Nash himself said that the movie misrepresents himself. In an interview, Nash said that he agrees most with Austrian economists and is most comparable in economics to Hayek. The bit in the movie that said he defeated Adam Smith is absolutely false. Nash never went against Smith, but simply expounded on his theories. Also, the KKK did what they did in the beginning in response to U.S. Grant's post civil war militarism.
Also, child slavery would be hugely expensive to impose in a stateless society.
People are just not going to pay to put people in prison for hiring children, and they're not going to pay to put children in institutional facilities just because they don't wanna live with their parents.
Especially since there will be people fighting back.
Also, living in a stateless society would generate a huge mental revolution. Especially if it comes about by people understanding praxeology / game theory.
There is another likeness between game theory and libertarianism. In game theory the strategies that players employ, have to be unversalised. So if a poker tactic is evaluated, it has to be assumed that the opponent can employ it too. This has a link to the initiation of force as a strategy. Does it stay consistent if all the players employ this strategy. It clearly doesn't. A can maximise profits by robbing B, but if B does the same with A, it fails.
Well, it's true that anti-statism doesn't give you any system by which society works, as it's not a positive claim, it's just the rejection of a claim.
But for the most part, I think without a state, in our current day and age, the system by which society could operate would emerge from the society itself, and it's not something we would need to plan for ahead of time.
The problem is that it is not a given at all that whatever happens to be the best inherently "emerges". What "emerges" will depend on the values of the people in a given society, and if those values are irrational, a "better" society is not going to inherently "emerge". If people demand questionable things, then that's what they're likely to get, and hence it seems like it undeniably *does* matter what values the society has in the first place.
What are "irrational" values? There are no more "irrational" values than there are irrational preferences in ice cream flavors, as far as I understand. Unless of course, "irrational" simply means "nonrational", in which case all values are "irrational".
Yes, this is obvious, but what I was saying is that "in our current day and age" generally our values are such that I think it would work fine. At least, in western and non-Muslim societies.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'better' when you have it in quotes like that. Do you mean better compared to the current system? Or do you mean better compared to other hypothetical outcomes if the values of the people were different?
I agree that humans are not purely driven by money, but perhaps a better way of looking at it is that racists have a slight economic disadvantage and highly liquid capital markets relentlessly seek out that extra percent and drive them to the wall. Like homo sapiens won out of the Neanthertalers, a slight advantage an exponential function, time and scarcity do the rest. Sure there are still funda muslim societies, but they are on economic death row already. The price to pay for bigotry goes up
Walter Block has a vid on Youtube and mises(d0t)org discusses racism/discrimination and the gender wage gap.
yes it would still happen but those who did it would forgo the money they otherwise would make and the company that hires that person now makes that money (if it's really discrimination) and thus can more easily gain market share and outcompete the company that discriminates. So would it happen? yes but the market already punishes it and diverts resources away from employers who do that
I don't think you need like a whole philosophy to support a free society, just the obvious and the basic, like non initiation of force, self ownership and just plain rationality that almost every child is born with.
i definitely agree that people desire more than money, maybe ive concentrated too much on the profit incentives.
as for oppression in a society where people are able to keep the fruits of their labor....i just think that those oppressed would make such attempts too costly, even if that means resorting to violence.
i do think you may be correct on more than anti-statism being necessary tho. not necessarily to advocate freedom, but that one has to at least assume that others value their own freedom from whatever they perceive to be oppressive forces. people have to at least value their own freedom if they are at all to be motivated to prevent their own oppression.
there's an article on mises(d0t)org about this and explains how to game theorists they basically say that people are "rational" if they do what the game says they'll do....and if they do something else they're "irrational" even if they reach a bigger payoff.
I think Nash also conflates money with wealth. When you take the distinction into account, you can see that, since wealth is just another subjective psychological desire, money is actually a subset of psychological profit. It's just that as of now, accurately modeling psychological desires mathematically is pretty difficult considering the plasticity of the concept, but Quantitative Psychology may solve the problem some day.
