Why people do not believe in libertarianism

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of classical democracy is its simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

O rly?

The beauty of democracy is, I would say, its perceived goodness and practicality. It's anything but simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief in it does not require creative and self glorifying solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

O rly?

What do you base this other than just your cute idea to fiddle with my post? I think the reinforcement that problems are best solved by man's action rather than man's inaction is indeed self-glorifying.

Libertarianism provides no way for someone to think of something earth shattering. The best you can do is articulate your positions well. But I think people like "creating" their ideas, rather than just principally following a school.

That's my whole point here. That since libertarianism does not seem to allow man to "have a hand" in what happens, he will be less likely to embrace it than in the absence of that bias.

[ QUOTE ]
People who believe in government will point to lack of understanding as the reason a few oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Again, what sense does this make?

I'd say people who believe in government will point to lack of patriotism or civic responsibility as the reason some people oppose it.


[ QUOTE ]
SEE THE PROBLEM, GENIUS?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. Like I said, you could probably make a fair claim for any political ideology as to why some people who would benefit from it are biased to not go for it. It doesn't mean there's a "problem" with my claim.

But you have to do more than just insert your ideology into my reasons for this ideology. Because these reasons have nothing to do the reason people would be biased against government.

This is pretty weak. I expect more from you, Phil.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
O rly?

The beauty of democracy is, I would say, its perceived goodness and practicality. It's anything but simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
The idea is simple. The people choose their leaders and clerks and make a system of law such that individual rights are protected. All the rest is detail.

The idea of "this is my property, this is your property, there are no commons" is a very long way from simple. How do you define property without law? Is it the number of guns you can hire to keep everyone off a certain area?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who believe in government will point to lack of understanding as the reason a few oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Again, what is this based on?

I'd say people who believe in government will point to lack of patriotism or civic responsibility as the reason some people oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't say anything, it's circular. I truly believe that people that have grown up under stability and democracy take for granted the protections it offers and the restraint it places on the uglier and irrational side of human nature (which they never get to see). But, since this is your thread and I'm rudely hijacking:

[ QUOTE ]
That's my whole point here. That since libertarianism does not seem to allow man to "have a hand" in what happens, he will be less likely to embrace it than in the absence of that bias.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that people are less likely to seek organic solutions over structured ones. The very idea of having no backup is frightening. Whether that fear is based in actually is an important part of the debate I think. The two can't be separated out as you're trying to do.

BTW, I would support anarchy if 90+% of people were intelligent, rational, fair minded and compassionate individuals. It's a no brainer. But if that were the case, government would work just fine too, merely as a system of convenience and charity.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I truly believe that people that have grown up under stability and democracy take for granted the protections it offers and the restraint it places on the uglier and irrational side of human nature (which they never get to see).

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with this. I don't really consider myself in the AC camp, which is why I thought I could get away with this post without having to discuss the merits of AC (and why I deliberately avoided the term). But obviously I'm just a name on the internet, so once someone reads this post, I may as well be in the AC camp.

It's not to say that I don't think anarchy could maybe be *better still*, but I agree with you that many who do argue for total de-regulation seem to neglect the convenience of *not* having to protect ourselves (even if it otherwise can be argued to be more efficient).

You can say it's immoral to require other people to protect me. But that's really all you can say to persuade me if I say I like the convenience and consistency of being protected by a state, even if it means less cost efficiency according to what you value. Maybe to me, defending myself would be the worst thing imaginable and is worth millions of dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that people are less likely to seek organic solutions over structured ones. The very idea of having no backup is frightening. Whether that fear is based in actually is an important part of the debate I think. The two can't be separated out as you're trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a good point. But I agree with you because I think it doesn't matter whether that fear is legitimate. Something I believe strongly in is the "objective value of the subjective belief." Because you'll make better decisions later if you know why you believe something, rather than just if you're convinced to trust objective merit that you can't see as well. Poker is a good example of what I'm trying to say.

People will read books and take advice. "What should I do in this spot?" Should you make a button raise here? As if there's a "right" answer. It depends on your ability to make good decisions on later streets. Maybe *I* should make a certain decision in a certain spot, because based on my abilities and intuition of the situation I have a good idea what range of decisions will be good ones later. But maybe you'd be best off with a different one.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I would support anarchy if 90+% of people were intelligent, rational, fair minded and compassionate individuals. It's a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure what this means. Aren't these all relative terms? If everyone was just smarter then the way I see it is we'd be smart enough to interpret new burdens.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
O rly?

The beauty of democracy is, I would say, its perceived goodness and practicality. It's anything but simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
The idea is simple. The people choose their leaders and clerks and make a system of law such that individual rights are protected. All the rest is detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But the "detail" is where things get complicated. Who are "the people"? Why do I have to have the same leader as my neighbor? Why do people who live in seattle have a different leader than those in vancouver, while they have to share a leader with those in miami?

The idea is simple. Ponies for every child. All the rest is detail.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of "this is my property, this is your property, there are no commons" is a very long way from simple. How do you define property without law? Is it the number of guns you can hire to keep everyone off a certain area?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, but these aren't issues that democracy has to wrestle with?

[ QUOTE ]
I truly believe that people that have grown up under stability and democracy take for granted the protections it offers and the restraint it places on the uglier and irrational side of human nature (which they never get to see).

[/ QUOTE ]






[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I would support anarchy if 90+% of people were intelligent, rational, fair minded and compassionate individuals. It's a no brainer. But if that were the case, government would work just fine too, merely as a system of convenience and charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are too dumb, I have to tell them what to do.