in which brute says things about libertarianism

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Post Reply
BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:57 pm

Hobbes wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:15 pm
Both China and India have far too many people right now; India's population is, in fact, still growing.
both will reach their peaks soon, and then start leveling out.

both are cases of extreme government meddling with child birth rates.

brute recommends the book "The Coming Population Crash".

Hobbes
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:39 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:57 pm
Hobbes wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:15 pm
Both China and India have far too many people right now; India's population is, in fact, still growing.
both will reach their peaks soon, and then start leveling out.

both are cases of extreme government meddling with child birth rates.

brute recommends the book "The Coming Population Crash".
I read an interview of the author on Salon, and he raised a number of goods points. But one thing that seem rather weak concerned Africa. He noted that contraception was weak there, and implied that cultural changes in the West (feminism + female labor participation) was weak there, thereby leading the higher birthrates. Yet he didn't mention (in the article I read, anyway) ways that could be helpful in reducing fertility rates there. Did he mention more in the book?

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:22 am

brute doesn't remember much about Africa from the book. it's been a few years. the most striking examples brute remembers were India and China.

brute would say that the goal is never to "reduce fertility rates". high fertility rates are a reaction to high chance of death and economic uncertainty. pretty universally, they drop within one generation when a certain economic and therefore medical standard is reached.

brute is absolutely not worried about overpopulation of humans on this planet.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5124
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:22 am

BRUTE" wrote:and has 7Wannabe5 thought about what the alternative would be? a system in which humans are made to have children because some authority determined they're not having enough?
I am clearly not doing a very good job of making my point. I tested as being even more Libertarian than you or Riggerjack :lol: I am definitely not in favor of extension of authority. However, I have spent a good deal of time in caretaker roles or dealing with the general population, as opposed to just other members of the adult work-force. So, my perspective is absolutely that self-aware, self-care is first priority. Put on your own oxygen mask first, of course, but then what? What do you do second?

The ethics of permaculture are a bit more murky-ground than the principles. Some people say that "Fair share" is one of the ethics. I don't. I am with the people who say the ethic is "Share your excess." Think about it. Nobody has a problem with sharing a bumper crop of zucchini, quite the opposite :lol: What are the feelings a person might be experiencing when they believe they have no excess to share?

This is something I think everyone engaged in ERE should consider, because there has to be some sort of tipping point balance between taking care of not just you in the present, but also you in the future, vs. taking care of your greater environment in the present, inclusive of social relationships.

And I am suggesting this because I am a person who is interested in systems theory. NOT because I am any kind of Pollyanna Perfect myself in this regard. I spend a sh*tload of time engaged in activities of very little use to anybody, including myself. For instance, watching "So You Think You Can Dance" while eating pudding.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:47 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:22 am
I tested as being even more Libertarian than you or Riggerjack :lol:
brute is doubtful. brute was more libertarian than the test.

this problems seems orthogonal to libertarianism. libertarianism says that force should not be used. what should be done or how it should be done in absence of force might be important, but is not necessarily within the realm of libertarianism.

that's why there are left-libertarians, conservative libertarians, and many more, all within their own ideas on various axes of what should be done by whom and how.

Jean
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 am

It is not libertarian at all to produce cheap stuffs at the expense of my biosphere. According to libertarian principles we all own the parts of the planet that have a role in climate regulation, bringing clean water where it always brought clean water, keeping the air breathable, because enjoying them is giving them a value and creating ownership rights on it.
As according to libertarian principles, one's right to not have his property dammaged by others, trumps producing cheap stuff. A libertarian group of human should be actively fighting against all the other humans polluting in some way.
To me, this is an elephant in the room, that nobody addresses. I don't know if force is the right way to fight this destruction of my property, but I would very much like to stop it.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:47 am

brute agrees that libertarianism is against the practice of imposing negative externalities on others.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by ThisDinosaur » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:48 am

BRUTE wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:47 pm
libertarianism says that force should not be used.
Never?