Libertarianism doesn't promise perfect society and rests on idea that a less than perfect society based on freedom is better than a society attempting perfection using coercion to achieve it. It never promises utopia, which you seem to demand from it. And much of what you describe couldn't happen -- enslavement of women or killing of Jews or blacks - violates non aggression. That regulates behavior pretty well, don'tcha think?
razerfish 1 year ago
Perhaps you're confused about Libertarianism?! Your argument about slavery is invalid and holds no water. Libertarian principles are responsible for ending slavery. Libertarianism, at the core, is about self ownership, NOT owning other people.
billythebrainsoftain 1 year ago
GTist doesn't simply believe that individuals are out simply for money. At a macro level this may be the simplest way to apply GT, but a true GTist. Interviews individuals in search of what ones interests are. So you will take into account the racist, the poor, the weak, etc. & attempt to play these pieces out as best as you can. GT in its simplest form Is a critical part of lib-ism, since for such lose rules to exist, there needs to be a belief that @ "in-game" players evolve, and equal out.
incogn39r0 2 years ago
Most libertarian conceptions of government (Randian, Lockean) posit a constitutional government (democratic or otherwise) which uses force to protect individuals from violations of their freedom. That would preclude slavery and killing of Jews, etc.
JohnScott700 2 years ago
dis·al·low (ds-lou)
tr.v. dis·al·lowed, dis·al·low·ing, dis·al·lows
1. To refuse to allow
JohnScott700 2 years ago
Thanks for the condescending reply that means nothing.
Libertarianism is a concept. It has no guns and has absolutely no power to allow or disallow anything. There is no magic Libertarian god to invoke the nature of the will of Libertarianism and force people to do things. What do you mean by doesn't allow?
aaron0883 2 years ago
Concepts do not have physical power, that's self evident.
The concept of democracy allows the majority to direct government. Not physically, but conceptually.
Are you beginning to understand the idea of concepts allowing or disallowing?
JohnScott700 2 years ago
not really.
Democracies disallow things by making an organization that points a gun at peoples heads and steals their money ... and than voting how those funds should be used to have the organization point more guns at more people.
What is the process that you are saying libertarians use to disallow something?
aaron0883 2 years ago
@ j.scott "The concept of demcy allows the majority to direct gov. Not physically, but conceptually. "
What you said is False, See Condorcet or see K. Arrow's impossibility theorem. In addition you can suppliment this with P. Converse on rational ignorance as well as M.Olson on "logic of collectives" dmocrcy does not provide a proper discovery of global preference order. Democrcy is terrible at creating efficient institutions. Ignorance n error do not cancel Macknzie (03) "use of knwld ab soc"
rayyf69 2 years ago
Libertarianism doesn't allow the killing of Jews, or slavery. Seems you don't understand Libertarianism at all.
JohnScott700 2 years ago
I understand libertarianism well. when you say "doesn't allow" ... What does that mean?
aaron0883 2 years ago
A Beautiful Mind is a horrible representation of John Nash. Nash himself said that the movie misrepresents himself. In an interview, Nash said that he agrees most with Austrian economists and is most comparable in economics to Hayek. The bit in the movie that said he defeated Adam Smith is absolutely false. Nash never went against Smith, but simply expounded on his theories. Also, the KKK did what they did in the beginning in response to U.S. Grant's post civil war militarism.
FATToney12 2 years ago
How many people are being killed, tortured or stolen from because of state action or state influence, vs how many because of other reasons?
The KKK, Black Panthers and the muslim terrorist organizations would not exist in the context of a stateless society.
Racists project the problems that the state generates onto another race that is polluting their state.
Muslim terrorists do that as well, but they're mostly against other states. They're against the US, against Israel, against the UK, etc.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago 3
Also, child slavery would be hugely expensive to impose in a stateless society.
People are just not going to pay to put people in prison for hiring children, and they're not going to pay to put children in institutional facilities just because they don't wanna live with their parents.
