This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can you conceive a scenario where unrestricted immigration could lead to severe problems?
Personally, I’m a law and order libertarian. America’s past success with immigration at scale is not guaranteed to continue.
Yes, I can also conceive and witness problems caused by unregulated relationships. Does it change my position? Not really an inch on either issue.
Do you think a crisis of legitimacy in the current socio-political system is a plausible outcome of unrestrained mass immigration?
If so, do you see such a crisis as a good thing, or do you think such a crisis is unlikely or easily-avoided?
More options
Context Copy link
Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
“Relationships” in the personal sense and the issues of immigration, including citizenship, are not really the same. In a better world, the whole world would be open borders (enforced by the one world government, of course) and the lamb would lay down next to the lion.
It’s not about the government being competent at it. Competent compared to what? It’s that it’s a situation where there’s no better alternative, similar to the related issue of national defense.
But then I’m a (bad) libertarian who thinks seat belt laws are justified on utilitarian grounds.
Eh, if you push me I suppose I am an anarcho-capitalist. I'm happy with small marginal movements in a libertarian direction, and the intellectual arguing and posturing within the liberty movement is supremely unhelpful.
How much are they the same vs not the same? I think they are similar enough to give people a sense of how I feel about the issue. Even if as I said above I don't think it's the most convincing way to argue on this topic.
I do believe there are good and helpful interventions, but I think having the machinery of government laying around is too much of a temptation to use government on bad interventions.
I philosophically sympathize with anarcho-capitalism, but pragmatically I end up being a state capacity libertarian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you against tobacco and alcohol? If not, is it a cost-benefit situation with very specific numbers and math, or something unique to seatbelts? The right to not wear a seatbelt is a natural consequence of self-ownership.
I’m a utilitarian libertarian, not deontological. Seat belt laws are easily justified on a cost/benefit basis.
Restricting/taxing things with known severe downsides like alcohol and tobacco is also easily justified, though the details are much more complicated than mandating seat belts. Of late, I think broad legalization of digital sports gambling is a pretty bad idea.
Externalities and tradeoffs are real and ought to be addressed, in other words, and that sometimes necessitates government intervention and curtailing liberty.
Then you're not a libertarian. A deontological libertarian would not care if liberty lead to less utility, they'd still be for liberty. A utilitarian libertarian believes liberty does lead to more utility. You apparently do not believe this; at best you're just a plain utilitarian.
“A utilitarian libertarian believes liberty does lead to more utility.”
This is generally true, not absolutely true. It’s a testable claim, in fact.
I'm a rule utilitarian and I think I overlap with say Tyler Cowen or Scott Sumner on politics on at least 90% of what I read from them.
Some here seem to want to treat libertarianism as a religion with pure doctrine that cannot be disobeyed, instead of an approach that can deal with empirical reality, trade offs, and necessary compromise.
I thought it was generally accepted that “classic liberal” and “libertarian” were interchangeable terms, alongside the rarer “right neoliberal.”
It's not a testable claim, it's a definition. And it's right there in the name. Libertarianism is about liberty. If you're evaluating propositions based strictly on some form of utility that does not assign high utility to liberty itself, it's hard to be a libertarian. If your evaluation often results in non-liberty being chosen over liberty, it's ridiculous to call yourself one.
I do assign high utility to liberty.
But I am not an insane person so I do not afford it infinite utility, or pretend there aren’t issues where tradeoffs exist.
The testable claim is whether in any given case liberty does lead to utility.
Assuming by definition it does, or simply defining utility to be liberty, with no consideration of empirical reality, turns libertarianism into some kind of fanatical political religion along the same lines as Marxism, and it’s just a stupid way to go about political philosophy.
“Libertarianism is about liberty” well sure. What makes you seem uneducated is that you appear to have no awareness of the variety of thought around those concepts and competing movements and subgroups. For instance, there are civil libertarians who are all for personal freedom, just not where one’s labor and wallet are concerned.
One of the primary reasons the term “libertarian” exists is that in the US “liberal” evolved to mean “left liberal” and so another label was needed to mean “right liberal” or “classic liberal.” In Europe, I can identify as a liberal; in America I have to have a different label, whether classic liberal, right neoliberal, or state capacity libertarian.
The point was not “libertarian means anarcho-capitalism and anyone who ever says anything positive about even limited government is a totalitarian statist.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’ve arrived at paternalistic classical conservatism, just by a scenic route.
