[ExI] Strong libertarianism, societal good, & suffering (was: Cephalization, proles)

Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com
Tue May 17 07:58:06 UTC 2011


On 17 May 2011 07:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> How can you say libertarianism has never been tried? It wasn't perfect
> libertarianism, but it was a lot closer than it is today.



Kelly, I think you've got a good point. The thing is, I'm far from
anti-libertarian - catch me at the right moment and I might even describe
myself as libertarian - it's just that Rafal's frankly extreme stance forced
me to draw a line.

I think you're right that America past, particularly 19th Century, was more
libertarian than today, and yes, I would agree there has clearly been net
societal gain from the achievements made in that time. But, as you say,
there was also of course suffering directly caused by the process.

It seems quite clear that there's a trade-off between the innovation that
results from economic freedom, and protection from suffering offered by
legal safeguards.

Imagine a continuum between extreme libertarianism (0) and extreme
paternalism (1). Societies with values not significantly different from 0 or
1 are unlikely to be to my taste. Rafal is clearly arguing for 0. 19th
Century America is somewhere a little south (i.e. closer to 0) of my
preferred balance, but it was not the world Rafal advocates. Modern day
China is probably closer to 0 than America has ever been, in its economic
and business practices at least. In other respects, Chinese society looks
alarmingly like a 1.

Best,
A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110517/bfbf3986/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list