I just read, over the course of several days, #SlateStarCodex's [“Non-Libertarian FAQ”](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-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 That FAQ looks very interesting, I will read it in full with an open mind.
@fidel
👍
Very interested in your thoughts.
@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
@fidel
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…
