Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The libertarian hypocrisy thread features quite a bit of ideology, though it is more about 'rights' than 'values.' There seem to be more libertarians at it than conservatives, though.

Given the lack of first-hand experience in the practice of "libertarianism" by the voiciferous libertarians on that thread, it amounts to much navel gazing.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Given the lack of first-hand experience in the practice of "libertarianism" by the voiciferous libertarians on that thread, it amounts to much navel gazing.

See now, that's just plain silly. We all (even you, though you may choose not to recognize it as such) 'practice libertarianism' on a daily basis. We every day deal with all the people around us to discover, establish, and maintain common terms of interaction for as long as we and they find it mutually satisfactory.

We do this without being prodded by anything other than our own desires and our recognition of the reality of the others around us as people (the fundamental core of libertarianism). We do this without anyone supervising or directing us. This is libertarian. No more, no less.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

See now, that's just plain silly. We all (even you, though you may choose not to recognize it as such) 'practice libertarianism' on a daily basis. We every day deal with all the people around us to discover, establish, and maintain common terms of interaction for as long as we and they find it mutually satisfactory.

We do this without being prodded by anything other than our own desires and our recognition of the reality of the others around us as people (the fundamental core of libertarianism). We do this without anyone supervising or directing us. This is libertarian. No more, no less.

The same could be said of breathing air............oh wait you said that once as well

That and one hour's wages makes you an anarchist, no wait, a democrat, no wait a socialist, no wait a free market capitalsit, no wait a monarchist, no wait.........this is boring. If your political ideals are that mundane, they are no better than a preference for orange over tomato juice.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

The same could be said of breathing air.

Actually, no it couldn't. Breathing air (insofar as air is a nonscarce thing) is not a social action. As such it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.

If your political ideals are that mundane, they are no better than a preference for orange over tomato juice.

You say 'mundane' like it is a thing to be avoided. What it is, rather, is life in the real world. Not all of us envision ourselves as Emperors. But then again, Emperors don't really have much of a future, anyway.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Actually, no it couldn't. Breathing air (insofar as air is a nonscarce thing) is not a social action. As such it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.

Au contraire mon frere it has most everything to do with what we're talking about. Your style of debate is to take anything another says, and simply halfing it, ignoring the person's point, and then focusing in on one word or phrase they've used as if it were the crux of their point, rather than observing how it is used in context. This is how you came not long ago to describing that breathing oxegen was a choice, rather than a biological function...........as a defense of libertarianism.

You say 'mundane' like it is a thing to be avoided.

No, you gave it those trappings. I said 'mundane' like, well, mundane!

What it is, rather, is life in the real world.

Yes, you're right. What you described is rather common, run of the mill, human interaction (read: mundane) and is the basis of the study of sociology. It's not libertarianism, unless of course, you are saying that the study of human social interaction is Libertarianism? If so, Erving Goffman should know about this!!!

Not all of us envision ourselves as Emperors. But then again, Emperors don't really have much of a future, anyway.

A notably obtuse example of how you inject presupposotional speech and inuendo into debate. There was never any reference in this discussion by me or others about "emperors" until you stuck it in. Clearly a childish effort, on your part,at discrediting what you can not otherwise answer.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

This is how you came not long ago to describing that breathing oxegen was a choice, rather than a biological function...........as a defense of libertarianism.

You apparently weren't paying attention then, either. For a conscious human being, breathing is a choice. Oxygen (more properly, a nitro-oxy-CO2-trace mix) is what our biology relies on to continue functioning. Which means that continuing to live is also a choice.
However, this also has nothing to do with the current discussion. We were talking abou choices made in a social context. Breathing itself, as it does not rely on scarce resources, is not a social act. The fact that it is a chosen act does not mean that it is a social one. You are trying to equate apples with lawn darts.

