Agree with almost all of it, but you might want to consider the degree to which acceptance of self-determination for ethnic groups contradicts your otherwise libertarian leanings. Nationalists tend to be very interested in taking away the rights of other citizens, empires have often been more tolerant.
Libertarianism is not sustainable in the long term at the electoral level. Success belongs to viral memes which win by either being able to spread to most people or by turning a minority into fanatics. Like it or not any regime needs a compelling story and libertarians don't have one.
This is a serious problem because, unlike in marxism leninism, voting rights are central to libertarianism. An ideology that is both democratic and unpopular at the same time is not viable.
What is un-compelling about “people who don’t know you and don’t share your values and preferences should not be able to control you or make decisions on your behalf”? That to me is the central story of libertarianism, and I think it’s broadly appealing - you can see this whenever people talk passionately about a topic; everyone is a libertarian when it comes to stuff they care about, because when they care about something, the last thing they want is some central planner or intrusive micromanager to tell them how to live.
Libertarianism, like truth, is a compelling counter-narrative. It can provide arguments for opposition when more successful ideologies turn policies into predictable disasters.
I’ve always thought the problem lies in that the central argument that libertarianism makes runs directly contrary to humans’ tendency to self-flattery and hubris. Other ideologies say “you can absolutely control and conform others ‘for the greater good’ and remake society in a way that’s utopian and predictable” (however one defines utopian). Libertarianism says “actually, no-one is smart enough to do that; the world is too complex”. That’s a tough message to digest if one’s natural inclination is to think one knows exactly the right levers to pull or exactly how to shake the etch-a-sketch to completely revamp society. Humility isn’t an easy sell.
Libertarianism has a compelling story, but its chosen to focus only on the parts that intersect with progressivism, which are the most repulsive parts. Freedom should equal growth, not regression.
What do think about the latest accusations from Adam Rutherford (tweet 26th of July) that your science credentials are simply not large enough? I guess I can somewhat read it out of your free speech opinion, but should there maybe also be some H-index cutoff for allowance to participate in conferences or such? Would love to hear your thoughts on it (and rip that argument to pieces, please)
1) I'm of the same opinion of you in the vast majority of what you've written here.
2) In practical modern context, 10% less democracy means 10% more progressive government functionaries. Not a win on net.
In a theoretical world that will never come in the near term, I agree that nuclear families should get more votes. Specifically, I would let married couples vote for their children. One man one vote isn't changing without a revolution.
My ideal voter is Mike Judge/Hank Hill.
3) On the eugenics front, I think that vastly increased child tax deductions and no strings school vouchers would do a lot. Recent Arizona school choice bill should be backbone of GOP platform, and Romney child tax credit should be increased by several multiples. Agree that culture/education is biggest problem with eugenic TFR. Share you view on technological eugenics.
4) I favor making abortion illegal sometime in the second trimester with some exceptions. It's not about how many abortions it prevents. It's about sending a signal that abortion, and the entire ethos that leads to it, is morally wrong in societies view. The social censure is the point.
5) I find the libertarian obsession with drugs repulsive. John Galt wouldn't be a stoner. 99% less time should be spent talking about drug laws.
Singapore won its War on Drugs. I'm not saying that's the right reference for the west to implement. I'm merely mentioning it as a this world possible ideal to strive for.
Libertarians should sell freedom on the basis that it will help you become the best person you can be. Not that it will let you nihilistically dissipate yourself and then die.
6) I know its not possible in our society, but the ideal criminal justice system has a 100% case close rate, implements brutal physically punishment to offenders in public, then lets them try to reintegrate into society. Hopeless repeat offernders executed quickly.
My line on politics is now very simple: I either refuse to talk about anything that I know very little about (the litmus test being something like: would I feel embarrassed voicing my views with a professor of the subject?), or I heavily caveat my views with "this is mainly based on intuition and selective reading, but it you really want to know..."
I think it's generally only possible for most people who aren't super brains to know (in this sense) about one or two things in sufficient depth. Noam Chomsky is a good example: an encyclopaedic brain, but has mainly dealt with foreign policy and philosophy of language. Albeit his contributions to the latter are immense and span diverse disciplines. Ordinary clever people would be lucky to acquire the knowledge he has about either domain, let alone contribute anything of value.
Ethnic cleansing by forced deportation ("population exchange") is very un-libertarian, actually. it is also a UN-recognized "crime against humanity."
The Turkish-Greek population exchange was considered a great tragedy from day one. People were expelled from their homes and homelands where they lived at least for centuries because they belonged to the wrong religion.
