= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (733)
Ah, OK. I knew Marxism, but I was under the impression that "Whig" was a political party of some kind and "left-libertarian" just sounded meaningless.
Is that regarding libertarians? 'Cause in the general population it just seems to mean "liberal".
Only in the American interpretation of the word "liberal", which is at odds to how it is used both in most of the world (British Commonwealth, Europe, etc.) and historically.
I'm ... not American.
Europe!"liberal" means "strongly for economic freedom, weakly for social regulation", so pretty much right-wing. US!"liberal" means "for economic regulation, strongly for social freedom", so totally left-wing.
Not ... particularly. We're all over the map on the economy in my experience. I don't even know what you mean by "social regulation"; are we talking abortion?Freedom of speech? What?
Abortion, drug use, various alternative lifestyles.
Well, I'm not sure about drug use, but liberals here are generally OK with abortion and most alternative lifestyles.
"The version of left-libertarianism defended by contemporary theorists like Vallentyne, Steiner, Otsuka, van Parijs, and Ellerman features a strong commitment to personal liberty—embracing the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership—and an egalitarian view of natural resources, holding that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.[17] On this view, unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This position is articulated in self-conscious contrast to the position of other libertarians who argue for a (characteristically labor-based) right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land.[18"
I said it sounded meaningless, and from context I had assumed it was deliberately so. That's why I was surprised to learn that it was an actual political philosophy. Read the grandparent.
I don't see how they propose the complex organization necessary for ensuring resources are only appropriated appropriately without severely compromising personal rights and liberties.
One way would be to drive notions of proper appropriation (under whatever scheme) into cultural background as folk knowledge, so the "complex organization" is diffused among individuals rather than being externalized as a state apparatus. In other words, someone making an illegitimate property claim under this regime would not be suppressed by force, but instead mocked and not taken seriously, in the manner of someone who today claims to own the air you're breathing or the idea of birthdays. Only if they resort to force against others would there be a problem.
How does that work for things that require violence to enforce?
The core idea is to avoid enforcing stuff. Self interest individuals who care about their own status won't violate norms because they don't want to lose their status.
Burning Man works pretty well without any rules being enforced through violence.
It doesn't, obviously. The idea is that those are rare.
In that question, "requires violence to enforce" is being used as a one-place function. Is it really one?
Yes. Putting signs reading "private property - do not trespass" is pointless if there are no cops to deter people from trespassing anyway. (You can deter people yourself with a gun, but that'd mean you actually are on your land, which libertarian socialists would call "possession", not "property".)
Then I gues they just have to use redistributive taxation to iron out the consequences of a necesarily inappropriate distribution of resources.
With the magic of economics.
That only works if your appropriate distribution is the one the market creates, I suspect this isn't the case for left-libertarians.
Presumably they think it would work.
BTW, left-libertarian is a retronym -- libertarian capitalists started to label themselves as libertarian about a century later than libertarian socialists did.
I see there's actually a Wikipedia article on "left-libertarianism" and another on "libertarian socialism". On skimming them, "libertarian" in that context appears to mean having everything controlled by a democratic government to which everyone voluntarily submits. Democratic totalitarianism, in other words. "Liberty" is the freedom to do anything permitted by the other words that "libertarian" is yoked to.
?! I gotta see this!
Oh, wait, nevermind:
I think you may have misunderstood the way "socialist" was being used there.
They talk about the elimination of the state, and in the same breath (or at least the same Wiki article) of collective ownership of the means of production. The idea seems to be that it isn't a "state" when it's Us, only when it's Them. Since it's Us, and therefore good and right, everyone will voluntarily agree to it. Anyone who does not is Bad, and therefore not one of Us, but one of Them. Liberty is liberty to do anything that is right, that is, to agree with Us. You can have anything you like, and do anything you like, as long as it's what We think you ought to have and do. We are truly democratic, since everyone voluntarily supports Us, but They are undemocratic, even if They have elected government, because if They had truly democratic government They would be organised like Us.
But this is politics.
You haven't talked to many socialists, have you? But as you say, we're dealing with a mindkiller here.
I suspect this is similar to the question for certain right-anarchists of why can't one think of the state as defense agency, that decided to expand into other services.
I suspect the actual content of these philosophies is ideas about the optimal way to run a government/defense agency/collective ownership council.