The Libertarian mind

[????]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016291138331904.html

...especially for you MM, well maybe some others too :)

[LondonMix]

I like this description:

They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.

Sounds pragmatic and intelligent! Who would want those kind of people making decisions...

[Huguenot]

What, sociopaths? ;-)

[LondonMix]

Yes, the description on second reading does have a whiff of I-robot to it...

[????]

the subjective use of "cold" before calculation stinks of emotive liberal bias to me :)

[LondonMix]

But emotionless libertarians won't be able to pick up on the insult / can?t be offended :)

I like to think my ideology is pragmatic save for social issues where I like to think I am socially progressive. Still, I must admit it makes me sad that democracy often results in "sub-optimal" decision making and outcomes (though not so much so that I want an enlightened dictator yet)!

What does that make me? Cold hearted socio-pathatic utilitarian? Disillusioned liberal?

[Loz]

These are people who often call themselves economically conservative but socially liberal. They like free societies as well as free markets, and they want the government to get out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom. They don't see why, in order to get a small-government president, they have to vote for somebody who is keen on military spending and religion; or to get a tolerant and compassionate society they have to vote for a large and intrusive state.

Am I being a 'cold calculating' libertarian, or does this pretty much sum up the average position of politics in the UK? To me it pretty much describes the current position of the three main parties (except replace 'PM' for 'president', of course).

[LondonMix]

Yes, the trade-off is much more of an American issue

[DaveR]

The bit I find interesting is that it recognises that individuals across the political spectrum are likely to be morally engaged in their position (even if, from a libertarian perspective, that is motivated by the concept of freedom itslef as a quasi-moral value). Probably the most tiresome single aspect of modern political debate is the left/liberal default standpoint that they represent the caring, unselfish perspective, whereas conservatives are somehow by definition greedy and self-interested.

I'd be happy with this description too:

These are people who often call themselves economically conservative but socially liberal. They like free societies as well as free markets, and they want the government to get out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom. They don't see why, in order to get a small-government president, they have to vote for somebody who is keen on military spending and religion; or to get a tolerant and compassionate society they have to vote for a large and intrusive state.

and although I agree that the US is more polarised, I think there is still a split in the UK between those whose first reaction to a problem is "something must be done" (usually by the state) and those who ask "how will this change, and is state action really needed/the best thing?"

[El Pibe]

I'm confused, if the main focus of libertarianism in the US is the Tea Party movement, why have I seen precious little evidence of 'socially liberal' views being espoused?

In fact I'd go as far as to say that socialy restrictive seems to be the primary goal, or at least have total freedom from interference from the state as long as you want to live the way they want you to.

[LondonMix]

That's not exactly right. The Tea Party is not strictly Libertarian as such. The Libertarians I know in the US are not socially conservative at all. They tend to be more of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" sort so are usually against the welfare state in many respects but none would oppose things like gay marriage for instance.

The dichotomy in the US is much more social-conservative + small government OR socially+liberal plus big government than in the UK.

I'm not against big government per se. I think the government has a role to play, as long as whatever they are using taxes for is sensible investment given the impact taxes have on the private sector. Defense, education, infrastructure etc. But trains running empty, education spending that doesn't improve results etc infuriates me.

[Loz]

You also have to remember that, if you plotted them on a simple left-right political map, Obama and the Democrats would be to the right of Cameron and the Tories. The whole US political spectrum is much more to the right than it is over here.

Also, when reading that article, it is worth remembering that the US uses a very different meaning to the word 'liberal' as well. For the Yanks it roughly means 'anything that looks kinda left-wing/commie'.

[El Pibe]

exactly, i think these words get very muddled semantically.

The description above I would consider 'liberal' which, as Loz points out is something quite differtent in the US (try substituting 'tard' at the end will give you an idea).

Libertarian meant something quite different when it was coined but lost currency or relevance a very long time ago. In the US it has been ressurrected but has a rather different nuance of usage.

The word then returns here as a sort of clinical reclamation of liberal in an attempt to shed the assosciative baggage it has acquired over here.

Chuck all these different interpratations of political semantics into a nice crucible, add in a dose of the US political clap over here and you can see why the confusion starts, especially when people link to an American journal with the implication that it somehow neatly describes anything that goes on over here, also add in our own biases and an unholy mess emerges.

