Most libertarians would agree that it’s a messed-up state that:
Creates a massive crime problem in poor minority neighborhoods with a futile, vicious and every more far-reaching attempt to prevent commerce in popular, highly portable intoxicants that leaves absurd numbers of young men with felony records, making them marginally employable.
Fails to provide adequate policing for such neighborhoods.
Fails to provide effective education in such neighborhoods after installing itself as the educator of first resort.
Uses regulatory power to sharply curtail entry into lines of business from hair-care to ride provision, further limiting the employment options of people in such neighborhoods.
Has in the past actively fostered the oppression of said minority, up to and including spending state money and time in keeping its members in bondage.
To make up for all of the above, provides a nominal amount of tax-financed welfare for the afflicted.
But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, “Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!”
Now that you’ve read this blog post, the next time you hear someone unhesitatingly repeating a meme you think is silly or false, you’ll think, “Cached thoughts.” My belief is now there in your mind, waiting to complete the pattern. But is it true? Don’t let your mind complete the pattern! Think!
So there wasn’t anything especially related to explicit rationality in the quote. Or rather, it wasn’t extraordinarily rational enough to make up for its extraordinary politicalness.
So, there are people who disagree with what you posted, and may be inclined to argue about it. That, combined with the idea shared in the Paul Graham quote in this very thread (about politics frequently being used as a form of identity) leads to defensiveness, leads to rationalization, and leads to stupidity.
So, in order to avoid stupid arguments, people would prefer fewer posts like your quote on LW.
I’ll defend this. I think it is closely related to rationality, and I find it ironic that the “Politics is the mind-killer” is such a popular response to an unpopular quote—it makes that point.
A rather basic fallacy is: A, B, and C lead to D. We must stop D. Therefore, we must stop A. The error, of course, is that without further premises, you could equally well get stop or C. Stopping A is merely sufficient, not necessary.
Libertarianism is usually more of an ideology than a politics (just as liberal and conservative are ideologies, to Democratic and Republican politics). This quote shows how it tends to be shaped into a politics. When there are clearly many things to be done, it is in fact bizarre that people focus heavily on one of them, particularly given the above structure.
People are very willing to believe that the market is unfree in ways that unfairly benefit others. People are not nearly as willing or interested when the market is unfree in ways that harms others or benefits themselves. I can see why people are concerned with this being excessively political, but it does seem accurate. Of course, there may be additional factors or explanations that the speaker was not crediting, but I’m not really aware of any.
Inconsistently applying an ideology is kind of the essence of politics being the mind killer, and this seems to be a good point about that.
The question is, who exactly is being targeted in this statement:
But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, “Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!”
Looking at the article from which the quote comes, the target of the discussion is apparently this quote, to which he claims to have a “sequencing objection”:
The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.
The problem here is that I see nothing in that quote that says “first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare”.
What is possibly going through Jim Henley’s head? The quote that he’s attacking does nothing except oppose increasing government and support reducing government, period. Nothing there about what sequence to do it in. The sequencing stuff seems to be something that Jim Henley just made up, so that he would have something to attack.
As things stand, the quote looks like a straw man and a smear. A smear is guaranteed to make the blood boil. Hence: politics is the mind killer.
Unfortunately, my impression here is based on general experience and observation; there isn’t a specific document that contains the libertarian view.
But in general, a lot of people who describe themselves either as libertarian, conservative, or pro-small government are opposed to welfare with near-religious fervor, but are likely unaware of the issue of occupational licensing and (in some cases) basically indifferent to charter schools or education related issues. It’s just the interesting observation that even though there are numerous types of bad government interference, it’s one specific one that generates ire. This suggests more of a political objection (I don’t like those people!) than an ideological one (this action is inconsistent with a belief system I hold).