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:52 pm

Jean wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 am
It is not libertarian at all to produce cheap stuffs at the expense of OUR biosphere.
BRUTE wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:47 am
brute agrees that libertarianism is against the practice of imposing negative externalities on others.
Agreed. The ideal of personal responsibility is not worth much if everyone is dead. Although the current Libertarian Party platform is of the drill baby drill mantra. Not reasonable of the supposedly “reasonable” party.
BRUTE wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:47 pm
libertarianism says that force should not be used.
I disagree with the non-interventionist/non-violent-at-all-costs policy of libertarianism as it is understood. It lacks understanding of the necessity of force in Realpolitik. Not only are conflicts unavoidable between nation-states, but they are constantly occurring within them amongst groups and individuals. The whole world would have to be one country, and the proportion of personal responsibility idealists as a contingent of the whole population would have to increase dramatically.

I suspect that in a truly libertarian society, violence may even increase. Which is why it may be impractical as a political philosophy. Unless you consider a Wild Wild West preferable. Maybe it is preferable. If violence is unavoidable, why not encourage fair play?....

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:11 am

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:48 am
BRUTE wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:47 pm
libertarianism says that force should not be used.
Never?
only in self defense or when a credible threat is posed.
Mister Imperceptible wrote: Unless you consider a Wild Wild West preferable.
the wild west wasn't actually very violent. guns and bullets were far too expensive. most humans diet from poverty more than from being riddled by bad humans with guns.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 am

BRUTE wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:11 am
only in self defense or when a credible threat is posed.
Preemptive action is often necessitated. Rome’s dominance of the Italian Peninsula was really just the result of trying to survive against rival cities. They had to destroy Carthage- if they did not, Carthage would have destroyed them. They didn’t want Gaul but were constantly having to keep the Gauls at bay (see sack of 390BCE). The Romans wanted no part of Greece but were forced to take it because the region was constantly unstable and the Selucids were encroaching.

Look at the Cold War and the jockeying for spheres of influence. US, Russia, and China are still doing this today. The Middle East is the current most frequent host of the proxy wars. What we do not take, they will.

Credible threats arise ceaselessly. I wish there was another way.

I do not know what we are moving toward. If not mutual annihilation as a result of war or species extinction as a result of climate change, the alternative is the entire world becoming one nation-state, likely under some oppressive and horrific hive mind.

Unless power and technology are so democratized that we can attain some libertarian utopia. But that seems so unlikely, because power usually consolidates, and most people are followers.

Better hurry up and colonize space. Staying on Earth is like being 100% invested in stocks :(

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11335
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:15 am

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 am
Credible threats arise ceaselessly. I wish there was another way.
https://www.preceden.com/timelines/71548-european-wars

There hasn't been a European (inter-contry) war for 73 years now which is the longest running interval that continent has ever gone without a war. Currently, most Europeans alive have never experienced war as adults, which is highly unusual from a historical perspective.

Much of this has been attributed to deliberate post-WWII design beginning with the ECSC (in 1951) and the EEC (1957) and now the EU: The idea being to replace national independence and dependencies---thought to be the source of conflict---with supranational interdependencies via the common market/taking down customs barriers.

So, there is another way ... but like with all things, I think many Europeans have lost track of the original objective of avoiding war.
That includes both those who want to break it apart and those who want to accrete evermore power to Bruxelles.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:25 am

@JLF

Do you think Putin would play nice with Europe if the US did not have Europe’s back?

daylen
Posts: 1163
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by daylen » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:27 am

I do not think that there will be a unifying power on earth for a long time. Earth is just too big, and human culture is too diverse.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:30 am

@daylen

I agree, it would take centuries or millennia. Until then I gladly pay taxes to fund the military so we can all enjoy Netflix.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11335
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:00 am

@MI - Russia has expressed interest in joining the EU since the end of the cold war. It would make a lot of sense to join at least the economic side of it. The EU is Russia's greatest trading partner and Russia is also pretty up there on the EU list of trading partners (like top 5 along with the US and China), primarily because of the EU's reliance on gas imports, which brings me to the Great Game.

