Non-economic arguments for libertarianism (theoretical)

[Vultur]

I know we already have several libertarianism threads, but this would be way off topic for the others.

If we assume the basic argument for "strong libertarianism" (as opposed to the weak "Republican economically and Democrat socially" version I hear called libertarianism in this part of the US) is 'less regulation equals a stronger economy' ... are there other possible arguments? (I don't necessarily mean arguments you or I would agree with, but at least internally consistent ones). I can think of a couple:

1. Freedom is good in itself: Interference by the government is inherently bad regardless of whether it helps or hurts people; economic freedom is a fundamental which should not be infringed for any reason even to save lives. (This is an anarchist argument and just for clarity, I do not agree with it; but it doesn't seem theoretically inconsistent, though it's horribly callous.)

2. It's better to be poor and free than rich and restricted: A milder version than above, this would be the argument that the loss of 'happiness' or utility by the government restricting your economic actions is bigger than the gain of utility/happiness by having a guaranteed livelihood. (I still don't agree with this, though, as it would imply that a starving person in 1880 would have been happier than a middle-class person in 2009 Sweden. Also, in practice, the destitute have no way to use economic freedom).

3. The 'shit happens' argument: This would propose that any economic system must fluctuate eventually (if nothing else, due to things like war, climatic change, natural disaster, or whatever). If it is accepted that government interference stabilizes the economy, but some degree of economic instability is good because it means society will not be completely helpless when a big one hits. Also could be expressed as "if you get too dependent on the government, you couldn't survive without it." (I don't know what I think of this one; it might cause poverty, but it does seems at least plausible that it might help society survive. Complacency has killed civilizations before. What do you think?)

[K. A. Pital]

The first and third of them are "consistent", but constitute essentially advocacy of social darwinism and enormous callousness. The second is simply not true, because although you can't measure utility definitively, you can illustrate it with the extreme examples of a 100,000 million earning person giving say 1000 USD to a starving person - invariably the level of suffering, which is the opposite of utility, would be less in the case of the rich and more in the case of a poor, thus the utility is not equivalent either - you can't have non-equivalent suffering, but equivalent utility, because they are inverse-correlated.

[Vultur]

This was all 'devil's advocate'-ish anyway, although I think the third has a grain of truth (in the theory, if not in the proposal.)

The first and third of them are "consistent", but constitute essentially advocacy of social darwinism and
enormous callousness.[

Oh, true. (I've heard someone actually use something very similar to the first; it's not original to me. It was by someone who would agree to calling it social Darwinism, though.)

I wish I could believe, though, that we're not becoming too dependent and complacent. Compared from what I've read and heard about even very recent history, it sure seems that way.

The second is simply not true, because although you can't measure utility definitively, you can illustrate it with the extreme examples of a 100,000 million earning person giving say 1000 USD to a starving person - invariably the level of suffering, which is the opposite of utility, would be less in the case of the rich and more in the case of a poor, thus the utility is not equivalent either - you can't have non-equivalent suffering, but equivalent utility, because they are inverse-correlated.

The point of the second as well as the first is that the fact of the government's ability and willingness to take away your economic 'freedoms' is a cause of suffering. So, in your example, it wouldn't be the loss of 1000 dollars that caused suffering, so much as the fact that it was coerced, not given freely.

[PeZook]

The point of the second as well as the first is that the fact of the government's ability and willingness to take away your economic 'freedoms' is a cause of suffering. So, in your example, it wouldn't be the loss of 1000 dollars that caused suffering, so much as the fact that it was coerced, not given freely.

Suffering isn't an absolute term: a person can suffer slightly (like the rich guy having to give a percentage of his yearly income away) or severely (like being unable to pay medical expenses), so you should compare the degree of suffering, not the fact it exists at all.

Taking the second argument to its logical extreme would mean, for example, that tasering and arresting an axe-wielding psychopath causes the exact same amount of suffering as letting him hack someone to death.

[K. A. Pital]

Taking the second argument to its logical extreme would mean, for example, that tasering and arresting an axe-wielding psychopath causes the exact same amount of suffering as letting him hack someone to death.

Yeah. The mere existence of suffering does not mean we are not justified to intervene. Like in the already simulated case of the insulin-holding person in the room with a dying guy, it's clear that the suffering caused by taking the insulin from a person, is less than the suffering caused by inaction and thus the second person's death.

So, in your example, it wouldn't be the loss of 1000 dollars that caused suffering, so much as the fact that it was coerced, not given freely.

If you are willing to dispute that coercion and redistribution of your values constitute greater or equal suffering as death does, just think for a moment - if you were robbed, would you prefer the robbers to just rob you, or murder you? The suffering quite obviously, even from a biological view - and much more so from a psychological! - is different in case of losing posessions and losing life.

[Lord of the Abyss]

1. Freedom is good in itself: Interference by the government is inherently bad regardless of whether it helps or hurts people; economic freedom is a fundamental which should not be infringed for any reason even to save lives. (This is an anarchist argument and just for clarity, I do not agree with it; but it doesn't seem theoretically inconsistent, though it's horribly callous.)