*
Also, that bit on Lamaian universal ethnonationalism doesn't help us against accusations of "biology as ideology."
I can imagine how hard it could be to write this in a comprehensive manner. Mosy of what is shared is rational given the orginxal
disclaimers and experiences cited.
I wonder if it is libertarian to demand that the state create transparent and visible markets, and aggressively regulate the data that must be shared publicly, the means of sharing it, and provide access so the market can effectively report on and effectively analyze this data? I don’t know that I am a opposed to having state sponsored and administered analytics and reporting as long as the data set is readily available to anyone.
I believe that any corporation (a creature do the state), the state itself, and anything state sponsored has no inherent right to privacy. National security seems to be overused as well.
Imagine a real estate market where the buyers and sellers and selling prices and days on market etc were not visible to all parties. how would I ever know what the market might prove my house or if I am purchasing one if I am paying an appropriate amount according to the market?
"China is currently taking over his homeland [Tibet] by settling it with Chinese people"??
Nope. Tibetans are thriving and Han immigrants are not. Only in the two biggest towns does the Han population rise above 10%, not far from its historical average. Nor are Han the only minority.
Mostly agree. Disagree on the war on drugs being worse than not having it. The opioid epidemic should inform one's views on drugs to a large degree. Would have loved to see a separate point emphasizing the need to radically liberalize land use, YIMBY and zoning reforms. Housing costs are the biggest economic problem in the West.
Economically to be sure, although I think it was Sean Last who wrote about some studies showing that average well-being may not improve or even deteriorate.
Immigration helps the immigrants up to the point where there are enough of them to make the institutions of the host country identical to the country they came from.
At that point, it makes things worse, because the entire world benefited from the trickle down of the first world.
Seriously though, I think your views on self-determination are very naive. You conspicuously forgot to add Northern Ireland Independence to your list. I guess IRA is not as hip as ETA.
Any region is bound to request independence from its larger country on a miriad of accounts. Independentist politicians will use their population as a tool and will shape their beliefs to hate the rest of the country. It is a very poisonous ideology.
The smart thing is to try to preserve the status quo as much as possible, trying not to affect demographics with mass emigration or inmigration, trying to have reasonable regional laws, etc. Fostering independence of regions results in total chaos when taken to its logical conclusion. Independentist movements in Europe have been used as a weapon, not surprisingly they are mostly marxist-leninist in nature.
I support Ireland and Northern Ireland separatism too. I don't think it is wise to attack lists of examples as not included X and concluding that means the author is not in favor of X. I didn't think about the Irish situation, that's all.
As I said, where do you draw the line? Switzerland does at the canton level, Germany has the länder, Spain has regions.
Any given region in Europe might be subject to secessionist propaganda and would the same legitimacy as Northern Ireland or Basqueland. Tomorrow could be Corsica, Lombardy, Bavaria or any region claiming historical rights coming from the fall of the Roman Empire. Political pressure can be created, people can be whipped into a nationalist sentiment quite easily. External parties/countries can also press for such weakening political situation.
Is that a desirable outcome? You are coming from THEORY, and in theory it surely sounds fair and nice, but in practice it is a giant waste of energy, resources, attention and a type of XXI century attack on a state.
Also, again, the majority of this movements (ETA, IRA, Catalan independence…) are of extreme left background. It is another power grab to blame on someone else the problems of a particular region.
What I am saying is that any region might be subjected to a secessionist feedback loop (blame bad stuff on central gov, get credit for the good stuff, repeat forever).
The Basques may do as they wish, but it is unrealistic to grant independence to any region that a given point in time requests it. The majority of Basques or Catalans don’t want it today and didn’t want it 20 years ago... but who knows? Maybe inflation will tilt the balance in favor of independence tomorrow!
It is just not feasible and it is destabilizing for everyone. It is against the concept of nation-states and it is just logical in theory. It simply does not happen unless external influence occurs.
Supporting independence isn't the same thing as supporting a referendum on independence every five minutes, though. Scotland had a right to the referendum. I supported that right, whilst not wanting them to leave. I don't think they're now entitled to keep asking until they get the answer they want.
The thing that brought peace to Northern Ireland is the same policy that Emil supports: an agreement that if the majority in Northern Ireland wants to secede they can.
Agree with almost all of it, but you might want to consider the degree to which acceptance of self-determination for ethnic groups contradicts your otherwise libertarian leanings. Nationalists tend to be very interested in taking away the rights of other citizens, empires have often been more tolerant.
