Why people do not believe in libertarianism

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help that too many in the "free market" camp are unwilling to admit that there are some areas where a totally free market is not optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to whose subjective, personal preferences? And if you hammer it into alignment in one area to make it "better" you just make it worse somewhere else.

It's closer to optimal for any reasonable, complete set of criteria than any forcibly-manipulated system, so it's "optimally sub-optimal."

[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.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
"It doesn't help that too many in the "free market" camp are unwilling to admit that there are some areas where a totally free market is not optimal. "

Easy to assert, impossible to prove?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know how the quote function works right ?????????????

[NickMPK]

So this is basically your post:
1.) Let's assume libertarianism is right.
2.) Therefore, everyone who doesn't believe in libertarianism is wrong.
3.) Let's discuss why so many people are wrong.

I could just as easily start a thread like this: "Let's assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I've noticed that a lot of people don't believe in Flying Speghetti Monster. Let's discuss why these people are so delusional. Now, I won't accept arguments like 'Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist'. Let's just assume it, and thus assume that everyone who doesn't believe is crazy, and discuss why people are so crazy."

The reason most people do not believe in libertarianism is that they disagree with you premise.

[lehighguy]

Another score

I would add that the nature of rational voter theory states even people that would benefit from libertarianism won't necessarily support it (for the reasons outlined in ALaws post). Basically, while lower taxes might be a huge benefit to you if your middle class and up, your vote towards lower taxes is just one of 300 million. Voting for lower taxes does very little to actually lower your taxes. However, voting for a big state "compassion" candidate can help you sound like a nice guy at parties. So the perceived personal benefit to voting for a system that is ultimately bad for you is there.

[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?

[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 ]
So this is basically your post:
1.) Let's assume libertarianism is right.
2.) Therefore, everyone who doesn't believe in libertarianism is wrong.
3.) Let's discuss why so many people are wrong.

I could just as easily start a thread like this: "Let's assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I've noticed that a lot of people don't believe in Flying Speghetti Monster. Let's discuss why these people are so delusional. Now, I won't accept arguments like 'Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist'. Let's just assume it, and thus assume that everyone who doesn't believe is crazy, and discuss why people are so crazy."

The reason most people do not believe in libertarianism is that they disagree with you premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it with you people?

Yes, you could make a post like that. But no one believes in the flying spaghetti monster so it's doubtful it requires a bias to reject. I maintain that many people could benefit from libertarianism who don't see that.

I hear people talk all the time about "freedom" and "capitalism" and this and that... but then they conclude that a 27% income tax is what they stand for instead of 0%. It's like... huh? Have you spent the last decade conducting rigorous economic analysis to arrive at this conclusion? Or do you just like hearing yourself talk? They'll defend cigarettes or even marijuana on strictly libertarian grounds, but then they'll forget that and think when it comes to something like acid their hands on solution is better. They'll seem to hold libertarian ideals but will find ways to shun them.

Those are the people I have in mind here. I'm not talking about people that will never embrace libertarianism anyways.

Yes, you could make the same claim for socialism. There are probably biases that people have for whatever reasons that make it hard for them to appreciate the concept. Feel free to make a thread exploring that issue. If I choose to respond, I'll lend you the courtesy of staying on topic and not making it personal because I fail to take 3 seconds to understand the point of your thread.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So this is basically your post:
1.) Let's assume libertarianism is right.
2.) Therefore, everyone who doesn't believe in libertarianism is wrong.
3.) Let's discuss why so many people are wrong.

I could just as easily start a thread like this: "Let's assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I've noticed that a lot of people don't believe in Flying Speghetti Monster. Let's discuss why these people are so delusional. Now, I won't accept arguments like 'Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist'. Let's just assume it, and thus assume that everyone who doesn't believe is crazy, and discuss why people are so crazy."

The reason most people do not believe in libertarianism is that they disagree with you premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it with you people?

Yes, you could make a post like that. But no one believes in the flying spaghetti monster so it's doubtful it requires a bias to reject. I maintain that many people could benefit from libertarianism who don't see that.


[/ QUOTE ]

The spaghetti monster is almost as popular a libertarianism. Why should it require "bias" to reject something that 99% of the population rejects?

Most people that "talk about freedom and capitalism" believe that free markets are good in some cases and bad in others. Most people who defend cigarettes and marijauna like cigarettes and marijuana. There is no deep-seated cognitive deficiency driving these views.