- 22 May 2013 12:42
#14240399
Thinking about it, the problem with the Non Aggression principle is not that virtually no one agrees with it, but that virtually everyone agrees with it. Not every one focuses on property like Libertarians do but it seems that virtually everything gets justified in terms of non aggression. I'm sure if you look at the most primitive tribal war fare, you'll find that virtually all aggressions get justified as non aggressions as justified responses to aggressions. For many Muslims if you criticise or disparage the Koran you are engaging in an act of aggression. So I would say hiding behind the Non aggression principle which so many people do not just Libertarians is kind of dishonest.
You are correct Eran to point out that society doesn't just function by fear of State retribution. An overarching moral ethos is required and it is in fact the breakdown of the Christian moral system that is causing us great problems in the West. I'm not arguing for going back. Once you've seen its a load of contradictory bullshit, you can't pretend to believe. I can see that there are a few genuine Libertarians, who really are willing to be inconvenienced by their commitment to Libertarianism, but they are few. The market has brought us many wonderful things, but so much of business is not competing on price and quality, but on manipulating, decieving and defrauding ones customers. So many transactions are not a mutual gain to both both parties.
i am particularly interested in what has happened in the financial service industry in recent decades. Unfortunately its very difficult to study this at this intelligent level, beyond cheap sloganeering. But it does strike me there has been certain breakdown of market functioning. That part of the reason that financial services, banking etc worked in the past was because the people managing it at the top were trying to perform a service for others. For the share holders, for the depositors for the borrowers. They received generous compensation for this, it was not pure altruism, but it was very different from the manager purely trying to maximise their own economic welfare which seems to be happening much more now and is demanded by classical economic theory. You get this to a less extent in computing. Maximising ones income and the success of ones career is not necessarily that well correlated with producing value for ones empolyer and customers.
What I'm trying to say is that for society to function one needs a certain level of ethics form the citizenry, beyond even a strict legalistic adherence to the Non Aggression Principle, even assuming the meaning of that could be agreed. I would suggest that Libertarianism is contributing to the dissolving of the remaining ethical bonds that hold our societies together. Libertarianism is just another culture of entitlement. I'm entitled to not pay taxes, to not be bound by regulations. Its disgraceful the way companies and individuals will avoid paying taxes completely but are quite happy to consume government services and infrastructure and benefit form the rule of law, security etc.
There is always hypocrisy but I think in the past there was also a certain level of genuine noblesse oblige which went deep into the Middle Class. I'm not sure that society over the long term will function easily without it.
You are correct Eran to point out that society doesn't just function by fear of State retribution. An overarching moral ethos is required and it is in fact the breakdown of the Christian moral system that is causing us great problems in the West. I'm not arguing for going back. Once you've seen its a load of contradictory bullshit, you can't pretend to believe. I can see that there are a few genuine Libertarians, who really are willing to be inconvenienced by their commitment to Libertarianism, but they are few. The market has brought us many wonderful things, but so much of business is not competing on price and quality, but on manipulating, decieving and defrauding ones customers. So many transactions are not a mutual gain to both both parties.
i am particularly interested in what has happened in the financial service industry in recent decades. Unfortunately its very difficult to study this at this intelligent level, beyond cheap sloganeering. But it does strike me there has been certain breakdown of market functioning. That part of the reason that financial services, banking etc worked in the past was because the people managing it at the top were trying to perform a service for others. For the share holders, for the depositors for the borrowers. They received generous compensation for this, it was not pure altruism, but it was very different from the manager purely trying to maximise their own economic welfare which seems to be happening much more now and is demanded by classical economic theory. You get this to a less extent in computing. Maximising ones income and the success of ones career is not necessarily that well correlated with producing value for ones empolyer and customers.
What I'm trying to say is that for society to function one needs a certain level of ethics form the citizenry, beyond even a strict legalistic adherence to the Non Aggression Principle, even assuming the meaning of that could be agreed. I would suggest that Libertarianism is contributing to the dissolving of the remaining ethical bonds that hold our societies together. Libertarianism is just another culture of entitlement. I'm entitled to not pay taxes, to not be bound by regulations. Its disgraceful the way companies and individuals will avoid paying taxes completely but are quite happy to consume government services and infrastructure and benefit form the rule of law, security etc.
There is always hypocrisy but I think in the past there was also a certain level of genuine noblesse oblige which went deep into the Middle Class. I'm not sure that society over the long term will function easily without it.