You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Non-standard politics - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 24 October 2014 03:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (231)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vaniver 26 October 2014 02:22:40PM 5 points [-]

I generally call myself a "technical libertarian," by which I mean I am libertarian for technical reasons, not because I 'technically' fit the definition. I think a lot about systems and designing them, and Hayek's concept of 'information cost' seems fundamental to designing any economic or political system. I typically contrast myself with "moral libertarians," who reason from rights to policy, because I think most rights get ludicrous when taken to extremes. (Rothbard claims, at one point, that the principled libertarian position on pollution should be "no pollution unless you get consent from everyone that pollution could harm," which would literally put us back to the Stone Age.) Largely because of this focus, I put an unusually low emphasis on political rights for a libertarian, which puts me very close to the NRx camp.

Tribally, I seem to be 'pink,' in that I think my grey tribe affiliation is strongest, followed by red tribe, with only a tiny bit of blue tribe affiliation.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 October 2014 02:53:30PM 1 point [-]

"no pollution unless you get consent from everyone that pollution could harm," which would literally put us back to the Stone Age.

Stone age people still had fires to warm their mud huts.

Comment author: Vaniver 26 October 2014 08:39:59PM 0 points [-]

I suspect you could feasibly obtain consent from everyone damaged by a wood fire with population density that low.