Robin Hanson wrote:
> Chris Russo wrote:
> >Because people are really really really stupid. ... I don't expect a
> >plurality of voters to appreciate the logical simplicity and
> >consistency of the Libertarian position as we do.
>
> Dan Fabulich wrote:
> >... a libertarian society will... require a moral revolution.
> >... there are people who want to control you (in certain ways) much
> >more than you want to have control over yourself. ... The revealed
> >preferences of most of the entire population in this area has to change.
> >People have to want their own freedoms more than anyone else wants to
> >take them away. We all have to believe that this is morally right. ...
> >... people would reveal their preferences for polycentric law or a
> >minimalist government if they wanted it. But they don't want it.
> >Until they want a libertarian society, they'll never get it.
>
> These are the two most common positions I've observed among
> intellectually mature libertarians. Libertarian claims are taken to
> either be statements of fact or of value. If they are statements of
> value, then it appears that most people just don't share those values,
> and so a "moral revolution" is required to give people the "right" values.
I think this is right, but to add to this, I'd point out that many
libertarians (especialy Randian libertarians) take it that questions
of value are, indeed, questions of fact. If you think that value
questions are really fact questions, then when people disagree about
your values, this is further evidence of widespread stupidity, or, as
Rand might say, widespread irrationality/insanity.
Still, I think we can all agree that not all facts are moral facts,
(assuming that there are any,) and that for libertarianism to succeed,
most people need to share our moral beliefs in a way that they don't
now and, as I'll suggest, aren't very likely to in the near future.
> I think that there are large differences in value at play here, and
> think the prospects of a moral revolution in the libertarian direction
> anytime soon to be small, and similar in magnitude to prospects of
> moral revolutions in opposite directions.
I'd actually say that our odds are quite worse than the odds in favor
of a moral revolution in the opposite direction. Socialism, for
example, is popular because it is in no way a subtle deduction from a
basic principle. It's simply a call for "equality," and a revolution
to bring about a government to enforce equality by any means
necessary.
There is no one-word encapsulation of the libertarian position.
(Hint: "Freedom" doesn't count. EVERYBODY uses that one.) And,
compared to other philosophies, the libertarian position is actually
somewhat complex. "Non-initiation of force" can't be compressed much;
moreover, its desirability isn't as obviously compelling as a call for
"freedom" (which is what libertarians normally fall back on) or even a
call for "equality."
The trouble is that "non-initiation of force" leaves out the fun part:
the libertarian position emphasizes that you can do *whatever you
want*, except for initiation of force. But even that's not very sexy.
Nor does it obviously offer up an attack plan. As I've argued, while
socialism tells you what to do: "revolt!" libertarianism requires a
moral revolution; it requires everyone believing in its rightness and
voting that way.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT