Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I doubt this observation is original.  I even doubt that I'd find this interesting if I weren't sleepy.  However, it's clear that both Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw, namely that human beings are rational actors who can rationally determine what is in their own best interest.  The only real difference is that libertarians hold that the best interest is best determined at the individual level and communists that it is best determined collectively.  So feel free to discuss as I head off to the Land of Nod.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     When I saw the topic title, I thought that this would be the observation. I think it is worth mentioning though that this applies to the ideas carried out to their logical ends. Many adherents of both ideologies have moderated their ideas to include for some (in the case of Communism, a lot) governmental role.

[SPC]

If libertarianism were a utopian ideology, this would be true. However, libertarians recognize that this is not always true. However, libertarians do believe that individuals are generally more apt to rationally determine what is in their own best interest than a group of strangers that have less investment in the situation at hand. Unless one is a pure nihilist, one need not subscribe to the fallacy of individual rationality to devise a social system based on the idea that some people would be better at making certain decisions than others.

Libertarians believe Peter is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life than Paul, communists believe Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life if Paul has been selected by the politburo, absolute monarchists believe Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life if Paul has been ordained by divine right, and the median American voter believes that the taller of Peter and Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life for short intervals of time.

[AggregateDemand]

I doubt this observation is original.  I even doubt that I'd find this interesting if I weren't sleepy.  However, it's clear that both Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw, namely that human beings are rational actors who can rationally determine what is in their own best interest.  The only real difference is that libertarians hold that the best interest is best determined at the individual level and communists that it is best determined collectively.  So feel free to discuss as I head off to the Land of Nod.

Human beings do not act rationally; therefore, we will appoint a few people to impose their boundless irrationality on the rest of us. If you're not a rational thinker, capable of self-governance, how can you possibly pick someone to govern yourself?

I'm not convinced it's libertarians who are missing the point. You can create whatever conventions and illusions you want. Some are more useful than others, but you'll never be able to give away responsibility for your own life and sense of well-being.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I doubt this observation is original.  I even doubt that I'd find this interesting if I weren't sleepy.  However, it's clear that both Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw, namely that human beings are rational actors who can rationally determine what is in their own best interest.  The only real difference is that libertarians hold that the best interest is best determined at the individual level and communists that it is best determined collectively.  So feel free to discuss as I head off to the Land of Nod.

Human beings do not act rationally; therefore, we will appoint a few people to impose their boundless irrationality on the rest of us. If you're not a rational thinker, capable of self-governance, how can you possibly pick someone to govern yourself?

I'm not convinced it's libertarians who are missing the point. You can create whatever conventions and illusions you want. Some are more useful than others, but you'll never be able to give away responsibility for your own life and sense of well-being.

AggregateDemand, just curious: do you believe societies exist?

[Indy Texas]

Hardcore libertarians never get around the issue of imperfect information and of transaction costs.

Rather than have environmental regulations that we all have to abide by and that a small fraction of our tax dollars go to pay to enforce, they'd rather we all sue each other every time someone pollutes. Never mind the time and money involved, and the fact that the polluters (major corporations) would automatically have more resources to prevent this than Joe Somebody who makes $40K a year and can't pay a retainer and $500/hr attorney bills.

[King]

Human beings do not act rationally; therefore, we will appoint a few people to impose their boundless irrationality on the rest of us. If you're not a rational thinker, capable of self-governance, how can you possibly pick someone to govern yourself?

You inadvertently answered your own conundrum. People are rational thinkers. People are not rational actors.

Exam drug rehabilitation clinics. Every patient entered because they know they have a drug addiction. They know it is bad for their well-being. They know they need to curtail it. The question is, if they know, why are they paying a clinic a large sum of money to enforce this knowledge upon them? Because while they can rationally think, they cannot always rationally act upon their thoughts in moments of actual decision making.

People know if they do not exercise every day it is bad for their health. People know if they do not eat fruits and vegetables it is bad for their health. Nobody wants to be obese. Nobody wants to have heart disease. Nobody wants to die young. Yet people consistently make these decisions against themselves to their own dismay and regret.