2. It's better to be poor and free than rich and restricted: A milder version than above, this would be the argument that the loss of 'happiness' or utility by the government restricting your economic actions is bigger than the gain of utility/happiness by having a guaranteed livelihood. (I still don't agree with this, though, as it would imply that a starving person in 1880 would have been happier than a middle-class person in 2009 Sweden. Also, in practice, the destitute have no way to use economic freedom).

Two problems with both of these. The first ( which you somewhat touch on in the last sentence ) is that the result of either principle isn't freedom at all for most people. If all your decisions are forced by survival needs, you aren't free. If you are forced by the threat of starvation to give in to the demands of those richer than yourself, you aren't free.

And second is the hidden assumption that ONLY government coercion counts as the loss of freedom. That being forced to pay taxes counts as coercion but, say, being forced to submit sexually to your boss under the threat of firing doesn't.

3. The 'shit happens' argument: This would propose that any economic system must fluctuate eventually (if nothing else, due to things like war, climatic change, natural disaster, or whatever). If it is accepted that government interference stabilizes the economy, but some degree of economic instability is good because it means society will not be completely helpless when a big one hits. Also could be expressed as "if you get too dependent on the government, you couldn't survive without it." (I don't know what I think of this one; it might cause poverty, but it does seems at least plausible that it might help society survive. Complacency has killed civilizations before.

And the libertarian philosophy is all about complacency ( you don't see people who think they might be on the losing side of such societies pushing libertarianism ). And selfishness. If you had a libertarian society that somehow hadn't collapsed yet, and a major disaster did hit it - what makes you think it would survive even as well as a normal society, much less better ? A society with a government that is forbidden to help, and lacks the infrastructure to do so anyway; and a culture of people who think letting the weak perish is a good thing is NOT going to survive disasters well.

Yes, we are dependant on government to survive - but so are those hypothetical libertarians. The difference is, they've crippled it, and so they will die. In fact, they'd take more casualties than normal societies would even if their government failed, simply because they're so sociopathic; they are hardly going to help each other in a time of need. They'd at best ignore each other's suffering and danger, and more likely than not turn on each other. Libertarianism is a luxury, the philosophy of predators and parasites; a libertarian society faced with overwhelming famine or disaster would be destroyed by it's own collective selfishness, ruthlessness, and disdain for cooperation and compassion.

[His Divine Shadow]

Non-economic libertarianism in the US sounds to me like abolishing, or atleast massively scaling back, the war on drugs and terror, and any other similar attempts to control the life-style of it's people and what they can own. They could be just as libertarian then while having an economic model more like that of countries such as Sweden and Finland.

I believe the word for this is social libertarianism.

[Junghalli]

1. Freedom is good in itself: Interference by the government is inherently bad regardless of whether it helps or hurts people; economic freedom is a fundamental which should not be infringed for any reason even to save lives. (This is an anarchist argument and just for clarity, I do not agree with it; but it doesn't seem theoretically inconsistent, though it's horribly callous.)

I suppose it is consistent, it's just horrendous. Ask the person who believes this whether he'd really prefer to starve to death than take government assistance. If he says yes, ask the audience the same question. I guarentee most people will not be willing to die for their economic freedom; i.e. they value their life and comfort above economic freedom.

2. It's better to be poor and free than rich and restricted: A milder version than above, this would be the argument that the loss of 'happiness' or utility by the government restricting your economic actions is bigger than the gain of utility/happiness by having a guaranteed livelihood. (I still don't agree with this, though, as it would imply that a starving person in 1880 would have been happier than a middle-class person in 2009 Sweden. Also, in practice, the destitute have no way to use economic freedom).

The problem here seems to be the assumption that a poor person would necessarily be "free". Under a lolbertarian system they would likely be ruthlessly exploited by private employers who would curtail their freedoms severely (just how much "freedom" do you have if you spend 12 hours a day, every day, hunched over a sowing machine?). Also, in the real world most people would not be happier working 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for sub-minimum wage than having less "freedom from government" in a better job with three times the pay, a work day 4 hours shorter, and weekends free.

3. The 'shit happens' argument: This would propose that any economic system must fluctuate eventually (if nothing else, due to things like war, climatic change, natural disaster, or whatever). If it is accepted that government interference stabilizes the economy, but some degree of economic instability is good because it means society will not be completely helpless when a big one hits. Also could be expressed as "if you get too dependent on the government, you couldn't survive without it." (I don't know what I think of this one; it might cause poverty, but it does seems at least plausible that it might help society survive. Complacency has killed civilizations before. What do you think?)

In that case I hope he's arguing for a return to a society of self-sufficient farmers, because that's the only way this would make sense. An industrialized, urbanized society is a hydraulic state by its very nature. It is reliant on centralized facilities that the population cannot control and is dependent upon for day to day survival. End of story.