Ideologically, libertarians should oppose all of these things, probably in proportion to the inefficiencies they represent. As that’s often not the case, it indicates irrationality.
a lot of people who describe themselves either as libertarian, conservative, or pro-small government are opposed to welfare with near-religious fervor, but are likely unaware of the issue of occupational licensing
First, you’re no longer talking about libertarians but about a much, much larger group of people, the vast majority of whom neither are, nor consider themselves to be, libertarian. So, already, you’ve essentially changed the subject.
Second, lack of awareness is not irrational. On the contrary, ignorance is rational, for reasons explained by James Buchanan.
It’s just the interesting observation that even though there are numerous types of bad government interference, it’s one specific one that generates ire.
As a blanket statement this is simply false. The standard libertarian publications are Reason Magazine and Liberty Magazine. Both magazines are very wide-ranging in their critique of the government from a standpoint of liberty. Your statement is only “true” if you qualify it—but once you qualify it, the statement becomes meaningless. Qualified, it’s something like, “if you consider only people who are single-issue, those people are single-issue”. It’s an empty tautology.
I would like to point out, by the way, that your “evidence” for your claims amounts to your own unverifiable eyewitness accounts. In contrast, in my previous comment I offered evidence pulled from the linked article, and here in this comment I offer evidence in the form of the two major libertarian publications. If you want I can add blogs. Check out Econlog. Also check out Cafe Hayek.
Ideologically, libertarians should oppose all of these things, probably in proportion to the inefficiencies they represent. As that’s often not the case, it indicates irrationality.
First of all, I would like to point out that the word “often” is a weasel word, because it is virtually unfalsifiable. It gives us no quantity, nothing even approximating a quantity. It’s virtually meaningless.
Second, I would like to point out that earlier in your comment you already massively increased the population you’re talking about from just libertarians to libertarians and conservatives and anybody who wants to shrink government. You can’t draw conclusions about libertarians based on your earlier assertions about a very different population.
Third, your argument is based on the claim that it is irrational for a person to have beliefs which are inconsistent with his own ideology. But in order to establish that anybody has beliefs inconsistent with their ideology, you need to establish what their ideology is. You have done the opposite—you have drawn in such a diverse group of people into your generalization that there is no common ideology to establish.
Fourth, I seriously doubt the truth of your claims. I’m not saying you’re lying. I’m saying that I think you’ve probably misunderstood. For starters, if somebody tells me that they’re a libertarian, I will infer that they might be what I consider a libertarian but are probably something quite different—what I would call somebody with vaguely libertarian-ish views on some but not all topics. In contrast, what I see you’ve done here is to jump from the fact that some people call themselves libertarian all the way to the conclusion that they must subscribe to the hard core libertarian belief system. Only once you’ve done this can you then accuse them of being inconsistent. I personally think that that jump is unwarranted.
Also, didn’t Hayek support some amount of government provided welfare? My understanding is that he basically said, “Hey, in the right doses, it probably makes some peoples’ lives better who would otherwise be miserable, and our society is rich enough to afford the harm that it causes at the social level (e.g., economic inefficiencies), so why not?”
I heard this second- or third-hand, though, so I may be mischaracterizing his views.
I find it very interesting that this quote, which is also political, does not appear to have been heavily downvoted. It’s doubtlessly much less contentious among the particular demographics of this site, but it’s probably more politically antagonistic among the population in general—I don’t know, but I suspect pacifists are at least as common as libertarians, and this is far more antagonistic towards them.
It is about cutting through bullshit. Ruthlessly. It takes a slogan “War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” and utterly tears it to shreds. Because it is obviously and overwhelmingly wrong for the kind of reasons we have all sorts of posts about here.
It’s exactly the response I would make if someone tried the “What is it good for?” rhetorical question on me. Come to think of it I have used the same response.
If something is transparently and obviously contradicted without even having to make two inferential leaps then politics hasn’t even had a chance to kill your mind.
Naive pacifists are annoying. (And dangerous.)
It is a necessary counter to that obnoxious ‘never ever never nerr nerr bullet’ quote that somehow became popular here.
but downvote this one?
I upvoted (or rather countered one downvote) on this one.
