[ExI] Making Rationalizations is Superior to the Alternative

Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 14 19:25:14 UTC 2009

--- On Tue, 4/14/09, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  On 4/14/09, Lee Corbin
> wrote:
> >  I admitted the tradeoffs: violate a principle
> now in
> >  exchange for reducing the risk of losing that
> principle
> >  and far, far more in the future.
> >
> I think we need some *real* libertarians to chime in here,
> as you
> don't seem to talking proper 'libertarianese'.  ;)
> Do Libertarian principles really allow initiation of force
> now, based
> on a speculation that damage might occur many many years in
> the
> future? Surely not. Much else might happen between now and
> that future
> date.
Not in my book.  This, in fact, is typically how statists argue: give up some freedom now for later on -- or trade off freedom for security.  If one is going to do this setting aside of libertarian principles whenever there's a hypothetical risk -- no matter how unlikely -- then Eduard Bernstein (German socialist who argued explicitly for curtailing freedom now for a better society later) and FDR might as well be considered libertarians.

Also, just on a purely semantic level, if anyone believes that's the right thing to do -- setting aside the principles -- then she or he should not be called a libertarian.  Why they continue to use the label is beyond me.  This is kind of like pacifists who advocate for war.  :)
> >  Come now. It's all relative. Besides, I would
> never say "scrapped".
> >  Our governments should gradually be *reformed*,
> even corruption
> >  itself needs to be slowly excised from the
> system. But be they
> >  as they may be, current western governments,
> institutions, and
> >  traditions are vastly superior.
> >
> I'm all in favor of that and I'm not a libertarian.
> But I've never before heard libertarians say that the
> present western
> governments are pretty good and just need gradually and
> slowly
> reformed and corruption removed. They talk about the very
> minimum of
> government, not quite 'scrapping' (although they would like
> that
> really).

There are minarchists, who want an absolute minimal government.  I do not believe that's possible.  I believe that libertarianism is anarchic.  But, regardless, minarchy and anarchy are not anything like current welfare statism (really just fascism, but no one uses that term correctly today).

> >  You suppose that I want to *scrap* rather than
> *improve*
> >  our western societies? Odd.
> Libertarians want to *improve* government by removing as
> much of it as
> possible. I call that scrapping the present systems of
> government.

There's also a difference seen, among libertarians, between society and the state.  Scrapping government -- dismantling the state -- is NOT the same as scrapping society.




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list