Such an alliance would shift world power significantly rivaling that of the US. Since the US depends on being the dominant world power (all those energy imports), it's not in the US interest for this to happen. Hence all the covert coup mess in the Ukraine. Why Ukraine? Same reason for why Syria. They're choke points for gas pipelines destined for European consumers coming Russia and the ME respectively. Otherwise, there would be no point in either the US nor Russia sending troops or missiles. There are of course many ways to run a gas line from Russia to Europe, so over time those will probably be built and alleviate conflict in the current areas.

Given Trump's statements/behavior, I get the impression that many Europeans no longer count on the US having their back. This could change again once Trump leaves office, but maybe not. I think Europeans would still prefer the US over Russia. OTOH, polling shows that Europeans have more confidence in Putin than in Trump wrt world affairs and more think that the US is currently the greater threat to world peace than Russia.

The Ukraine/US snafu + the special(?) case of Trump's behavior on the international scene kinda leaves it up in the air for the time being.
Lots of uncertainty which of course some people thrive on.

However, it's not a given that the pieces will fall down in the same pattern they flew up in.

For example, a possible new pattern: With Russia out in the cold (wrt EU) for now and the US trying to can world institutions (WTO, IMF, Swift,..) and the US trying to start a trade war with China (and the EU), it's also possible that Russia will shift to China. China has been consolidating and building replacement institutions left and right. If so, Russia could start sending their gas east instead of west. This is already beginning with deals not being made in dollars. Europe would then be up shit creek needing to import gas from the US (via LNG and shale).

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:25 am

@JLF

I’m not suggesting in anyway that the US is morally superior. But I am here in the US, not in Europe or Russia, and I think it says something that people in other countries still prefer migrating to the US rather than elsewhere. I think it would be myopic to focus on the Trump Effect. It’s very easy for everyone to read Trump’s mean tweets and get whipped into a frenzy. Obama was “a really nice and chill dude” who also happened to authorize a lot of drone strikes, but I did not hear anything about Europe questioning the US then.

If Europeans want to move to Moscow and see how far they can improve their life by dint of effort, they are of course free to do so.

But circling back, I do not see any end to the Great Game, and therefore doubt that non-interventionism as espoused by libertarians is practical.

Jean
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:49 am

Usa having europe's back:
https://www.nordlys.no/usa-skulle-slipp ... ommentArea
Us airforce planned to nuke northern norway to stop the soviet army. I don't think NATO is actually protecting european interests. USA led war only create problems for us.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11335
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:24 pm

@MI - In terms of foreign-born percentage of the population, the US is not spectacular. It appears on top because of sheer size, but it looks unremarkable if you split state-by-state. The chance of running into an immigrant in the US (14%) is lower than e.g. Australia (28%), Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Israel, New Zealand, Canada (22%), Croatia, Ireland, and Germany(15%), amongst others. Not that percentage is more indicative of where people would rather emigrate to, but I don't think it's warranted to claim that the US is the #1 destination because of the sum total of immigrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... population (sort by total population)

Probably better to look at how many are leaving. In that sense, the US is one of the lowest % in the world of people leaving, but Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Japan and China are lower still.

So I don't think we can conclude much...

Back to the point... I also doubt libertarian non-interventionism will work because it's pretty much a return to the pre-Westphalian days where the local Duke or Warlord would impose his will on the countryside according to the number of knights he could afford. The chance of dying violently in those times were about 10%. Fun wild west stuff.

My point in my first response is that the international institutions as espoused and designed by globalists (as in the liberal world order) actually has worked to prevent armed conflict between its participating nation states for an unusually large number of decades by historic standards. I also mentioned the IMF and GATT/WTO, ... systems which intentionally came out of the Bretton Woods agreement---the US led project to stabilize the post-WWII world. That also worked well.

Two people are less likely to engage in conflict if their wellbeing depends on them collaborating. Fundamentally, by setting up an interdependence, you prevent the "ratting" strategy in the prisoner's dilemma. This is why spouses are less likely to rat on each other than neighbors. In concrete terms, the main idea was to prevent a future conflict between Germany and France (hence the coal union) by marrying their economies. Not to prevent either or both of them from being invaded by Russia.