Upvotes and downvotes probably weight various factors. Hypothetically, two equally political statements might not be equally false, equally obnoxious, equally brilliant, equally hilarious, and so on.
True. My entire point is that I’m curious as to which is going on here. I suspect that people down-voting this one are explaining their actions by saying it’s too “political,” whereas they are not applying the exact same formula to the other one. This indicates that, “It’s too political” actually just means, “It’s politics I disagree with.”
Of course, I admit it’s possible that everyone who downvoted for political reasons downvoted both, and the other was just more popular. I don’t think that’s likely, which I why I asked what people are doing. Could admittedly have phrased it better.
-- Jim Henley, via Alas A Blog
Politics is the Mind-Killer.
Cached Thoughts
So what?
So there wasn’t anything especially related to explicit rationality in the quote. Or rather, it wasn’t extraordinarily rational enough to make up for its extraordinary politicalness.
So, there are people who disagree with what you posted, and may be inclined to argue about it. That, combined with the idea shared in the Paul Graham quote in this very thread (about politics frequently being used as a form of identity) leads to defensiveness, leads to rationalization, and leads to stupidity.
So, in order to avoid stupid arguments, people would prefer fewer posts like your quote on LW.
FWIW I am very sympathetic to the sentiment expressed here, but I still downvoted it, for being more about politics than rationality.
I’ll defend this. I think it is closely related to rationality, and I find it ironic that the “Politics is the mind-killer” is such a popular response to an unpopular quote—it makes that point.
A rather basic fallacy is: A, B, and C lead to D. We must stop D. Therefore, we must stop A. The error, of course, is that without further premises, you could equally well get stop or C. Stopping A is merely sufficient, not necessary.
Libertarianism is usually more of an ideology than a politics (just as liberal and conservative are ideologies, to Democratic and Republican politics). This quote shows how it tends to be shaped into a politics. When there are clearly many things to be done, it is in fact bizarre that people focus heavily on one of them, particularly given the above structure.
People are very willing to believe that the market is unfree in ways that unfairly benefit others. People are not nearly as willing or interested when the market is unfree in ways that harms others or benefits themselves. I can see why people are concerned with this being excessively political, but it does seem accurate. Of course, there may be additional factors or explanations that the speaker was not crediting, but I’m not really aware of any.
Inconsistently applying an ideology is kind of the essence of politics being the mind killer, and this seems to be a good point about that.
The question is, who exactly is being targeted in this statement:
Looking at the article from which the quote comes, the target of the discussion is apparently this quote, to which he claims to have a “sequencing objection”:
The problem here is that I see nothing in that quote that says “first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare”.
What is possibly going through Jim Henley’s head? The quote that he’s attacking does nothing except oppose increasing government and support reducing government, period. Nothing there about what sequence to do it in. The sequencing stuff seems to be something that Jim Henley just made up, so that he would have something to attack.
As things stand, the quote looks like a straw man and a smear. A smear is guaranteed to make the blood boil. Hence: politics is the mind killer.
Unfortunately, my impression here is based on general experience and observation; there isn’t a specific document that contains the libertarian view.
But in general, a lot of people who describe themselves either as libertarian, conservative, or pro-small government are opposed to welfare with near-religious fervor, but are likely unaware of the issue of occupational licensing and (in some cases) basically indifferent to charter schools or education related issues. It’s just the interesting observation that even though there are numerous types of bad government interference, it’s one specific one that generates ire. This suggests more of a political objection (I don’t like those people!) than an ideological one (this action is inconsistent with a belief system I hold).
Ideologically, libertarians should oppose all of these things, probably in proportion to the inefficiencies they represent. As that’s often not the case, it indicates irrationality.
First, you’re no longer talking about libertarians but about a much, much larger group of people, the vast majority of whom neither are, nor consider themselves to be, libertarian. So, already, you’ve essentially changed the subject.
Second, lack of awareness is not irrational. On the contrary, ignorance is rational, for reasons explained by James Buchanan.