Despite our best efforts to separate ourselves from the animal kingdom, we are still at our core bound to instinctive neurological reactions of pleasure and pain. This is why we need society. We do not feel the instantaneous pleasure or pain when the decision making is for others. Those are the decisions that are most clear, most robotic, and most rational.

This is why in all human activity the most successful are those who rely on pacts as opposed to unilateral action. Corporations outperform sole-proprietorships. Man without society is an ogre.

[AggregateDemand]

You inadvertently answered your own conundrum. People are rational thinkers. People are not rational actors.

Voting is an act so.......

[AggregateDemand]

Hardcore libertarians never get around the issue of imperfect information and of transaction costs.

Rather than have environmental regulations that we all have to abide by and that a small fraction of our tax dollars go to pay to enforce, they'd rather we all sue each other every time someone pollutes. Never mind the time and money involved, and the fact that the polluters (major corporations) would automatically have more resources to prevent this than Joe Somebody who makes $40K a year and can't pay a retainer and $500/hr attorney bills.

Libertarians don't support anarchism. If civil litigation is untenable, which is usually the case for many large scale societal issues, legislation is pragmatic and more free. The arguments against the EPA are against an independent agency, beyond the purview of Congress and representative democracy.

What libertarians reject is the senseless notion that legislation exists because human beings lack the mechanisms or capacity for self-governance. Therefore, the government needs to tighten restrictions and increase punishments, as if Uncle Sam were a joyless, single, bitter head mistress of a totalitarian Catholic school for girls.

[King]

You inadvertently answered your own conundrum. People are rational thinkers. People are not rational actors.

Voting is an act so.......

Aww, poor baby couldn't even come up with a complete sentence against my post.

[AggregateDemand]

AggregateDemand, just curious: do you believe societies exist?

There is no instinct within human-beings that causes 300M people, spread over 3.8M square miles to self-identify with a common set of rules and cultural virtues.

Society is an invention, created and nurtured to by individuals who see the benefits of common culture and mutually beneficial cooperation. But reality is "I'm the one who's got to die when it's time for me to die so let me live my life the way I want to".

For some reason, people in our society seek to make people believe that the United States and other pan-continental forms of cooperation are the default setting for mankind, and economic behavior, which cuts across all cultures, religions, and creeds is actually some sort of conspiracy, not one of the great discoveries of modern man.  

May God have mercy on their worthless souls.

[AggregateDemand]

Aww, poor baby couldn't even come up with a complete sentence against my post.

Upon discovering the obvious error in your logic, you lash out against sentence fragments.

You really need someone to guide you through this difficult life, don't you?

[King]

Aww, poor baby couldn't even come up with a complete sentence against my post.

Upon discovering the obvious error in your logic, you lash out against sentence fragments.

You really need someone to guide you through this difficult life, don't you?

Voting is not an act in sense of what we are talking about here. You vote based on ideology which is based on your thoughts of what ideally you believe society should be. You do not get an instantaneous response from the act of voting. If you do not vote for a winning candidate, you do not even get a delayed response from the act of voting.

This is all conjecture of course. "Voting is an act so......." is such a non-thought that I am basically forced to come up with your argument for you and respond to it.

Holding an amazing academic genius of your caliber to such a fragmented confused blabble of a response is about as close as one can get to winning an argument versus someone of your arrogance.

[Deus Naturae]

SPC has it right. On top of what he said, I'd add that there are some people who are prone to making bad decisions, but insulating them from the consequences of these decisions only serves to aggravate the prevalence of poor decision-making. In the words of Herbert Spencer, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools."

[AggregateDemand]

Voting is not an act in sense of what we are talking about here. You vote based on ideology which is based on your thoughts of what ideally you believe society should be. You do not get an instantaneous response from the act of voting. If you do not vote for a winning candidate, you do not even get a delayed response from the act of voting.

This is all conjecture of course. "Voting is an act so......." is such a non-thought that I am basically forced to come up with your argument for you and respond to it.