We have of course also had NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Those alliances are different in kind because that was a stand off between two independent units with minimal internal collaboration (compared to open trade). While it's hard to know, I think the threat of mutually assured destruction had a lot to do with preventing WWIII.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:59 pm

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 am
Preemptive action is often necessitated.
brute is not convinced this is true.

to be honest, brute is torn on foreign policy intuitively he doesn't believe that aggressive war (like the US currently wages, or others Mister Imperceptible has mentioned) are ever justified, necessary, or even net positive.

on the other hand, a lot of humans brute otherwise agrees a lot with (Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens) are a lot more hawkish and make similar arguments. the US is often brought up as an example of how hawkism is positive/necessary, but there are plenty of periods in US history when the US was very non-inverventionist and still didn't get conquered.

in fact, brute believes that the form of government/army doesn't necessarily have that big an impact on being conquered. in WWII, France got owned pretty quickly BECAUSE they had an extremely centralized government and army - easy to cut the head off and take over. Switzerland, which only has a small army but a big militia culture and a ton of mountains, positioned itself as to not be a valuable target to be conquered.

it could be said that the US has never been conquered because there is a bunch of water in front of it. even if an enemy army landed, it would be impossible to control a population with 300 million guns. that the US also had a military might not make such a big difference for defense.

so brute thinks it depends on what the goal is. is the goal to project power, advance national/economic/political interests? then concentrated military power is necessary. is the goal not be be conquered? hedgehog tactics like Switzerland or pre-WWII USA might be better suited.

the next thing is economics. many wars are won by being richer. this is essentially how the US has won every war since 1900. if not having a centralized, standing army increases GDP growth by 1%, then in the long run, it will become easier and easier to defend versus countries wasting money on armies.

and nothing says that a libertarian society would not have a bigger or better army than the same society with a central government. theoretically, a libertarian society could decide that security is so important to them that they would spend way more money (and they'd have way more) than their state would've. it is hard to imagine maybe, but totally possible.

so brute isn't quite as sure on foreign policy as he is on other libertarian topics that are much easier to figure out. but he's not convinced, from a historical perspective or in principle, that a centralized government/army typically yields better results than no, especially when all else is not equal and it comes at the expense of other strategies.

as such, Mister Imperceptible's statements like "pay taxes to watch Netflix" are non-sequiturs. brute could also say he likes to pull sick wheelies for world peace, but there is simply no sufficient causal relation.
Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 am
I do not know what we are moving toward. If not mutual annihilation as a result of war or species extinction as a result of climate change, the alternative is the entire world becoming one nation-state, likely under some oppressive and horrific hive mind.
brute thinks this is an important point that most humans that are not libertarians get confused on, including most of the modern pro-Euro humans.
Bastiat wrote:If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.
as mentioned by DLj, economic interdependence or trade leads to peace. this is because trade is a positive-sum game. both parties of a voluntary transaction benefit from it, otherwise it would not happen. it is thus in both parties' egoistic interest not to start a war with the other side.

on the other hand, politics is mostly a zero-sum game. the EU is actually a hugely negative-sum game, because of the massive bureaucratic overhead. many European humans have realized this now, and are voting against it. (in fact, brute believes no European nation has ever held a referendum that ended up voting FOR the EU, but plenty that voted against - he doesn't know too much about this though).

if the EU enacts a law, this takes away freedoms from France's citizens. if the EU takes from Germany and gives to Greece, there are losers to the transaction.

thus the conflation of all things EU is very distracting. brute is very much pro European (or world, for that matter) free trade, but he is very much against a super-national (or any, for that matter) government. government leads to mostly zero-sum thinking. trade leads to positive-sum thinking.

this is why brute thinks Brexit is great IF they manage to establish free trade outside of the EU treaties.

being pro-Europe and pro-EU-political-body are two very different things, but it is in the interest of the EU bureaucracy to conflate the two. just like it is in the interest of US pro-governmentalists to insist that being against forceful taxation is equal to hating poor humans.

Post Reply