= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
stripey7 comments on 2014 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 (724)
The political ideology question seems to equate libertarian with libertarian capitalist, and communist with totalitarian There's no option for libertarian communism/socialism.
Also, the moral philosophy question seems to assume one believes moral questions have truth values. "None" isn't given as a choice.
There were ‘left-libertarian’ and ‘anarchist’.
True, but from the definitions I found on this site, those aren't quite the same.
"None" is presumably included in "Other", though next year it should probably be a separate option.
The first option reads "Moral statements don't express propositions and can neither be true nor false." I'm curious what else you wanted. The second clause without the first?
That looks like an oxymoron to me.
It looks that way to you because you either don't know what libertarianism is or don't know what communism and socialism are (or both).
Of course, that's too snarky. But people (particularly in the USA, less so in Europe) often don't understand the breadth of these positions. In the 19th century (defining people by the words they used to describe themselves), most libertarians were socialists, and many socialists were libertarians. While the main branches of both movements have grown apart, there are still people who identify as both.
Anyway, you should look it up.
Too snarky is OK. The problem is that it's wrong :-P
In the XIX century libertarians didn't exist. Do you mean the anarcho-socialist cluster -- Kropotkin, Bakunin, anarcho-syndicalists and such? Yes, they tried to meld individual freedom with collectivism and were popular for a while. But I would argue that their basic approach was incoherent and they pretty clearly have failed. While both contemporary communistm/socialism and libertarianism might point to them as historical predecessors, I doubt either would be willing to embrace them fully.
I'm talking about the people who called themselves libertarians in the 19th century. The libertarian socialists of today are their intellectual descendents. They exist, and they invented the word ‘libertarian’ (in a political context), and there is no use pretending that they aren't real or that it makes no sense to apply that word to them.
OK, I take back my original comment. While I still don't think "libertarian communism/socialism" is a coherent framework or a meaningful expression nowadays, clearly some people prefer that name for their own political philosophy and that's fine. I guess "anarchists" has the wrong connotations ;-)