My 'liberal' world view

Liberal

1) a Supporter of the Liberal party

2) a belief in personal liberty over legislative influence

3) pejorative (chiefly British) - one who reads the Guardian

4) pejorative (chiefly US) - Communist, Gay, Satanist

Libertarian

1) Scary, righteous, flag waving hick voting against their self interest because the president is black/foreign/muslim/liberal/catholic/irish/tall and beardy/godless/the horned beast/it's getting quite close to rapture

2) a belief in personal liberty over legislative influence (chiefly British, synonymous with liberal 2)

3) (archaic) - one who believes in free will over predestination

[Huguenot]

I don't think liberalism rejects legislation does it? Wouldn't liberals of both UK and US persuasion prefer that legislation was enacted to enshrine the rights of the individual? Both flavours reject autocracy by individuals or oligarchy through institutions.

Libertarianism conversely rejects the idea of authority/government in favour of free association and subordination to market forces.

Since the natural consequence of free association is cartel activity and mob rule you'd have to be pretty daft to imagine the libertarianism was an effective social strategy.

So that means I can see two types of support for libertarianism: those that use it as a check/balance upon unlimited state power, and those who quite fancy the idea of cartel activity and mob rule.

Hence a certain type of libertarian sees it as a step via anarchy to install a totalitarian government of their own devising.

The Tea Party seems to contain both types - those worried about excessive government spending, and those who see it as an opportunity for white supremacists to set fire to black people under the guise of political respectability.

[????]

The fundamental difference as pointed out by a few on this thread is the use in the US where liberal tends to be mainly used as a default term for ?left wing? and, as Loz said, given that their left wing party sits somewhat to the right of the conservatives over here, becomes even more confusing. Nevertheless that US centric version of ?liberal?, where it is almost always used insultingly, has crept into use over here and is used in that sense too - including on here by me, frequently (yes, I sadly even used libtard once - well spotted EP - and thanks US centric poker sites! ) .

In truth I consider myself proudly liberal, and my slightly derogatory use of liberal on the forum is practically always used thus, ?liberal? (not that that?s ever noticed ) and is aimed at my mainly lefty (no Ampersands), chums . In fact many lefties are pretty illiberal! And as EP says, in that sense liberal is used pejoratively to mean Guardian reader!

And Dave spot on on the sanctimonious, unpleasant, arrogant (dare I say childish) often held leftish view that anyone who doesn?t hold their world view is by definition a Tory, fascist b*stard, who doesn?t care about others and is not worthy of debating with, gets right on my tits. That?s why I hate the Guardian, right there, they think they are the only ones with white cowboy hats on.

I also get fed up with the continuum view of politics where you are somewhere on a straight line between left and right.

I am going to remain a liberal with a slight anarchistic frame of mind who sees merits in many libertarian positions but is personally too committed to some form of the state, not too big, to embrace it, libertarianism, as an ism?.

[Marmora Man]

Coming late to this thread I echo Quids comments immediately above and equally resent the tendency to assume that anyone that does not espouse the correct left"ish" / progressive views is an unthinking thug without a shred of decency. A recent example of the degree to which the left"ish" demonise and pillory their opposition is the thread about the new royal pregnancy.

I am a self professed libetarian. I prefer self reliance, small government and strong defences (the last policy not being, definitively a libertarian stance but one that arises from my personal history. I have no wish to be told what to do and equally no wish to tell others what to do

Hugenot critiques the libertarian "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions as sociopathic ? I would counter that it doesn?t matter so much how one arrives at a sensible / optimum / utilitarian outcome so much as reaching it.

So while I, a self professed libertarian, may not have engaged my emotional / feminine side to decide that racism / sexism / and other intolerant behavior is ?morally? wrong ? I can arrive at the same position by coldly calculating that is serves no useful purpose to exclude anyone from society / the team / the interview / my party.

My libertarian instincts go further with regard to this - intolerance on grounds of sex, race, religion etc is non utilitarian and therefore not to be countenanced - but so is, I would argue, special pleading or positive discrimination an often besetting sin of the more compassionate / emotional left with the Polly Toynbee's talking down to the "poor", the "discriminated against" or other minorities that she feels stand in need of her special, high minded and strangely off putting pleading.

[????]

