Why the Left Fears Libertarianism

[em3rgentOrdr]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

+1.  Wow, that's some deep insight.

[Anonymous]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

+1.  Wow, that's some deep insight.

All we can blame in the end is the parents.

[caveden]

Great text, OP.

Another good text, explaining why so many people, particularly leftists, have a wrong understanding of economics: http://mises.org/daily/4700

[bonker]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

[Anonymous]

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

A society based on fear and death will naturally collapse as it always has over the past centuries.

[hugolp]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

[myrkul]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

Seconded. Bonker, Feel like explaining this 'natural' progression?

[bonker]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

[Anonymous]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Human behaviour is not subject to pure mathematics. In addition, no such societies have hardly existed including anarchy.

[myrkul]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Hmm... Yup. It is 4:20

[hugolp]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Human behaviour is not subject to pure mathematics. In addition, no such societies have hardly existed including anarchy.

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

[caveden]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note. 
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

[firefox]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note. 
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

umm the vikings are of note.  the great sea faring anarchists
or how about the Polynesian islands settlers... the most advanced sea faring people of ancient times who built Easter island
or maybe some native American societies who survived mostly in peace.

[hugolp]

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

There was a better blog post by Tabarok but I can not find it: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/the-art-of-not-being-governed.html

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

"Standard of subjective values" - this is an oxymoron. If I am to entertain your absurd philosophy, please make your argument coherent.

Regardless, I would propose that a state of decadent nihilism is bad as it ultimately destroys individual liberty.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

"Standard of subjective values" - this is an oxymoron. If I am to entertain your absurd philosophy, please make your argument coherent.

Regardless, I would propose that a state of decadent nihilism is bad as it ultimately destroys individual liberty.

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.