As for the issue of you calling the fundaments of libertarianism -- and it is, at root, a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society; so it shouldn't diverge too much from the insights of the study of human behavior -- mundane. If I read distaste into your use of that word incorrectly, I apologize. In what sense did you intend the word if not distaste?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

[Libertarianism] is, at root, a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society; so it shouldn't diverge too much from the insights of the study of human behavior

First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.

Actually, if you read what you quoted me as saying, "libetarianism is a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society".

That is, in the emergent group. The actions we take are -- must be, since we are each of us actors -- individual, but libertarianism has its roots in recognizing the individuals as components of a group. "Person" (as any libertarian could tell you) is meaningless wihtout the context of his natural environment -- society.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.

I really start to think that you are arguing against the 2T-3T thing the Boomers invented and called "libertarianism". Prophet's aren't really known for being grounded in things as they are (but you're just so cute when you act like the world revolves around you). I wonder what specifically you would identify as pie-in-the-sky idealism; particularly interesting would be if you are identifying something that libertarian thought itself recognized as faulty some time ago and moved to correct.
Nomads, you know, have always been comfortable taking the world on its own terms, and making changes as they are justified -- and the state of libertarian thought today reflects that.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Actually, if you read what you quoted me as saying, "libetarianism is a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society".

Right, but the implication is that you are discussing the behavior of individuals in the context of society, not of society as a whole. My experience of libertarians (and anarchists) leads me to expect them to deny the meaningful existence of society as a whole as an actor, although I would not wish to put words in your mouth.

Political philosophies, including libertarianism, are always concerned with the actions of society as a whole, not of individuals within society.

I really start to think that you are arguing against the 2T-3T thing the Boomers invented and called "libertarianism".

That you think Boomers invented libertarianism is, perhaps, a tribute to the powerful psychic influence my generation exerts, but I cannot, in all honesty, accept the accolade, which is quite undeserved. I refer you to messrs. Locke, John; Mill, John Stuart; Smith, Adam; and Jefferson, Thomas; none of whom were Boomers.

I wonder what specifically you would identify as pie-in-the-sky idealism; particularly interesting would be if you are identifying something that libertarian thought itself recognized as faulty some time ago and moved to correct.

There may be some examples that meet that description. Certainly libertarians are not the only pie-in-the-sky idealists in the world. A classic example is Marx' idea that the state could wither away in the context of socialism, leaving a stateless, communist utopia. The end result is anarchistic, but the road to that achievement can hardly be called libertarian, as it goes through a socialist state.

Be that as it may, I was talking about libertarian unreality not anyone else's. This encompasses the idea that we can have a high-tech, complex, urban society with a minimalist government; subsets thereof include the idea that the free market can police itself in a completely benign manner without oversight, and that parents can assume full responsibility for their children's behavior without assistance from government, and that a nation-state can afford to completely mind its own business without any foreign adventurism.

It's interesting that some of these may be antipodes of certain other forms of unrealistic thinking which have prevailed in non-libertarian thought in the recent past, e.g. the folly of drug warriors who think that drug use can be eradicated by government force, or that of Neocons who think we can impose our will on the rest of the world. However, the antipode of unrealistic thought is itself often equally unrealistic, and that is so in these cases.

Nomads, you know, have always been comfortable taking the world on its own terms, and making changes as they are justified -- and the state of libertarian thought today reflects that.

I would, of course, completely disagree with the second statement, and this provides evidence against the first as well.

Or rather, let me put it this way. What you say may be true of the majority of Nomads. However, it is also true that the majority of Xers are not libertarians. And every generation has its misfits.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.

Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Right, but the implication is that you are discussing the behavior of individuals in the context of society, not of society as a whole. My experience of libertarians (and anarchists) leads me to expect them to deny the meaningful existence of society as a whole as an actor, although I would not wish to put words in your mouth.

It's good that you don't want to. The words you would put don't go there. Society might not be an actor as such, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a system worth consideration. Particularly so, since (as I mentioned above) 'Person' only exists in the context of that very system.