Holding an amazing academic genius of your caliber to such a fragmented confused blabble of a response is about as close as one can get to winning an argument versus someone of your arrogance.

You embraced strict delineation between actions and thoughts. Upon learning that the delineation is of no value, you retreat to conceptual connotation.

Perhaps it would be acceptable, if we were speaking in colloquialisms and connotative political concepts, but the annotative difference between thought and action was literally your entire argument. A stupid one to boot, since it supposes mutual exclusivity between thoughts and actions. Basically, you're mad because I didn't pile on to the full extent, which suggests you have masochistic tendencies.

Maybe that's why you're a blue avatar, though you clearly subscribe to every specious utterance every offered by the Democratic Party. But I digress. You'll have to get that sorted on your own.

[DC Al Fine]

Hardcore libertarians never get around the issue of imperfect information and of transaction costs.

Rather than have environmental regulations that we all have to abide by and that a small fraction of our tax dollars go to pay to enforce, they'd rather we all sue each other every time someone pollutes. Never mind the time and money involved, and the fact that the polluters (major corporations) would automatically have more resources to prevent this than Joe Somebody who makes $40K a year and can't pay a retainer and $500/hr attorney bills.

I've heard a couple libertarians argue for environmental regulation for the same reasons that they criticize anarcho-capitalism. That is, the poor cannot do anything about someone harming them or their property, so the state must step in.

[SPC]

Hardcore libertarians never get around the issue of imperfect information and of transaction costs.

Rather than have environmental regulations that we all have to abide by and that a small fraction of our tax dollars go to pay to enforce, they'd rather we all sue each other every time someone pollutes. Never mind the time and money involved, and the fact that the polluters (major corporations) would automatically have more resources to prevent this than Joe Somebody who makes $40K a year and can't pay a retainer and $500/hr attorney bills.

I would question how having a set of bureaucrats thousands of miles away from the scene in question setting arbitrary dictates about which practices are safe solves the problem of imperfect information.

As for the wealthy having greater resources, I would refer you to the concept of regulatory capture.

Human beings do not act rationally; therefore, we will appoint a few people to impose their boundless irrationality on the rest of us. If you're not a rational thinker, capable of self-governance, how can you possibly pick someone to govern yourself?

You inadvertently answered your own conundrum. People are rational thinkers. People are not rational actors.

Exam drug rehabilitation clinics. Every patient entered because they know they have a drug addiction. They know it is bad for their well-being. They know they need to curtail it. The question is, if they know, why are they paying a clinic a large sum of money to enforce this knowledge upon them? Because while they can rationally think, they cannot always rationally act upon their thoughts in moments of actual decision making.

Are you seriously comparing the problems that face society to drug addiction? Do you honestly think that those advocating tax cuts sincerely believe that tax hikes are the key to economic prosperity, but solely due to self-control issues cannot help but advocate the opposite viewpoint as a matter of public policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is a philosophy earnestly arguing against society (perhaps you are thinking of anarcho-primitivism?), then your argument would make sense. Of course, that is not as conducive for your conflation of society with state compulsion.

As far as the drug/fast food addict analogy holds, the flaw breaks down when you consider that the rational thinker/irrational actor voluntarily submits to rehabilitation in an attempt to have an external locus of control wean him off of his self-destructive behavior (Of course, the very nature of such a problem accepting an external locus of control leads to a high relapse rate, but let us ignore that for the time being). Thus, the analogy does not hold, unless you accede that everyone voluntarily relinquishes their freedom to a select group of bureaucrats, on the basis that they cannot rationally decide how to manage their own affairs. This is a stretch even by the standards of social contract theory.

[King]

You embraced strict delineation between actions and thoughts. Upon learning that the delineation is of no value, you retreat to conceptual connotation.

I have not learned anything from you in this exchange, because you've said nothing. You have said nothing to suggest that it is because you have no argument. Your posts just reek of "I don't have a real response. Maybe if I say a witty one liner and call him stupid, he'll back off."