No.
Libertarianism is not solely anarcho-capitalism.
“Classical conservatism” is opposed to “classical liberalism” on several key grounds, and I favor the latter. Many “conservatives” in the liberal tradition share a lot with libertarians, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Please do so -- what is the net cost to you of increased traffic fatalities? (in a libertarian society if possible, but I guess that's hard mode -- even in today's US I think you will have a tough time)
It’s higher than the net cost of seat belts and a compliance regime.
Having more severe injuries and deaths from auto accidents, that are preventable by seat belts, is so obviously a bad thing for any given individual and society at large due to increased medical spending and decreased tax revenue alone.
There are so many bad cases of government intervention and so it’s always a shame to see a clearly good one get opposed.
You are wrong about the medical spending -- in a libertarian society this would be a personal matter, and in the real world the medical savings from all the additional (mostly) young people who die in crashes rather than getting old and sick far outweighs the additional burden from those who might choose not to wear a seatbelt and incur somewhat more serious injuries than they otherwise would. Same goes for excessive tobacco and drinking.
The second claim is more interesting -- if you think that society has a right to maximize tax revenue from individual citizens, it sounds like government should be able to direct people's labour however it deems optimal, on utilitarian grounds? I'd probably argue against this on the basis of the track record of planned economies in general, but in any case it sounds diametrically opposed to any form of libertarianism (or even anarchism) that I'm familiar with?
I think he is wrong about net tax revenue as well. Something like 60% of Americans receive more in transfers than they pay in taxes over their lifetimes, i.e. they are a net drain on government revenue. Plus, I would wager that lower income people are more likely to not wear seatbelts (and drive less safe cars in general) which would skew this even further.
More options
Context Copy link
Empirically, one does not maximize tax revenue by directing people’s labor. So doing that seems pretty dumb right there. (The great thing about consequentialism is that if something leads to bad consequences you always have the ability to stop doing that thing.)
“You don’t believe in absolute freedom so don’t you support centralized planning?” is not a reasonable understanding of a moderate libertarian position. Central banks can be good though. (I think that issue splits plenty of libertarians too.)
Moreover, the government should not be aiming to maximize tax revenue as a terminal goal. The US government ought to be adhering to its functions as outlined in the constitution; seat belts can fall under “promote the general welfare”.
Consider that most of the Founding Fathers qualify as quite libertarian in their philosophy and yet they certainly were not anarcho-capitalists in their policy.
In the real world, having people dead or crippled from causes where we can reduce the occurrence through low-cost government intervention is going to be bad for the budget, relative to the alternative.
In other words, having seat belts mandated leads to better consequences than the alternative. Making alcohol illegal does not. Clean air laws are generally good (though carbon taxes and such would be better) and occupational licensing is generally bad. Individual issues can be analyzed individually.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I recall all of these things have been shown to if anything reduce total lifetime healthcare costs, as most of them tend to kill you relatively young (if at all) -- so before you have time to rack up a bunch of bills for long-term care and general age-related degeneration.
So I'm more curious about the actual nature of his utilitarian grounds than how he squares it with any sort of libertarianism.
Relevant Yes, Prime Minister clip
I suppose the question would be whether those kill or harm you quickly enough to significantly reduce your lifetime earnings. That seems doubtful with smoking and drinking, but it may very well be the case with drugs and not wearing seatbelts.
From a utilitarian standpoint, I suppose the law would ideally mandate seatbelt wearing for children and the gainfully employed, while forbidding seatbelt use for the chronically unemployed and retired.
More options
Context Copy link
Now adjust for lost productivity and taxes due to disability and/or early death.
Had we more sensible healthcare policy the gap would be even bigger.
Please refer to my second point -- your argument appears to allow for unbounded government intervention into career/life decisions of any kind. Retirement, for instance, would seem to be right out -- much less FIRE or hobo-ism.
I'm not sure what to call this system, but it is very not-libertarian.
I gotta say it’s funny to basically be advocating for good old-fashioned American style government with a GMU Econ-pilled approach and be told it’s verging on totalitarianism.
Not at all, it's a very popular normie position -- but it's not libertarianism. The specific arguments you are making do seem unbounded in the direction of totalitarianism, which I think is because you are trying to somehow encompass the libertarian label for whatever reasons. I suggest just saying that you think you and/or the government knows best what the citizenry should do with their bodies, and has the right to rule accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link