As a blanket statement this is simply false. The standard libertarian publications are Reason Magazine and Liberty Magazine. Both magazines are very wide-ranging in their critique of the government from a standpoint of liberty. Your statement is only “true” if you qualify it—but once you qualify it, the statement becomes meaningless. Qualified, it’s something like, “if you consider only people who are single-issue, those people are single-issue”. It’s an empty tautology.
I would like to point out, by the way, that your “evidence” for your claims amounts to your own unverifiable eyewitness accounts. In contrast, in my previous comment I offered evidence pulled from the linked article, and here in this comment I offer evidence in the form of the two major libertarian publications. If you want I can add blogs. Check out Econlog. Also check out Cafe Hayek.
First of all, I would like to point out that the word “often” is a weasel word, because it is virtually unfalsifiable. It gives us no quantity, nothing even approximating a quantity. It’s virtually meaningless.
Second, I would like to point out that earlier in your comment you already massively increased the population you’re talking about from just libertarians to libertarians and conservatives and anybody who wants to shrink government. You can’t draw conclusions about libertarians based on your earlier assertions about a very different population.
Third, your argument is based on the claim that it is irrational for a person to have beliefs which are inconsistent with his own ideology. But in order to establish that anybody has beliefs inconsistent with their ideology, you need to establish what their ideology is. You have done the opposite—you have drawn in such a diverse group of people into your generalization that there is no common ideology to establish.
Fourth, I seriously doubt the truth of your claims. I’m not saying you’re lying. I’m saying that I think you’ve probably misunderstood. For starters, if somebody tells me that they’re a libertarian, I will infer that they might be what I consider a libertarian but are probably something quite different—what I would call somebody with vaguely libertarian-ish views on some but not all topics. In contrast, what I see you’ve done here is to jump from the fact that some people call themselves libertarian all the way to the conclusion that they must subscribe to the hard core libertarian belief system. Only once you’ve done this can you then accuse them of being inconsistent. I personally think that that jump is unwarranted.
Also, didn’t Hayek support some amount of government provided welfare? My understanding is that he basically said, “Hey, in the right doses, it probably makes some peoples’ lives better who would otherwise be miserable, and our society is rich enough to afford the harm that it causes at the social level (e.g., economic inefficiencies), so why not?”
I heard this second- or third-hand, though, so I may be mischaracterizing his views.
I find it very interesting that this quote, which is also political, does not appear to have been heavily downvoted. It’s doubtlessly much less contentious among the particular demographics of this site, but it’s probably more politically antagonistic among the population in general—I don’t know, but I suspect pacifists are at least as common as libertarians, and this is far more antagonistic towards them.
So why upvote that quote but downvote this one?
Because it has Nobby at his best.
It is about cutting through bullshit. Ruthlessly. It takes a slogan “War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” and utterly tears it to shreds. Because it is obviously and overwhelmingly wrong for the kind of reasons we have all sorts of posts about here.
It’s exactly the response I would make if someone tried the “What is it good for?” rhetorical question on me. Come to think of it I have used the same response.
If something is transparently and obviously contradicted without even having to make two inferential leaps then politics hasn’t even had a chance to kill your mind.
Naive pacifists are annoying. (And dangerous.)
It is a necessary counter to that obnoxious ‘never ever never nerr nerr bullet’ quote that somehow became popular here.
I upvoted (or rather countered one downvote) on this one.
Upvotes and downvotes probably weight various factors. Hypothetically, two equally political statements might not be equally false, equally obnoxious, equally brilliant, equally hilarious, and so on.
True. My entire point is that I’m curious as to which is going on here. I suspect that people down-voting this one are explaining their actions by saying it’s too “political,” whereas they are not applying the exact same formula to the other one. This indicates that, “It’s too political” actually just means, “It’s politics I disagree with.”
Of course, I admit it’s possible that everyone who downvoted for political reasons downvoted both, and the other was just more popular. I don’t think that’s likely, which I why I asked what people are doing. Could admittedly have phrased it better.