You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you

[clutch]

(By the way, a similar analogue is also found with socialism. You want to achieve equality in a socialist society, but who decides and how do you achieve that equality? In the extreme case, you may say that a single most competent person should decide this (e.g., a philosopher king or Stalin) and you degenerate into totalitarianism. So you need a another political framework to make progress in a more "reasonable" way, hence you pair it with democracy).

 

Yeah, this makes sense to me, and the "pairing" strategy you talk about is new to me, and an interesting idea.  (That said, I think socialism is stupid also--there needs to be great rewards for innovation.)  I think your argument about why the right tends to have religious values is probably flawed.  I suspect it's actually based on attributes of the individuals involved (e.g. belief in authoritarianism, belief in luck vs. hard work responsible for success, intelligence etc.) rather than a deliberate pairing.

 

It may not be deliberate, but probably chosen based on the necessity. It's very easy for individualistic society to turn into complete chaos without any commonly held values. It's sort of like people want to be as free as possible, yet they cannot depart the foundational ground they have been standing on for thousands of years (otherwise they all descend into chaos).

 

I should point out that socialists (or many of the radical lefts) also seek out for the commonly held values to tie them together. The core value is obviously the equality of outcome (hence, caring more about sexism, racism, etc.), but it has also morphed into other values such as environmentalism. And one could argue that these values have simply replaced the traditional religious values among the lefts, as they have become more secular yet they needed something concrete to stand on.

[wachtwoord]

For what it's worth I'm an atheist (religion was mentioned). I think this is fully congruent with libertarianism because both imply the power of the individual over society as a whole and both agree that the world isn't and cannot be 'fair' and any attempt to do so will make the situation worse (example: socialism and charity towards underdeveloped nations).

 

I have grown up in a very socialistic country with a population of entitled and weak people who cannot think beyond the borders of the society they grew up in despite to have their primary needs met and having neigh ubiquitous access to information due to the internet (they don't use it to educate themselves). This has painted my opinions and possibly made me more harsh and cynic than I otherwise would have been. I'm a happy cynic though :)

[SharperDingaan]

The reality is that the world is a messy place, people will do whatever makes sense to them in any given situation. Because the range of people goes from sociopath through to Mother Teresa - there's a variety of opinion. The same person can also be both saint and sinner, multiple times per day.

 

In medieval times, the moralist was usually the priest. Local chiefs simply cut their heads off if they didn't like the sermon; leaving remaining priests with incentive to change the message. If it started a war, it was opportunity; as in the times of the day, rape and pillage were respectable occupations. In today's age we would call it 'stimulating the economy'.

 

We're really trying to predict actions, and use it to control groups; control enough groups and you can seize power - to create the utopia you have in mind. It's a well worn route to dictatorship.

 

Instead we have messy. Many contenders for power, but only one can win - the rest end up dead; and Darwinism determining how long the winner can stay in power. In democracies we use votes; in other places we use skulls - really, just another type of voting.

 

And the messier .... the 'safer'.

 

SD

 

 

   

 

[rkbabang]

And the messier .... the 'safer'.

 

I like that, the messier the safer and better.  This is correct and why decentralized power structures are better than centralized ones.  Ideally as much power and control should be pushed from nation states down to regions (states in the US) then down to cities then down to neighborhoods/large buildings and in a perfect world down to individuals/families.    The reason I'd like as much power as possible to reside at the neighborhood/building level is that these power structures are usually voluntary and private (i.e. condo associations or homeowners associations) rather than compulsory and enforced violently.  Also at each level you go down it increases competition as it is easier to move to new buildings or neighborhoods then it is to change cities and much easier to move to new cities than nation states.  Variation and selection = evolution.  The only way societies/cultures can evolve quickly (non-violently) is through decentralized power structures.  The US has been heading in the mostly the wrong direction since June 21, 1788, but it started out so decentralized it had a long way to deteriorate before it turned into what it is now.

 

[rukawa]

So then, if you're trying to persuade someone that libertarian ways are good, but you don't see any problem with ignoring a child rape, you're probably going to have a hard time persuading them that libertarianism is good, simply because child rape is so abhorrent.  In other words, your core beliefs essentially make it hard to persuade anyone to agree with you politically.  It puts you on par with the communists--passionate about their cause, consistent in their beliefs, and utterly unable to convince anyone because of the impracticality in the real world.

 

So your options seem to be persuade people as children (akin to organized religion), or deviate from your core beliefs enough to be able to make reasonable arguments (which most libertarians I've met don't seem to want to do.)  Neither one of these possibilities seems promising, but maybe there's a third option I'm missing?

 

I was a libertarian and now I no longer am. In fact I had gone so far down the spectrum that I was AnCap like rkbabang. So I would say that's its definitely possible to persuade a libertarian.