Are you seriously comparing the problems that face society to drug addiction? Do you honestly think that those advocating tax cuts sincerely believe that tax hikes are the key to economic prosperity, but solely due to self-control issues cannot help but advocate the opposite viewpoint as a matter of public policy?

This may come as a shock, but there are issues in society that are not taxes and have nothing to do with taxes. If you're a libertarian because you don't want to pay taxes, you're in it for the wrong reason. You can have a communist/totalitarian/whatever-you-want-it-to-be state with no taxes. Fiscally conservative government policy can be rationally thought out. Advocating a viewpoint in the academic sense like "low taxes would sincerely be good for our economy" is NOT an action.

If there is a philosophy earnestly arguing against society (perhaps you are thinking of anarcho-primitivism?), then your argument would make sense. Of course, that is not as conducive for your conflation of society with state compulsion.

As far as the drug/fast food addict analogy holds, the flaw breaks down when you consider that the rational thinker/irrational actor voluntarily submits to rehabilitation in an attempt to have an external locus of control wean him off of his self-destructive behavior (Of course, the very nature of such a problem accepting an external locus of control leads to a high relapse rate, but let us ignore that for the time being). Thus, the analogy does not hold, unless you accede that everyone voluntarily relinquishes their freedom to a select group of bureaucrats, on the basis that they cannot rationally decide how to manage their own affairs. This is a stretch even by the standards of social contract theory.

Yes, yes! I accede this! It is not a stretch. Normal people who aren't arrogant blowhards with their head up their own asses like ITT do not genuinely believe they can rationally manage their own affairs! I do not believe this of myself! There are other people that are better at me at performing certain tasks in my interest. There are other people out there that are more knowledgeable of the anatomy my own body that I entrust with medical decisions, there are better public speakers in law firms I trust on my behalf in the court of law, there are business managers better at managing my work schedule and financial advisers more adept with my 401(k). I went to school to learn rather than teach myself! It's true! It's all true!

As a social member, my management of my own affairs is a management of the management my own affairs. Much of my decision making is simply delegation of the decision to someone else! Many of these delegations are to private businesses but some may be to the government. I admit it! I am not a mountain man who is self-reliant in the woods! The horror of me!!!

[AggregateDemand]

I have not learned anything from you in this exchange, because you've said nothing. You have said nothing to suggest that it is because you have no argument. Your posts just reek of "I don't have a real response. Maybe if I say a witty one liner and call him stupid, he'll back off."

You insinuated that elections and the act of voting is a thought. Beginning. Middle. End.

Regarding the point of my original post, I was echoing what SPC said. If humans lack the ability to operate a rational self-interest creatures, they are also incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses.

[anvi]

If we're taking Marx to be a sort of cornerstone of Communist thought, then I don't think the comparison holds. Marx didn't appear to believe in some abstracted notion of individual human nature to begin with, but that that human nature changes with social and material conditions and with reference to the totality of social relations.  He also appears to believe that human beings, as natural creatures, primarily acted out of needs and drives, instincts and tendencies.  They could be rational, but rationality itself, along with "self-interest," was an outgrowth of social and economic forces that have emerged in history, rather than some essential human endowment.  In that sense, Communists and Libertarians have very different conceptions of what human beings are form the start.

[King]

Regarding the point of my original post, I was echoing what SPC said. If humans like the ability to operate a rational self-interest creatures, they are also incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses.

They are incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses. That's why they don't do it.

The people of the American colonies did not found the United States of America. They delegated the responsibility of nation building to the Founding Fathers and entrusted in them full authority to establish a system of governance and laws. The entire people themselves, all acting irrationally in their own self-interest and partial knowledge, would never be able to reach a conclusion. The appointed founders themselves barely did.

This is why our democratic system designed by the Constitution and all functioning democratic systems in the world (including private enterprises) are all a series of delegation chains. The people appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives. Why would we do this? Because the individual man is not good enough to do everything himself and to think otherwise is pure hubris and pure arrogance.

