Happier Abroad Forum Community

I was just thinking of a certain book the other day, and it reminded me of David's "authoritarian" libertarianism. It was called Nudge, by Cass Sunstein. It puts forth "paternalistic" libertarianism, and I am thinking of readingit, since people tend to be collectivist, and need to have a kick in the butt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunst ... filtration

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1084585 <-- PDF download

It's interesting, but having not read it...

I'll be critical about the idea of it. See, government very often will just "nudge" choices that are in its favor instead of choices that actually help the populace. For example, a government program to "nudge" people into having more savings simply won't work. Why in the world would the government create such a program? Government, or at least our government for the last 100 years with the Fed, it encourages debt.

On the other hand, I still don't trust most people to make good decisions. Sometimes that's okay and it doesn't really matter. That's the libertarian side of me. I still don't trust the FDA.

Other times (issues like voting rights) it has a holistic detrimental effect on all society. Even homosexuality falls into this category as I explained in the other topic.

If we got rid of the FDA and some prescription drug came on the market that had some really bad side effects, it would only affect the people taking the drug. Things like voting rights or homosexuality, that's where other people's choices actually do affect me. I think that's just as much a violation of property rights as any other example in libertarian arguments.

The golden rule, non-aggression principle, how is property protected except through aggression? Isn't ownership itself an aggressive act? Marxists would say so and I can see their point. But why is aggression a bad thing? Even if Marxists are correct on what private property actually is, that doesn't mean they're correct on what to do about it.

Plus if you look at the alienating effects of Captialism, I don't think that's a myth. I think the Marxists have it right. I'll point you to the other topic you created about iproducts and new technology being mass produced. Is that the end of Capitalism?

Capitalism leads to obesity, but Socialism leads to starvation. I'll take obesity over starvation, but I'd rather just be healthy.

Thanks for making me think. That's mostly why I come here.

Edit:

The whole FDA thing...that reminds me of Epistemological Anarchism. The works of Paul Feyerabend and Karl Popper. Worth checking out if you haven't. Basically what happens when you apply libertarianism to philosophy of science. It's defense of things like holistic medicine and alternative theories. Anti-scientific method. If you let people just work as they will, more things will get discovered faster even if it's before people can realize how the science behind it all works. They even go through the history of scientific discovery and argue that it was non-rigid. Science is supposed to explain things, not disprove them. That shift in focus has lead science to become a kind of fascist institution.

For more on how science has become fascist, I'll present the case of Daniel Shechtman:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... sicrystals

I get what you are saying. It is kind of like people deserve the government they get. In reality, as time goes on, I care less and less about politics, at least from the mainstream sense. Now all I care about is the sovereignty of myself and the ones around me. It kind of goes back to agorism. The world could be going to hell, but it does not have to be for me. So for me, voting is merely defensive, and to allow just enough time for me to get my stuff in order. Get what I mean?

For me, agorism was the last step before becoming a reactionary. I just realized that man isn't made to be sovereign.

I think family/tribal loyalty is more important than pure individualism. That's the difference between Ayn Rand (individualist) and F.A. Hayek (families are socialist).

Both are considered major architects of libertarianism, but the two really hated each other. Actually Rand hated Hayek and Hayek thought Rand was beneath him.

So I'm more in the Hayek camp, believing that humans are socialist by nature. Naturalism isn't always right (especially when applied to the wider economy), but suppressing human nature has its own major problems as well.

I care less about government and more about the cultures that make governments. Instead of removing oneself from all culture outside the personal sphere, like agorism attempts, I'm concerning myself with defining what good culture is and where to find it.

That's...Happier Abroad really.