Especially since there will be people fighting back.
Also, living in a stateless society would generate a huge mental revolution. Especially if it comes about by people understanding praxeology / game theory.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
There is another likeness between game theory and libertarianism. In game theory the strategies that players employ, have to be unversalised. So if a poker tactic is evaluated, it has to be assumed that the opponent can employ it too. This has a link to the initiation of force as a strategy. Does it stay consistent if all the players employ this strategy. It clearly doesn't. A can maximise profits by robbing B, but if B does the same with A, it fails.
modelmark 2 years ago
The "homo economicus" is clearly a myth.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Take care man.
AndyMH182 2 years ago
Well, it's true that anti-statism doesn't give you any system by which society works, as it's not a positive claim, it's just the rejection of a claim.
But for the most part, I think without a state, in our current day and age, the system by which society could operate would emerge from the society itself, and it's not something we would need to plan for ahead of time.
MotionFur 2 years ago
The problem is that it is not a given at all that whatever happens to be the best inherently "emerges". What "emerges" will depend on the values of the people in a given society, and if those values are irrational, a "better" society is not going to inherently "emerge". If people demand questionable things, then that's what they're likely to get, and hence it seems like it undeniably *does* matter what values the society has in the first place.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
What are "irrational" values? There are no more "irrational" values than there are irrational preferences in ice cream flavors, as far as I understand. Unless of course, "irrational" simply means "nonrational", in which case all values are "irrational".
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
Yes, this is obvious, but what I was saying is that "in our current day and age" generally our values are such that I think it would work fine. At least, in western and non-Muslim societies.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'better' when you have it in quotes like that. Do you mean better compared to the current system? Or do you mean better compared to other hypothetical outcomes if the values of the people were different?
MotionFur 2 years ago
I think Nash revised his view somewhat.
Purely based on a British popdocumentary, The Trap.
hurrrrrrrrrrr 2 years ago
Good luck with the business, hope you don't stay gone too long.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Yeah nobody ever does anything that is not in their best interests. Its not possible.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
I agree that humans are not purely driven by money, but perhaps a better way of looking at it is that racists have a slight economic disadvantage and highly liquid capital markets relentlessly seek out that extra percent and drive them to the wall. Like homo sapiens won out of the Neanthertalers, a slight advantage an exponential function, time and scarcity do the rest. Sure there are still funda muslim societies, but they are on economic death row already. The price to pay for bigotry goes up
modelmark 2 years ago
Walter Block has a vid on Youtube and mises(d0t)org discusses racism/discrimination and the gender wage gap.
yes it would still happen but those who did it would forgo the money they otherwise would make and the company that hires that person now makes that money (if it's really discrimination) and thus can more easily gain market share and outcompete the company that discriminates. So would it happen? yes but the market already punishes it and diverts resources away from employers who do that
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I don't think you need like a whole philosophy to support a free society, just the obvious and the basic, like non initiation of force, self ownership and just plain rationality that almost every child is born with.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
i definitely agree that people desire more than money, maybe ive concentrated too much on the profit incentives.
as for oppression in a society where people are able to keep the fruits of their labor....i just think that those oppressed would make such attempts too costly, even if that means resorting to violence.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
i do think you may be correct on more than anti-statism being necessary tho. not necessarily to advocate freedom, but that one has to at least assume that others value their own freedom from whatever they perceive to be oppressive forces. people have to at least value their own freedom if they are at all to be motivated to prevent their own oppression.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
there's an article on mises(d0t)org about this and explains how to game theorists they basically say that people are "rational" if they do what the game says they'll do....and if they do something else they're "irrational" even if they reach a bigger payoff.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I think Nash also conflates money with wealth. When you take the distinction into account, you can see that, since wealth is just another subjective psychological desire, money is actually a subset of psychological profit. It's just that as of now, accurately modeling psychological desires mathematically is pretty difficult considering the plasticity of the concept, but Quantitative Psychology may solve the problem some day.
DixyHair 2 years ago