This isn't some gotcha you have here. This is not some logical fallacy. This is reality. This is how a properly functioning government is held together. This is how the human body is held together. This is the nature of capitalism as well.

The real irony here is that occupations of people like AggregateDemand and SouthParkConservative tend to skew toward financial adviser or investment banker, occupations which would not exist if their beliefs that people were acting in their own rational self interest all of the time were true. "Here is all of this money I make, please tend to it for me so that I do not lose it all and die a starving poor." White collar jobs are built on the people's lack of total self-control and imperfect information surrounding their own lives.

[Deus Naturae]

Monarch, I think you are strawmanning libertarians. We don't oppose voluntary cooperation between individuals or claim that everyone is purely selfish (though in your financial advisor example, both parties are acting in self-interest; their interests are simply aligned). What libertarians oppose is government interference with precisely this kind of voluntary, mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, individuals who delegate certain parts of their lives to other parties do so because they, as individuals, have decided that they that aspect of their life is better managed by others. Contrast this to the government which decides it knows how to manage people's lives better whether they agree or not.

[AggregateDemand]

They are incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses. That's why they don't do it.

The people of the American colonies did not found the United States of America. They delegated the responsibility of nation building to the Founding Fathers and entrusted in them full authority to establish a system of governance and laws. The entire people themselves, all acting irrationally in their own self-interest and partial knowledge, would never be able to reach a conclusion. The appointed founders themselves barely did.

This is why our democratic system designed by the Constitution and all functioning democratic systems in the world (including private enterprises) are all a series of delegation chains. The people appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives who appoint representatives. Why would we do this? Because the individual man is not good enough to do everything himself and to think otherwise is pure hubris and pure arrogance.

This isn't some gotcha you have here. This is not some logical fallacy. This is reality. This is how a properly functioning government is held together. This is how the human body is held together. This is the nature of capitalism as well.

The real irony here is that occupations of people like AggregateDemand and SouthParkConservative tend to skew toward financial adviser or investment banker, occupations which would not exist if their beliefs that people were acting in their own rational self interest all of the time were true. "Here is all of this money I make, please tend to it for me so that I do not lose it all and die a starving poor." White collar jobs are built on the people's lack of total self-control and imperfect information surrounding their own lives.

The founding fathers created government to avoid the anarchy of populous-wide political negotiations, not because people are irrational and incapable of making decisions for themselves. Furthermore, the average person cannot conduct themselves in the course of daily life, and know all of the intimate details of politics.

The same is true of my profession and the professions of other white collar specialists. The average man cannot keep track of legislation and capital markets, and perform his/her chosen trade.

The irrational tendencies of mankind are not involved.This is just basic specialization of duties.

[King]

Also, individuals who delegate certain parts of their lives to other parties do so because they, as individuals, have decided that they that aspect of their life is better managed by others. Contrast this to the government which decides it knows how to manage people's lives better whether they agree or not.

Contrast to nothing. The government is deciding how to "manage people's lives" because the people have delegated to them responsibility. It is what they want.

The people can strip them of this authority at any time but do not want to do it. The government is no different than any other business in our economy. Cable companies makes you buy channels you don't want but a majority of customers do want. Government makes you follow laws you don't want but a majority of voters do want.

As long as there are elections and no violent revolutions, the government and its people are in mutual self-interest.

The founding fathers created government to avoid the anarchy of populous-wide political negotiations, not because people are irrational and incapable of making decisions for themselves. Furthermore, the average person cannot conduct themselves in the course of daily life, and know all of the intimate details of politics.

The same is true of my profession and the professions of other white collar specialists. The average man cannot keep track of legislation and capital markets, and perform his/her chosen trade.

The irrational tendencies of mankind are not involved.This is just basic specialization of duties.

And why would they worry about this? Because they fear the decisions people would make if these measures were not taken would be irrational. We specialize duties because lives aren't dictatorships.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you AD, Deus and SPC for reminding me why Libertarianism is such a joke.