Why people do not believe in libertarianism

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the longest and (ironically) most self-righteous ad hominem arguments I've seen posted here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The post takes the assumption that the foundation and extensions of libertarianism are "right" or whatever you want to call it, sure, and I guess I should have stated that my purpose wasn't to discuss the merits of that here, but rather just to assume it is the case to discuss an extension of that with like-minded posters.

I happen to believe a lot of people don't necessarily disagree with classically liberal values or with any extensions of those values, but do not choose to support the ideology anyways, so it's a natural question to wonder what it is that prevents that. I think it's an interesting subject to explore.

If you don't like libertarianism, fine, this discussion is of no interest to you.

EDIT: Oh wow nice edit with the irony thing. How long did it take you to come up with such a clever little zinger like that?

The fact that you interpret this post as an ad hominem attack says a lot. If you have any thoughts as to whether natural self glorification can lead to a dislike of laissez faire policy, feel free to share.

[bobman0330]

As I understand it, here's your methodology:
Step 1 - assume that you're right (fair)
Step 2 - assume that most people know that you're right, but disagree with you for some reason
Step 3 - come up with a long, pop-psych explanation, supported by no evidence whatsoever, that just happens to conclude that people who disagree with you are delusional [censored].

Do you wonder why I'm skeptical? (I'm not hostile to traditional libertarianism, btw.)

[bobman0330]

On further reflection, the reason I hate this argument is that it's just the sort of thing people come up with to avoid having to scrutinize their own beliefs. You see it all the time (X is just greedy, Y is godless and wants to destroy family values, Z hates America). I mentioned already that there seems to be no factual support for your theory? Why did you settle on one that makes your opponents completely wrong (and morally bad and lazy to boot)? Is it because it would make you uncomfortable if people disagreed with you in complete good faith and on a purely rational basis?

It could be that you're right, and the favorers of big government are just bitter about spending a lot on a college education. Even if that's true, so what? You still need to confront them on their arguments. And if you're wrong, you're just deluding yourself into avoiding having to question your own position. Seems like a losing bet.

[ALawPoker]

Bob,

For the final time, the point of this thread is not to question the legitimacy of whether I'm "right." I'm not gonna explore it because that's not what I'm talking about here. Like I said, I should have stated that. If I could go back and edit the post I'd put a big giant disclaimer up there that says that.

It's great to question your beliefs, and if you want to go through my posting history you'll realize that I'm far from a rar-rar libertarian or ACer.

This conversation is not worth having. Like I said, if you have any thoughts as to whether a person's natural bias of self-importance can lead to an aversion to laissez faire government, then feel free to share them. Otherwise, ignore the OP if you dislike it like it so much. Don't let it bother you.

EDIT: I admit I used strong language if that makes you feel better, Bob. I wouldn't have phrased stuff so brashly if the point of my post was actually to discuss the merits of libertarianism, as you seem to wish it was. The point was to assume *if* libertarianism is something most people will come to embrace (as many people on this board think is the case) then what obstacles are faced. Given the point of my post, obviously I will have to assume libertarianism's assumptions to get anywhere.

[lehighguy]

Hasn't posts over the last several years been a sufficient enough proof of scrutinizing ones beliefs?

Once you've thought through and discussed your personal believes for years, and you still believe in them, you then start to ask two questions:

1) Why doesn't anyone else see this?
2) What can I do to convince people?

[ALawPoker]

I have a question for bob and anyone else who generally does not agree with libertarianism, since the OP sort of shuns you:

Let's pretend the market IS the optimal solution. Let's just consider that possibility for a moment. In this instance, do you think people would naturally tend to form creative opinions to think it isn't? Or would they be more likely to see it objectively?


I really fail to see how this question (brash language aside) is any sort of attack. I'd appreciate your answer.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for bob and anyone else who generally does not agree with libertarianism, since the OP sort of shuns you:

Let's pretend the market IS the optimal solution. Let's just consider that possibility for a moment. In this instance, do you think people would naturally tend to form creative opinions to think it isn't? Or would they be more likely to see it objectively?


I really fail to see how this question (brash language aside) is any sort of attack. I'd appreciate your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with libertarianism, but I'll answer anyway.

No system will maximize utility for everyone, and anyone for whom the status quo isnt personally optimal will find reasons why the system itself isn't optimal, whether those reasons can be logically supported or not.

[Phil153]

Why people do not believe in democracy

Self-righteousness.

The beauty of classical democracy is its simplicity. Belief in it does not require creative and self glorifying solution.

People who believe in government will point to lack of understanding as the reason a few oppose it. I agree, but I think it's more that people *don't want to* believe it even if they're capable of it. For self-righteous reasons. They want to be the guy with the solution. People want to feel like their ideas matter. And when you hold the "position" that democracy actually does a decent job at promoting economic and social health, you effectively eliminate your opportunity to be the hero who figured everything out.

People care about politics. People talk about politics. Joe Shmoe wants to feel like his ideas about something as important as politics are superior and cutting edge. He sees the "truth" that everyone else doesn't. He graduated with a fancy political science degree, HE HAS SOLUTIONS. HE'S AN IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL WITH IMPORTANT IDEAS. He didn't pay $130K to come to realize that he should accept the fact that society has already solved most of the pressing social problems by implementing democracy. So he'll never accept it until it's smacking him in the face.

If there's any way to believe it isn't true, he will find ways to believe it isn't true.

SEE THE PROBLEM, GENIUS?

[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.