tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post8018023701218682865..comments2024-03-21T03:55:51.565-07:00Comments on Omniorthogonal: Freedom is Slaverymtravenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-69060890097555248152007-08-28T21:19:00.000-07:002007-08-28T21:19:00.000-07:00Thanks for all the comments. Since we seem to be a...Thanks for all the comments. Since we seem to be <A HREF="http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000995" REL="nofollow">about to go to war with yet another country that hasn't attacked us</A>, debates about very theoretical politics suddenly seems even more academic than they did a day ago. <BR/><BR/>Thanks also for the pointers to the Pournelle chart and the left-anarchist blog. I used to be somewhat of that persuasion, and still have an IWW songbook lying around somewhere. But I got disillusioned out of that belief system by what might be called the Asshole Factor. I should write a post on that one day.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-58964963615907022612007-08-28T14:34:00.000-07:002007-08-28T14:34:00.000-07:00Gene Callahan, I think it is neither inevitable no...Gene Callahan, I think it is neither inevitable nor impossible that people will change their minds during the course of argumentation. Also, like Rothbard's gambler, I enjoy the mere act of discussion.<BR/><BR/>I second the recommendation of the Mutualist Blog. A somewhat similar writer I would point out is Keith Preston, who is something like a bizarro Mencius Moldbug.<BR/><BR/>The term "libertarian" already has somewhat commonly accepted definitions. Using it otherwise results in confusion. Perhaps you should coin a new term for it, as Mencius is fond of doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-10577235351185046692007-08-28T11:54:00.000-07:002007-08-28T11:54:00.000-07:00For a radically different take on libertarianism, ...For a radically different take on libertarianism, I heartily recommend <A HREF="http://mutualist.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">The Mutualist Blog</A>. We're not pot-smoking Republicans.Joshua Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03938857818508205442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-89149787764915560692007-08-28T08:58:00.000-07:002007-08-28T08:58:00.000-07:00So I have a new dichotomization: there are the lib...<I>So I have a new dichotomization: there are the libertarians who actually seem interested in liberty, and those who seem more interested in something else.</I><BR/><BR/>I like to phrase that dichotomy a different way. There are two kinds of libertarians: libertarians, and conservatives who call themselves libertarians.<BR/><BR/>The Glenn Reynoldss of the world might have some libertarian leanings; they might want to legalize pot, they're probably not hyper-Christian, etc. Reynolds links to Balko every so often, after all. But that "something else" that they're interested in is the source of their alliance with conservatism: it is <I>opposition to leftism.</I><BR/><BR/>That alliance was forged during the decades where Democrats controlled Congress; since whoever controls the state naturally wants to increase the state's power, libertarians have a natural affinity for the opposition party. The 6 years of Republican control of both Congress and the presidency split the libertarian factions, whose differences were hidden by the politics of the 90s. A lot of debates, on subjects such as corporate regulation, environmentalism, and health care, are still divided along these lines, but 9/11 and the Iraq war brought foreign policy and the security state to the forefront of discussion.<BR/><BR/>Reynolds libertarians continue reading and believing conservative media, which consists mainly of apologies for fascism and assaults on the credibility of the "liberal" media, that is its competition. They believe (delusionally) that radical Islam is a greater threat to liberty than an executive branch with unlimited power; Henley libertarians believe the opposite, and reject and mock conservative media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-66718577896940901092007-08-27T21:41:00.000-07:002007-08-27T21:41:00.000-07:00tggp, consequentialism is a silly, silly, doctrine...tggp, consequentialism is a silly, silly, doctrine. If the policies you recommend have nothing more to say for them then that you "like them," then why bother talking about them at all? People who already like them already like them, and to people who don't, you have nothing to say whatsoever.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-22860089121111067662007-08-27T21:37:00.000-07:002007-08-27T21:37:00.000-07:00"I am, or used to be, interested in the psychology..."I am, or used to be, interested in the psychology of libertarianism. It seemed to be a deeply geeky ideology, fueled by a desire to replace the complex and scary real world with a simple distributed algorithm."<BR/><BR/>Wow! I've always thought statism was fueled by a desire to replace the complex and scary real world with one in which a benevolent, wise "God-on-earth" could be trusted to substitute for and improve the spontaneous interactions of free people.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-16416594184774642372007-08-27T16:46:00.000-07:002007-08-27T16:46:00.000-07:00Also, I think your schema is a bit off. There are ...Also, I think your schema is a bit off. There are plenty of Hayek/Burke/Popper style libertarians averse to Cartesian rationalism and constructing mental castles in the sky. Jerry Pournelle made rationalism and statism the two orthogonal axis in his <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart" REL="nofollow">political chart</A>, which wrongly classifies Stirner as a Rand-style rationalist (in Der Ego he makes clear he will act on whim to the point of disregarding prior commitments and he never actually lays out any basis for the rest of society other than possibly his Union of Egoists which may include such things as two friends going for a walk).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-55723838034818433942007-08-27T16:30:00.000-07:002007-08-27T16:30:00.000-07:00Levitt is not a libertarian. I believe he endorsed...Levitt is <A HREF="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/05/levitt_libertar.html" REL="nofollow">not</A> a libertarian. I believe he endorsed Barack Obama for president, and he was attacked by John Lott (who considers me a sort of libertarian crackpot) in Freedomnomics for being anti-market (a judgement I don't agree with). Hanson has <A HREF="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/professing-and-.html#comment-78345386" REL="nofollow">denied</A> being a libertarian economist as well.<BR/><BR/>I'm a fan of Radley Balko's blog as well. I hate Bush, and like a good paleo I'm an isolationist. At the same time I'm an amoral consequentialist. I believe freedom leads to good things (which as an emotivist means I like them and nothing more) and to the extent that it doesn't I'm not all that in favor of it. I'm a Stirnerite but not an anarchist, which may seem odd but Sidney Parker was as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com