 

My shift occurred due to two things:

1) reading history...especially the history of Japan, China, France, US

2) value investing.

 

I have also seen ever bigger shifts than this...recently I found out that a good friend of mine who was a devout Muslim became an athiest. Incidentally these shifts often occur not due to direct opposition but due to what I would call sideways arguments.

 

What I mean is that I was not persuaded that libertarians were wrong by opposition from liberals. I was instead persuaded by people who were not trying to make an ideological point but another point about a different issue. I think if liberals had made the same points I would not have listened.

 

Though I am not libertarian I think both sides could learn a tremendous amount from each other. I think liberals hugely underestimate the correctness of libertarians on a wide range of issues and simultaneously overestimate the correctness of their own beliefs.

[DooDiligence]

I was a libertarian and now I no longer am. In fact I had gone so far down the spectrum that I was AnCap like rkbabang. So I would say that's its definitely possible to persuade a libertarian.

 

My shift occurred due to two things:

1) reading history...especially the history of Japan, China, France, US

2) value investing.

 

I have also seen ever bigger shifts than this...recently I found out that a good friend of mine who was a devout Muslim became an athiest. Incidentally these shifts often occur not due to direct opposition but due to what I would call sideways arguments.

 

What I mean is that I was not persuaded that libertarians were wrong by opposition from liberals. I was instead persuaded by people who had where not trying to make an ideological point but another point about a different issue. I think if liberals had made the same points I would not have listened.

 

Though I am not libertarian I think both sides could learn a tremendous amount from each other. I think liberals hugely underestimate the correctness of libertarians on a wide range of issues and simultaneously overestimate the correctness of their own beliefs.

 

Dragging anchor & eventually hauling it in to search for better holding grounds...

[Cigarbutt]

Individualism vs collectivism.

Perhaps "no fits all" answer here.

Reminds me of youtube verbal matches between Milton Friedman and "progressist" students.

Especially the video showing a student discussing the responsibilty of car manufacturers vs defects and injuries/deaths resulting from the defects.

The "if you can save one life" argument is convincing but often one realizes that there is no free lunch.

Often decisions involve trade-offs. One has to be mindful of the not so visible trade-offs that come with decisions.

 

For instance, respectfully submitted, the "if you can save one life argument" can be insidiously very demanding if applied widely.

Most here have accumulated (or will accumulate) significant wealth. In a way, this "excessive" saved wealth could be used to save lives.

I like the way SharperDingaan puts it and submit that we should exercise care before judging others based on individual moral grounds.

Relevant link:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

I suggest that morality tests that are applied to others should also be applied to oneself.

Often it is a matter of balance and compromise.

Nobody's perfect. But we can try?

 

Interestingly for investments and to evaluate management, as investors, we often use the three tests: competence, passion AND integrity.

So these ethics question can be used as an input for the third criteria.

This is the area that I compromise the least on.

I often ask myself if I would accept to work with or partner with people in charge.

But often difficult to evaluate.

Easier to calculate profit margins and financial ratios.

Important nonetheless.

 

 

[rkbabang]

Individualism vs collectivism.

Perhaps "no fits all" answer here.

Reminds me of youtube verbal matches between Milton Friedman and "progressist" students.

Especially the video showing a student discussing the responsibilty of car manufacturers vs defects and injuries/deaths resulting from the defects.

The "if you can save one life" argument is convincing but often one realizes that there is no free lunch.

Often decisions involve trade-offs. One has to be mindful of the not so visible trade-offs that come with decisions.

 

For instance, respectfully submitted, the "if you can save one life argument" can be insidiously very demanding if applied widely.

Most here have accumulated (or will accumulate) significant wealth. In a way, this "excessive" saved wealth could be used to save lives.

I like the way SharperDingaan puts it and submit that we should exercise care before judging others based on individual moral grounds.

Relevant link:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

I suggest that morality tests that are applied to others should also be applied to oneself.

Often it is a matter of balance and compromise.

Nobody's perfect. But we can try?

 

Interestingly for investments and to evaluate management, as investors, we often use the three tests: competence, passion AND integrity.

So these ethics question can be used as an input for the third criteria.

This is the area that I compromise the least on.

I often ask myself if I would accept to work with or partner with people in charge.

But often difficult to evaluate.

Easier to calculate profit margins and financial ratios.

Important nonetheless.

