I just read, over the course of several days, #SlateStarCodex’s “Non-Libertarian FAQ” (years ago I had only skimmed it).
It is a brilliant text, as usual, and it reminded me why although I read and flirt at times with different ideologies I remain mostly a #moderate — why I don’t call myself a #libertarian or an #anarchocapitalist; but rather someone with libertarian sympathies, or perhaps a (classic) #liberal.
It reminded me why absolute #libertarianism or #anarchism as ideologies and moral systems, in particular, may feel rational, coherent, complete and desirable… without being any of those things.
Which does not imply, of course, that some specific governments nowadays would not do better by moving closer to the libertarian pole!
@tripu I'm still reading through it, already planning a longer-form blog post with some counterarguments, but for now I will leave here this anecdotal evidence that made me chuckle and facepalm today: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1488988253411708931
That seems embarrassing, and I’ve been hearing about the sclerosis of #SanFrancisco for a while, too.
But I feel that proving a non-libertarian wrong in the abstract is indeed very difficult: #ScottAlexander is not arguing that governments and public agencies are always everywhere better than the private sector at everything they set to do — he’s showing that they are not always_worse_. This is intuitively obvious; ie none of the two extremes (absolute statism or #anarchocapitalism) is desirable.
If you’re a moderate, a centrist, or even a #minarchist, this comes as no surprise — no matter how many outrageous pieces of evidence you can collect to illustrate that “the other side” is sometimes inefficient, expensive, or even harmful…
@fidel But I’m very interested in that post in the making! :)
@tripu Yes, Scott's main point is that freedom cannot be absolute, there are other things of value to human life to balance, and of course I agree with that.
He makes many good points, that's for sure. My main disagreements come from Scott ignoring statistics that are pro-libertarian (I didn't see any mentions to Hong Kong or Singapore for example), and also because he thinks he can know what's best for everyone, which is a dangerous road to walk (and lead us to our current present).
I guess I should wait for your post to engage with your arguments in full, but I’d say that if “our current present” [sic] is your Exhibit A, then by all means bring it on. I mean that the world in 2022 (or at least my world in 2022) is freaking awesome — whatever level the knob of #libertarianism is at, it can’t be that far from the optimum.
Also, I think that unless one is a moral relativist, sure there are some things we all should agree are good or bad for human beings in general. Those few things should be the scope of public policies, government, taxation and (I’ll say it) even coercion. Isn’t that just a corollary of “freedom cannot be absolute”? I don’t think Scott (or any one person) is saying he personally knows what’s best for everyone: of course hard limits on personal freedom should be discussed publicly, implemented carefully, kept to a minimum, and grounded in science, philosophy, History, etc.
@tripu That FAQ looks very interesting, I will read it in full with an open mind.