Libertarianism is not sustainable in the long term at the electoral level. Success belongs to viral memes which win by either being able to spread to most people or by turning a minority into fanatics. Like it or not any regime needs a compelling story and libertarians don't have one.
This is a serious problem because, unlike in marxism leninism, voting rights are central to libertarianism. An ideology that is both democratic and unpopular at the same time is not viable.
What is un-compelling about “people who don’t know you and don’t share your values and preferences should not be able to control you or make decisions on your behalf”? That to me is the central story of libertarianism, and I think it’s broadly appealing - you can see this whenever people talk passionately about a topic; everyone is a libertarian when it comes to stuff they care about, because when they care about something, the last thing they want is some central planner or intrusive micromanager to tell them how to live.
Libertarianism, like truth, is a compelling counter-narrative. It can provide arguments for opposition when more successful ideologies turn policies into predictable disasters.
I’ve always thought the problem lies in that the central argument that libertarianism makes runs directly contrary to humans’ tendency to self-flattery and hubris. Other ideologies say “you can absolutely control and conform others ‘for the greater good’ and remake society in a way that’s utopian and predictable” (however one defines utopian). Libertarianism says “actually, no-one is smart enough to do that; the world is too complex”. That’s a tough message to digest if one’s natural inclination is to think one knows exactly the right levers to pull or exactly how to shake the etch-a-sketch to completely revamp society. Humility isn’t an easy sell.
Libertarianism has a compelling story, but its chosen to focus only on the parts that intersect with progressivism, which are the most repulsive parts. Freedom should equal growth, not regression.
What do think about the latest accusations from Adam Rutherford (tweet 26th of July) that your science credentials are simply not large enough? I guess I can somewhat read it out of your free speech opinion, but should there maybe also be some H-index cutoff for allowance to participate in conferences or such? Would love to hear your thoughts on it (and rip that argument to pieces, please)
1) I'm of the same opinion of you in the vast majority of what you've written here.
2) In practical modern context, 10% less democracy means 10% more progressive government functionaries. Not a win on net.
In a theoretical world that will never come in the near term, I agree that nuclear families should get more votes. Specifically, I would let married couples vote for their children. One man one vote isn't changing without a revolution.
My ideal voter is Mike Judge/Hank Hill.
3) On the eugenics front, I think that vastly increased child tax deductions and no strings school vouchers would do a lot. Recent Arizona school choice bill should be backbone of GOP platform, and Romney child tax credit should be increased by several multiples. Agree that culture/education is biggest problem with eugenic TFR. Share you view on technological eugenics.
4) I favor making abortion illegal sometime in the second trimester with some exceptions. It's not about how many abortions it prevents. It's about sending a signal that abortion, and the entire ethos that leads to it, is morally wrong in societies view. The social censure is the point.
5) I find the libertarian obsession with drugs repulsive. John Galt wouldn't be a stoner. 99% less time should be spent talking about drug laws.
Singapore won its War on Drugs. I'm not saying that's the right reference for the west to implement. I'm merely mentioning it as a this world possible ideal to strive for.
Libertarians should sell freedom on the basis that it will help you become the best person you can be. Not that it will let you nihilistically dissipate yourself and then die.
6) I know its not possible in our society, but the ideal criminal justice system has a 100% case close rate, implements brutal physically punishment to offenders in public, then lets them try to reintegrate into society. Hopeless repeat offernders executed quickly.
My line on politics is now very simple: I either refuse to talk about anything that I know very little about (the litmus test being something like: would I feel embarrassed voicing my views with a professor of the subject?), or I heavily caveat my views with "this is mainly based on intuition and selective reading, but it you really want to know..."
I think it's generally only possible for most people who aren't super brains to know (in this sense) about one or two things in sufficient depth. Noam Chomsky is a good example: an encyclopaedic brain, but has mainly dealt with foreign policy and philosophy of language. Albeit his contributions to the latter are immense and span diverse disciplines. Ordinary clever people would be lucky to acquire the knowledge he has about either domain, let alone contribute anything of value.
Ethnic cleansing by forced deportation ("population exchange") is very un-libertarian, actually. it is also a UN-recognized "crime against humanity."
The Turkish-Greek population exchange was considered a great tragedy from day one. People were expelled from their homes and homelands where they lived at least for centuries because they belonged to the wrong religion.
*
Also, that bit on Lamaian universal ethnonationalism doesn't help us against accusations of "biology as ideology."
P. S. I am Turkish.
I can imagine how hard it could be to write this in a comprehensive manner. Mosy of what is shared is rational given the orginxal
disclaimers and experiences cited.
