ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Libertarians believe all externalities are irrelevant. Social externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters are laws that defend property. Economic externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is market fundamentalism. National externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is free trade. But they haven't proven that these externalities are irrelevant. They just want you to shut up and support them. Your opinions and personal values are also another externality that doesn't matter.

Libertarians also lie. For instance, they claim that they're "objectivists" but they don't actually believe in objective reality. What they believe is no externalities so their internal model of the world is objective reality. When they say everyone should be objective they mean "other people's worldview is another externality I won't bother with so shut up and accept my externality-free worldview."

I personally, am on the libertarian side of things so I suppose I suffice as a good candidate to respond. Although, I am more of a minarchist then a ancap, so this may not completely pertain to me. I would first, like you to define what you mean by "externality." Mainly, because you are claiming that libertarians believe that "all externalities" are irrelevant and I believe this simply isn't the case. Myself and many others, hold true to a principle known as the non-aggression principle, which essentially states that all action is permitted until said action aggresses some other person or their property. Agression is an externality, so I am a little confused. When you say that sub category X's specific potential externalities are irrelevant to libertarians, I would say that they are not irrelevant to them, they just shouldn't be handled by the state. Or, in the case of economics, they believe aswell as I, that there is a case to be made for freedom within an economy, and that this freedom will produce a desired result. I would say, that to the typical libertarian, issues boil down to a moral issue. Basically, all action should be consensual and anything other then that is immoral and thus should be eliminated. Now, there are exceptions, but this is the general principle. We are just advocates of freedom.

Here's an example of what I mean: Vox Day conclusively proved that free trade produces the externality of national deterioration that makes free trade a bad idea. Some Austrian economist completely ignored this and just said "you want to point guns at people!" He didn't explain why this externality is not really an externality. He didn't try to argue that free trade doesn't really produce this externality. He didn't even try to justify why we should ignore this externality. He just completely ignored that there was any externality whatsoever and demanded that Vox Day shut up.

Last edited by Due_Kindheartedness (12/26/2018 5:29 pm)

Due,

I am not a libertarian or classical liberal, but the OP really needs to go into more detail, as well as apply the principle of charity. The kind of classical liberal the OP is describing sees individual autonomy as paramount. They elevate something like Mill's Harm Principle - that the state and anyone else has no business interfering in a citizen's life unless that citizen is directly harming others through force or fraud - into a basic principle of morality and politics. You need to address this moral philosophy.

Most classical liberals and libertarians aren't objectivists.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Due,I am not a libertarian or classical liberal, but the OP really needs to go into more detail, as well as apply the principle of charity. The kind of classical liberal the OP is describing sees individual autonomy as paramount. They elevate something like Mill's Harm Principle - that the state and anyone else has no business interfering in a citizen's life unless that citizen is directly harming others through force or fraud - into a basic principle of morality and politics. You need to address this moral philosophy.

The problem is that "elevating Mill's Harm Principle into a basic principle of morality and politics" = "elevating Mill's Harm Principle to the exclusion of any other principle for morality and politics" = "ignoring all externalities."

Let's suppose that Companies A, B, C, ..., X, Y, Z are trading with Country Δ causing the rust belt of Country Σ to devolve into ghettos, meth labs, and unemployment. This causes the people of sigma to react.

Citizens of Σ: Your free trade is causing our youth to die of meth explosions and heroin overdose! You have broken Mill's Harm Principle and are harming us by your free trade!

Companies A-Z: Huh? No we haven't. We didn't put a gun against Country Δ's, and Country Δ didn't put a gun against our heads. So no transgression of Mill's Harm Principle occurred.

Citizens of Σ: But if you didn't engage in that free trade we would have prospered and thrived! Therefore your free trade caused (by counterfactual definiteness) our youth and livelihood to be destroyed!

Companies A-Z: So what? Counterfactuals are external to our business transactions, so they don't count as transgressions against Mill's Harm Principle.

Citizens of Σ: But that's not fair! The externalities caused by your free trade do harm us!

Companies A-Z: The only way to eliminate these externalities is if Country Σ puts a gun against our head preventing us from trading. That would be restricting our internal business transaction by coercion, which is a violation of Mill's Harm Principle because it's affecting our internalities! You loutish brutes, threatening us with your guns and tribal collectivism!

Citizens of Σ: But what about the harm you're causing us? Isn't that far worse than the government enforcing a rule against you?

Companies A-Z: Externalities don't count against Mill's Harm Principle. Shut up!

Citizens of Σ: Companies A-Z have a point. It is of supreme moral importance that the internalities of business partners never be interrupted, even if the externalities of their business causes all of us to resort to cannibalism and our cities be overrun by drug lords for hundreds of years as we die out and return to a state of wilderness. We will nobly embrace our destruction in order to uphold the internal rights of business partners. Can you pass me a bit of Suzie's upper thigh? The post-meth hunger is really getting to me.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Most classical liberals and libertarians aren't objectivists.

What are three major points where classical liberals & libertarians disagree with objectivists?

UGADawg wrote:

Your question is not well-formulated, as you're confusing a position in political philosophy with a position in ethics (presumably, assuming you're not talking about Rand's metaphysics etc).

From the opening post it is quite obvious that it *is* about Rand's metaphysics. Keyword: Objectivism.

Ayn Rand's is a distinct brand of atheist self-fetishist libertarianism. Hopefully there are other libertarians who are able to distance themselves from that sufficiently. But Paul Rand, Ted Cruz, etc. are passionately in favour.

Last edited by seigneur (1/03/2019 7:29 am)