 

I don't see it as individualism vs collectivism at all. I have no problem with either or a mix of the two.  A family is usually a collective, and I don't think it would work well any other way.  I also don't see why collectivism couldn't work well in larger groups as well.  I see it as aggressive force vs volunterism.  I have no problem with a commune type setup if everyone involved agrees to all of the terms and can opt out at any time.  It is the "you were born here so you are a member of this group whether you like it or not, now hand over 28% of your income"  that I disagree with.  I never chose to join this group and have no easy way of opting out.  I am a member of a homeowners association, but I choose to be a member and signed the contract, and it doesn't bind my kids to anything for life. I would have no right to bind my children to a contract for which they never, as adults, agreed to.  If you want to setup a commune collectivist type society with a group of people, I'm all for that.  People did just that in the 60s.  I'm not against trying any type of rules as long as they are voluntarily agreed to by all consenting adults involved with the option for getting out without needing to leave the continent or travel to Mars.

 

[RichardGibbons]

I like that, the messier the safer and better.  This is correct and why decentralized power structures are better than centralized ones.  Ideally as much power and control should be pushed from nation states down to regions (states in the US) then down to cities then down to neighborhoods/large buildings and in a perfect world down to individuals/families.    The reason I'd like as much power as possible to reside at the neighborhood/building level is that these power structures are usually voluntary and private (i.e. condo associations or homeowners associations) rather than compulsory and enforced violently.  Also at each level you go down it increases competition as it is easier to move to new buildings or neighborhoods then it is to change cities and much easier to move to new cities than nation states.  Variation and selection = evolution.  The only way societies/cultures can evolve quickly (non-violently) is through decentralized power structures.  The US has been heading in the mostly the wrong direction since June 21, 1788, but it started out so decentralized it had a long way to deteriorate before it turned into what it is now.

 

This is quite good, I think, rkbabang.  It makes me wonder about how to achieve this efficiently in a world with Putin.

 

Like, tiny groups can't efficiently do defence, or highway systems, or big buildings, or law systems, or healthcare.  But is there some easy way to take a bunch of tiny groups and make agreements between them to deal with these bigger issues, and then agreements between these bigger groups to deal with even bigger issues etc.?

[rkbabang]

I like that, the messier the safer and better.  This is correct and why decentralized power structures are better than centralized ones.  Ideally as much power and control should be pushed from nation states down to regions (states in the US) then down to cities then down to neighborhoods/large buildings and in a perfect world down to individuals/families.    The reason I'd like as much power as possible to reside at the neighborhood/building level is that these power structures are usually voluntary and private (i.e. condo associations or homeowners associations) rather than compulsory and enforced violently.  Also at each level you go down it increases competition as it is easier to move to new buildings or neighborhoods then it is to change cities and much easier to move to new cities than nation states.  Variation and selection = evolution.  The only way societies/cultures can evolve quickly (non-violently) is through decentralized power structures.  The US has been heading in the mostly the wrong direction since June 21, 1788, but it started out so decentralized it had a long way to deteriorate before it turned into what it is now.

 

This is quite good, I think, rkbabang.  It makes me wonder about how to achieve this efficiently in a world with Putin.

 

Like, tiny groups can't efficiently do defence, or highway systems, or big buildings, or law systems, or healthcare.  But is there some easy way to take a bunch of tiny groups and make agreements between them to deal with these bigger issues, and then agreements between these bigger groups to deal with even bigger issues etc.?

 

I think defense can be done quite effectively without super centralization.  Invert the question.  How would one go about occupying a land mass the size of the US filled with hundreds of thousands of "states" no bigger than towns or cities and in many cases just voluntary contracts without states at all. All with no centralized authority to surrender to you.  With no systems already in place to police or to collect taxes on a large scale.  No weapons laws so you have no idea to what extent these people are armed.  I suppose you could nuke a few cities and demand the rest of the continent surrender to you, but I think most of the world would have a problem with you if you did that.  It's a logistical nightmare, its messy, and therefore safe. 

 

[rukawa]

How would one go about occupying a land mass the size of the US filled with hundreds of thousands of "states" no bigger than towns or cities and in many cases just voluntary contracts without states at all. All with no centralized authority to surrender to you.

 

I believe the British answered that question when the took over parts of Africa and all of India. Although I kind of agree with you its a logistical nightmare and its messy. I don't think what the British did was easy. But its definitely possible.

[rkbabang]

I was just listening to the latest Thaddeus Russell "Unregistered" podcast episode 5 an interview with Daniele Bolelli and there was a good discussion that was relevant to this topic starting at time 59:00 until almost the end.

 

http://www.thaddeusrussell.com/podcast/2017/5/9/episode-5-daniele-bolelli

 

I highly recommend this podcast, some great interviews so far.  Also, Thaddeus Russell's book "A Renegade History of The United States" is phenomenal. I can't recommend it enough.  It is the history of the US from the point of view of black slaves, prostitutes, various waves of immigrants, drug dealers, gangsters, criminals, etc...  Very different from the normal history books which focus on the history of the wealthy and political classes.