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

Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com
Sun May 15 18:04:46 UTC 2011


On 14 May 2011 11:03, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Libertarianism is what happens when you think more about the truth
> than about how to present yourself as a person who cares about other
> tribal members. In the previous post you indulged in moral posturing
> and you disavowed the way of thinking that is actually more likely to
> produce good outcomes for the poor, if there were ever enough
> libertarians to make it happen.



Rafal -

Suffice to say, I disagree with your analysis on multiple levels. I have
never seen anything approaching conclusive evidence that full-blown
libertarianism would "produce good outcomes for the poor" (although of
course I've heard a *lot* of assertions), whereas I have seen plenty of
examples of unrestrained economic and political behaviour causing great
suffering to people unable to protect themselves from its effects.

Also, I don't believe that I - let alone *everyone* who falls outside the
set "fanatical libertarian" - spends more time thinking about how to present
themselves as a caring person rather than thinking about the truth.
Honestly, if that is your view of people, then I strongly suspect you to
have poor observational skills, critical reason, and character.

It is not a matter of "moral posturing" that leads me to oppose avoidable
suffering. It is a combination of principle and reason. On that basis, if
you can provide conclusive or at least powerfully suggestive examples of the
following, I will duly consider revision of my position:

1) A truly libertarian society, of the type you advocate, which produced
good outcomes for the poor, or some equally compelling evidence that your
own claim is something more than "moral posturing". If there has never been
such a society, please do tell us how you are privy to the "truth" of an
untested scenario?

2) Evidence that the type of strong libertarianism you advocate does not
cause widespread suffering.

You seem to be vacillating between claiming that your views, if put into
practice, would (A) cause net good rather than net harm, and (B) declaring
that we shouldn't care about others, and therefore presumably what the
outcome of your freedom is for other people. If you don't care what happens
to others, then your worldview fails on axiomatic grounds as far as I'm
concerned, in that it is not good, of net utility to society, or indeed
Extropic (unless it is possible for someone to achieve an Extropy worthy of
the name by the deliberate victimization of others).

If, on the other hand, you actually believe your brand of extreme
libertarianism would be broadly beneficial to society (i.e. not cause
widespread suffering), then please do go ahead and prove it.

Or maybe you put more effort into posturing than looking for the truth?

- A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110515/060aa79a/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list