I agree to an extent re sexism/racism/homophobia too. I am against these because they make no sense, intellectually, morally, emotionally and on a personal level anectdotally (ie by my experience); again, a fair amount of SOME left wingers views (Tonybee being spot on as an example) on this seems to be too often SOLELY the moral one which is horrendoulsy patronisng and actually a bit racists/sexist etc. To be honest this stretches to class where many on the 'posh' left feel terribly sorry for the poor working classes and want to either give them a few crumbs of welfare support or social engineer their lives to make them more pleasant but god forbid mixing with them or having my kids educated with them.......

Where I think I disagree with you MM is with positve discrimination where I think far too many institutions have proved themselves far too entrenched not too discriminate and so I can see a case for some quotas etc

[El Pibe]

"I can arrive at the same position by coldly calculating that is serves no useful purpose to exclude anyone from society / the team / the interview / my party"

That's great that you can do that, unfortunately history, hell current trends, tell us that it can actually benefit many an agenda to marginalise, scapegoat or persecute the powerless and this is where legal protection comes in.

This coldly calculated objectivity is a total fantasy, thus you may think arriving at that position is utilitarian, but you must on some level acknowledge that it is wrong in some respect or other, and if that isn't a moral judgement then I'm not quite sure what it is.

Positive discrimination is another matter entirely, I'm inclined to agree it's totally counterproductive.

[Huguenot]

Agree with EP - the anarchy of libertarianism doesn't result in some delicious opportunity for self actualisation. It devolves into sectarianism, self interest and the destruction of social infrastructure.

I can see the dream, but it's about as plausible as an effective socialist state - it flies in the face of the human biological condition. We simply lack the intellectual capacity to engage in enlightened self-interest beyond social groups of around 200 people, and the world's a bit more densely populated than it was in the 7th century.

[El Pibe]

Sociopaths tend to be dynamic becuse they're not hampered by moral qualms or fear of negative consequences, they also, as the name suggests, tend to be damaging to individuals and the social fabric to some degree or other.

Unregulated capitalism is a sociopathic phenomenon. This is why people calling for deregulation as some sort of panacea for society "it'll make it more dynamic and we'll all benefit from the increased growth" quite specifically is unable to square the circle that it does so at the expense of those who don't benefit.

Social darwinism, socialpathwinism.

[Marmora Man]

Whoa - I'm not proposing to dispense with our current democratic political model and move to some pre-lapsarian perfect anarchic state. I'm responding to Quids original note that suggested that it was entirely possible to be a libertarian but not a rabid US style Tea Party fanatic.

To confuse a phrase used by a psychologist in a short article as a diagnosis of sociopathology is a tad extreme.

My example of how it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that various "isms" are non-utiltarian through a rational and "coldly calculating" review which, happily, matches the same conclusion that perhaps a less rational and more emotional person would also reach was an illustration NOT a recipe for tackling all society's ills or other issues.

[DaveR]

"Libertarianism conversely rejects the idea of authority/government in favour of free association and subordination to market forces.

Since the natural consequence of free association is cartel activity and mob rule you'd have to be pretty daft to imagine the libertarianism was an effective social strategy."

WTF? Since when did libertarianism = anarchism? And a cartel is the antithesis of a free market. Even by H's standards this is a nonsensical post.

FWIW, i don't see that libertarianism equates with utilitarianism either, or that it can be assumed that taking a libertarian approach implies cold emotionless calculation. It just means that you prize freedom, and believe that, all other things being equal, the situation that allows as many people as possible to live their lives as freely from unwelcome interference as possible is most likely to produce the best outcome.

[Huguenot]

Point taken.

What do you think is the outcome of free association in a large number of people?

[Huguenot]

Forgive me for thinking it would be a large number of polarised righteous dickheads demanding respect for pointless fist punching.

[DaveR]

Maybe I have a little more faith in human nature, and enlightened self interest. The right of free association is protected by the ECHR, is the root of all non-governmental collective action (including, for example, the trade union movement), and perhaps less dramatically, is the basis upon which people all over the UK get together to organise what they want for themselves, be it am dram, amateur football, WI or bog snorkelling. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily imply individualism, in large part because experience tells us that when people are free to choose they often seek collective solutions to their problems. But it's a matter of choice, not imposed. That's the point.