This articles explains why I feel like I am better off just banging my head against the wall rather than have lengthy discussions with the voluntyrists; eventually they just end up with the whole “govern me harder daddy” cliche.
But you’re right, even hunter/gatherer societies had some level of collective obligation and “hierarchical” family structure
There's alot of "libertarians don't like messy inconsistency and holistic thinking nor appreciate social complexity" in this. In my view they go too hard on social complexity, actually, claiming the world is too complicated to yield to the plans of government.
There are natural rights zealots who adhere to Liberty come what may, and then there are the more economistic-driven libertarians. I have more respect for the latter. (In fact I think there was a study some years ago from within some libertarian institution that showed an interest in economics to be a gateway drug to libertarian philosophy. Not so for an interest in, say, Buddhism.)
"Human societies do not operate on rigid ideological formulas. They function on a mix of laws, cultural norms, historical precedents, and social contracts that cannot be reduced to a single principle (Scott, 1998)"
Thing is, those seeking to alleviate some problem via government often make specific claims of a likely outcome, say, improving student literacy or closing a "digital divide" etc. And that's where the libertarians' focus on trade-offs is most effective. Activists, business interests and politicians were to say "we don't know what will come of this, because the world is messy, you silly libertarians," they'd rightly be ridiculed. It's the insistence on claiming a certain outcome to policy - say of tariffs - that keep the libertarian argument strong (but only in its econ form, see above).
This articles explains why I feel like I am better off just banging my head against the wall rather than have lengthy discussions with the voluntyrists; eventually they just end up with the whole “govern me harder daddy” cliche.
But you’re right, even hunter/gatherer societies had some level of collective obligation and “hierarchical” family structure
There's alot of "libertarians don't like messy inconsistency and holistic thinking nor appreciate social complexity" in this. In my view they go too hard on social complexity, actually, claiming the world is too complicated to yield to the plans of government.
There are natural rights zealots who adhere to Liberty come what may, and then there are the more economistic-driven libertarians. I have more respect for the latter. (In fact I think there was a study some years ago from within some libertarian institution that showed an interest in economics to be a gateway drug to libertarian philosophy. Not so for an interest in, say, Buddhism.)
"Human societies do not operate on rigid ideological formulas. They function on a mix of laws, cultural norms, historical precedents, and social contracts that cannot be reduced to a single principle (Scott, 1998)"
Thing is, those seeking to alleviate some problem via government often make specific claims of a likely outcome, say, improving student literacy or closing a "digital divide" etc. And that's where the libertarians' focus on trade-offs is most effective. Activists, business interests and politicians were to say "we don't know what will come of this, because the world is messy, you silly libertarians," they'd rightly be ridiculed. It's the insistence on claiming a certain outcome to policy - say of tariffs - that keep the libertarian argument strong (but only in its econ form, see above).
I can tell that opening salvo was written by AI. I'm not a libertarian at all, but I refuse to read AI junk on principle...
Noted. If you ever matter, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.
Feel like most of these observations are true of every -ism. Seems odd to focus on libertarianism, a niche ideology without much political power.
I’d consider myself a libertarian w conservative values and I’m excited to read this. I will let you know if you convince me after I finish:)