I wonder if it is libertarian to demand that the state create transparent and visible markets, and aggressively regulate the data that must be shared publicly, the means of sharing it, and provide access so the market can effectively report on and effectively analyze this data? I don’t know that I am a opposed to having state sponsored and administered analytics and reporting as long as the data set is readily available to anyone.
I believe that any corporation (a creature do the state), the state itself, and anything state sponsored has no inherent right to privacy. National security seems to be overused as well.
Imagine a real estate market where the buyers and sellers and selling prices and days on market etc were not visible to all parties. how would I ever know what the market might prove my house or if I am purchasing one if I am paying an appropriate amount according to the market?
"China is currently taking over his homeland [Tibet] by settling it with Chinese people"??
Nope. Tibetans are thriving and Han immigrants are not. Only in the two biggest towns does the Han population rise above 10%, not far from its historical average. Nor are Han the only minority.
Mostly agree. Disagree on the war on drugs being worse than not having it. The opioid epidemic should inform one's views on drugs to a large degree. Would have loved to see a separate point emphasizing the need to radically liberalize land use, YIMBY and zoning reforms. Housing costs are the biggest economic problem in the West.
I have some questions:
1)Israel/Palestine?
2)Minimum wage?
3)Selling one's kidney?
4)How is it possible that Denmark has such an unusually high capital gains tax (42%) but is still competitive?
5)If eugenics means high average IQ and if high average IQ means everybody is a leftist, isn't it a problem?
"Immigration is beneficial to immigrants"
Economically to be sure, although I think it was Sean Last who wrote about some studies showing that average well-being may not improve or even deteriorate.
Immigration helps the immigrants up to the point where there are enough of them to make the institutions of the host country identical to the country they came from.
At that point, it makes things worse, because the entire world benefited from the trickle down of the first world.
Emil is a jew!?
Seriously though, I think your views on self-determination are very naive. You conspicuously forgot to add Northern Ireland Independence to your list. I guess IRA is not as hip as ETA.
Any region is bound to request independence from its larger country on a miriad of accounts. Independentist politicians will use their population as a tool and will shape their beliefs to hate the rest of the country. It is a very poisonous ideology.
The smart thing is to try to preserve the status quo as much as possible, trying not to affect demographics with mass emigration or inmigration, trying to have reasonable regional laws, etc. Fostering independence of regions results in total chaos when taken to its logical conclusion. Independentist movements in Europe have been used as a weapon, not surprisingly they are mostly marxist-leninist in nature.
I support Ireland and Northern Ireland separatism too. I don't think it is wise to attack lists of examples as not included X and concluding that means the author is not in favor of X. I didn't think about the Irish situation, that's all.
As I said, where do you draw the line? Switzerland does at the canton level, Germany has the länder, Spain has regions.
Any given region in Europe might be subject to secessionist propaganda and would the same legitimacy as Northern Ireland or Basqueland. Tomorrow could be Corsica, Lombardy, Bavaria or any region claiming historical rights coming from the fall of the Roman Empire. Political pressure can be created, people can be whipped into a nationalist sentiment quite easily. External parties/countries can also press for such weakening political situation.
Is that a desirable outcome? You are coming from THEORY, and in theory it surely sounds fair and nice, but in practice it is a giant waste of energy, resources, attention and a type of XXI century attack on a state.
Also, again, the majority of this movements (ETA, IRA, Catalan independence…) are of extreme left background. It is another power grab to blame on someone else the problems of a particular region.
If the Basque people want to live under Basque socialism, let them.
I think maybe I am not getting the point across.
What I am saying is that any region might be subjected to a secessionist feedback loop (blame bad stuff on central gov, get credit for the good stuff, repeat forever).
The Basques may do as they wish, but it is unrealistic to grant independence to any region that a given point in time requests it. The majority of Basques or Catalans don’t want it today and didn’t want it 20 years ago... but who knows? Maybe inflation will tilt the balance in favor of independence tomorrow!
It is just not feasible and it is destabilizing for everyone. It is against the concept of nation-states and it is just logical in theory. It simply does not happen unless external influence occurs.
You-simply-can’t-rely-on-democracy-for-everything. Tough truth.
Moreover “them” is an ambiguous term, cause seldom independentist movements get beyond the 50% of the population.
Supporting independence isn't the same thing as supporting a referendum on independence every five minutes, though. Scotland had a right to the referendum. I supported that right, whilst not wanting them to leave. I don't think they're now entitled to keep asking until they get the answer they want.
The thing that brought peace to Northern Ireland is the same policy that Emil supports: an agreement that if the majority in Northern Ireland wants to secede they can.