That you think Boomers invented libertarianism is, perhaps, a tribute to the powerful psychic influence my generation exerts, but I cannot, in all honesty, accept the accolade, which is quite undeserved. I refer you to messrs. Locke, John; Mill, John Stuart; Smith, Adam; and Jefferson, Thomas; none of whom were Boomers.

I didn't say that Boomers invented libertarianism -- just that Boomers invented something and started calling it libertarianism. What they invented is as far from what those historical worthies held to as it is from the current status of the school of thought going by that name. In fact, I doubt that Jefferson or Locke would have been very comfortable with the Boomer formulation.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.

BUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.

That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it. That is what 4Ts are all about, essentially. My argument is that such "social machinery" (to use a term used brilliantly by Popper in his defense of the center-left welfare state and Liberal Democracy against the far left and also in the context of the workings of institutions and traditions in a society) is an emergent feature of complex societies, the result of the interplay between the need to adapt to changing times and the desire for stability. The fact that such institutions are top-down does not mean that they are not the result of bottom-up forces. This is the origin of the saeculum more generally and the Schlesinger political cycle more specifically.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's good that you don't want to. The words you would put don't go there. Society might not be an actor as such, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a system worth consideration. Particularly so, since (as I mentioned above) 'Person' only exists in the context of that very system.

I didn't say that Boomers invented libertarianism -- just that Boomers invented something and started calling it libertarianism. What they invented is as far from what those historical worthies held to as it is from the current status of the school of thought going by that name. In fact, I doubt that Jefferson or Locke would have been very comfortable with the Boomer formulation.

I thought the Lost and GIs invented Libertarianism in it's modern form?

Originally Posted by Odin

I thought the Lost and GIs invented Libertarianism in it's modern form?

Not hardly. Maybe they came up with one of the forms that was, at the time, modern. But one of the wonderful things about the libertarian philosophy is its internal and external consistency. If recognizes the need for a plurality of approaches to maximize the opportunity for people to achieve the best possible outcomes for themselves in the context of their society. As such, it is constantly absorbing new information and self-criticizing both on the basis of the new information as well as on more fundamental levels.
That kind of feature is not characteristic of any of the generations preceding mine. We are the ones who came up with open source as a workable model, after all..

Originally Posted by Odin

That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it.

Fair enough. But you need to understand, what is the machine you are trying to update or replace? Is it this specific gear over here? Or that belt-and-pulley setup over there? Or the hydraulic system?

Or is it much more fundamentally simply "the system we use to associate our society to its members and vice versa"?

Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fair enough. But you need to understand, what is the machine you are trying to update or replace? Is it this specific gear over here? Or that belt-and-pulley setup over there? Or the hydraulic system?

Or is it much more fundamentally simply "the system we use to associate our society to its members and vice versa"?

Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)

Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.

A systems approach leaves you open to self-organizing and consensus-based models..........something more fitting a libertarian, or anarchist, etc.

The mechanistic approach is well, as current as, well, the internal combustion engine?

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.

Yeah, yeah. I studied engineering in school, and have been my entire professional life in and around factories that build trucks. I'm perfectly aware of my limitations and how they bias me.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)

Oh, I agree. It's just that we have different opinions about what new engine to put in (to extend your metaphor).

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.

A systems approach leaves you open to self-organizing and consensus-based models..........something more fitting a libertarian, or anarchist, etc.

The mechanistic approach is well, as current as, well, the internal combustion engine?

IMO the two approaches compliment each other and each have their place. There is also a personality aspect here, an ISTJ is not going to do well in such self-organizing situations in which an ENFP would thrive.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it. That is what 4Ts are all about, essentially. My argument is that such "social machinery" (to use a term used brilliantly by Popper in his defense of the center-left welfare state and Liberal Democracy against the far left and also in the context of the workings of institutions and traditions in a society) is an emergent feature of complex societies, the result of the interplay between the need to adapt to changing times and the desire for stability. The fact that such institutions are top-down does not mean that they are not the result of bottom-up forces. This is the origin of the saeculum more generally and the Schlesinger political cycle more specifically.

