= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Survey Results - 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 (210)
FWIW, these have mostly been the arguments I've seen for libertarianism; that, and arguments which hinge on the importance of wealth going to the "deserving" over the "undeserving". If anyone can point me to any online writings on the subject which tackle the standard challenges to libertarian capitalism in a way that doesn't hinge on deontological ideas or ideas of deserving, I'd be interested to read them.
I recommend J.S. Mill's On Liberty - it's not necessarily argued entirely from consequentialist grounds, but that's basically where he's coming from. Online version
You cannot be honestly consequentialist without seeking the best empirical evidence you can get, and I find the idea that there might have been much useful evidence for best organization of government in 2009 back in 1869 extremely unlikely, so I'm going to completely disregard this recommendation.
I'm not at all sympathetic to the libertarian point of view, but I have to say that this does not sound like your true rejection. I find thomblake's Boyle's Law analogy quite apt: if you are really interested in thermodynamics, you have to start with material at the Boyle's Law level. Likewise, if you are truly interested in understanding libertarian thought, it behooves you to start with a basic text.
If someone wants to argue for libertarianism versus status quo on consequentialist and empirical grounds, it stands to reason they should have some idea about status quo, what a person writing in 1869 couldn't possibly have without breaking causality.
I'm not saying Mill doesn't make good deontologist arguments, as these can be timeless, I'm simply not interested in deontology here.
You seem to have missed the part where thomblake claims J. S. Mills more-or-less originated consequentialism.
Seriously, asking for a reference on LW, getting one, and dismissing it without even flipping through it? Lame.
ETA: My bad -- you did not ask for the reference. I am lame.
Wasn't it ciphergoth who asked, not taw?
Your celebration of ignorance angers me. You asked for a recommendation and got one from probably one of the best-qualified here to answer that question.
Really, it's a very short book. And it's one of the basic works on classical liberalism, one of the foundations (along with Locke's Second Treatise on Government) of all current discourse on liberalism.
Mill is arguably the fellow who invented consequentialism (with a hat tip to Bentham, and J.S. Mill's father). It's like if someone referred you to Boyle's Law and you insisted someone from the 17th century couldn't possibly have anything useful to say about physics.
EDIT: correction - as noted above, it was not taw who asked for a recommendation in the first place. Mea culpa.
By this logic, one could also argue in favor of Newton's theories on alchemy because he essentially invented classical mechanics.
Consequentialism is a type of formalization of ideas on ethics, which are inherently arbitrary. Theories of political structure deal with empirical matters of actual results. taw asserts that someone in the 17th century would have had no empirical data relevant to modern govenment, an assertion that is, if not obviously correct, at least defensible to the extent that society has changed since then.
No strong opinion on whether they're correct, but from what I've seen libertarians argue from consequences rather than deontology most of the time, so I have to wonder where you've been looking. As for pointers, there's a libertarian-leaning econ encyclopedia here.
Most economists are more libertarian than most people, which means something to me.
That's enough to interest me but obviously not nearly enough to convince.
Fair enough, I'd like to believe that my libertarian sympathies are based on a lot more than that as well.
I'm sure you've read a lot of Robin Hanson, do you feel he focuses a lot on a deontological justification for libertarian ideas? I also recommend http://www.marginalrevolution.com for learning to see the world through the eyes of thoughtful libertarian economists. Both of these sources are more libertarian than I am, but I find reading them very worthwhile and often convincing. In important respects, even Paul Krugman is more libertarian than most Americans.
I think we'd probably do well to discuss individual policies, which can be done more precisely than overarching political philosophies.
This is probably a good point, as for all the sound and fury of this thread I would be slightly surprised if there were more than a handful of actual, significant policy disagreements between participants.