No, that is an argument for replacing the machines with organic systems that grow and evolve like living creatures, that don't require periodic retooling to avert global disaster. Wetware vs. hardware, if you will.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

No, that is an argument for replacing the machines with organic systems that grow and evolve like living creatures, that don't require periodic retooling to avert global disaster. Wetware vs. hardware, if you will.

Easily done. Just return to the material conditions for which the wetware we have evolved. In the case of human behavior, that would be a foraging/hunting economy. Once 99% of the current population had perished of starvation, the remainder could operate once more in the natural way that our distant ancestors did. They could hunt, fish, and forage for food, make tools and clothing by hand, live in small extended family bands whose members all knew each other. They could operate just fine with informal group decision-making, no formal government, no organized religion, no banks, no money, none of the complicating artificial factors that make artificial regulatory mechanisms necessary for life in a modern civilization.

Either that, or we could learn to engineer our own genes so that we are naturally suited to life in a complex, multifaceted civilization in which nobody knows most of their co-citizens. If we could greatly reduce individualism and increase communal motivations, make it so that nobody wanted to exploit or take advantage of anyone else, and vastly increase our instincts for cooperation while reducing our instincts to compete. That would also remove the necessity for a lot of the artificial laws and rules and governing institutions we have today. Of course, it's beyond our current technical capability.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Easily done. Just return to the material conditions for which the wetware we have evolved. In the case of human behavior, that would be a foraging/hunting economy. Once 99% of the current population had perished of starvation, the remainder could operate once more in the natural way that our distant ancestors did. They could hunt, fish, and forage for food, make tools and clothing by hand, live in small extended family bands whose members all knew each other. They could operate just fine with informal group decision-making, no formal government, no organized religion, no banks, no money, none of the complicating artificial factors that make artificial regulatory mechanisms necessary for life in a modern civilization.

Either that, or we could learn to engineer our own genes so that we are naturally suited to life in a complex, multifaceted civilization in which nobody knows most of their co-citizens. If we could greatly reduce individualism and increase communal motivations, make it so that nobody wanted to exploit or take advantage of anyone else, and vastly increase our instincts for cooperation while reducing our instincts to compete. That would also remove the necessity for a lot of the artificial laws and rules and governing institutions we have today. Of course, it's beyond our current technical capability.

Would we have a warrior caste? or just workers and a handful of drones?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term.

No, but once it has done so, you can observe how it DID evolve in the long term.

Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems.

As a means of guiding evolution into emergent properties, yes. Of course, that's not at all why I believe we need such systems; the causality runs the other direction. That is, properties emerged with civilization which require them.

Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.

Say rather, that the environment is changing and, until things reach the point where it is no longer an option, people resist changing institutions to meet the new challenges. The conservative motto (and up to a point we are all conservatives) is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," so things have to get bad enough that they are obviously broken, and enough people are ready to fix them.

It's called a Fourth Turning, I believe. I'm almost certain I've heard that phrase somewhere before.

Justin: If you are talking only about the very specific version of libertarianism that characterizes this saeculum and is given voice by the Libertarian Party, then you are still wrong about it being a Boomer invention. Like Rock 'n' Roll, it was the creation of the Silent generation, for which Boomers sometimes get the credit (or blame). I think it was Bill Strauss on this forum who said that in this saeculum, the Heros get credit but no blame, the Nomads get blame but no credit, the Prophets get both, and the Artists get neither.

But in fact I think that this saeculum's libertarianism is functionally almost identical to that of Locke, Mill, Smith, and Jefferson, which is the problem. When Mr. Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, and to a lesser degree even when he was president, minimal government served the interests of liberty. There were no big corporations then, no powerful industries, and the only great blot on the land of the free was the institution of slavery, which arguably was a result of too much government -- or at any rate, government of the wrong kind.

So libertarianism in the time of the thinkers who really invented it was not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is thinking that in a completely changed material environment, the same ends can be met by the same means.