It amazes me how many so called "rational" atheists have a socialist political philosophy.

They don't want to live under the thumb of a celestial dictatorship or controlling religion, yet they have no problems having government control their lives and limit their liberties. They don't believe their is a sugar daddy god in the heavens that will take care of all their problems, yet they want government to wave some kind of magic wand and take care of every individual's problem.

They claim to be rational thinkers, yet they believe the government can just pass out welfare without expecting anything in return from the citizens receiving it and somehow the government/society will not go broke. They don't want people to be self-reliant instead live in fear, so people will be slaves to political dogma and government just as they are slaves to religious dogma and churches.

"Rational" socialists, can you explain yourselves?

The only difference between a pastor and a politician is that one promise things he can't deliver on in the next world instead of this world. We need an end of politics just like and end of religion.

To think that humanity would "mature" to such a state is to ignore the most basic principles of natural selection.  Evolution does not do anything predictive, and the kind of individual sacrifice necessary for such a society requires prediction.  Game theory explains and predicts that society is a competitive compromise between immediate self interest for the individual and long term interest for the individual -- NOT, as some believe, a compromise between individual and group interests.

If I defer instant gratification out of "respect" for my neighbor, what I am really doing, in a Game Theory sense, is acting in my own self interest.  Living in a society where everyone respects their neighbors is one of the best ways to get things done for everybody, and the most important person involved in everybody is me, evolutionarily speaking.  "Respect" and other noble virtues are programmed into us, but that doesn't mean that they are telling us the truth.  We like to believe that our sense of virtue is a result of enlightened altruism, but the truth is that our societal strategy makes the most sense for the species, which in turn, on average, is better for the individual.

Put simply, for the survival of the genes, a tenuous balance between defection and cooperation is the most effective strategy.  Universal cooperation fails abysmally against it.  Not only does universal cooperation fail against other strategies, it has a disturbing tendency to fail all on its own.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.  It just takes the existence of one defector.

 

Well, I don't think that it would... but I do like to consider the idea that it could.  In a Game Theory sense, the most successful strategy is derived from the rules of the game, so the most successful strategy can be changed by changing the rules of the game.  For example, would breeding like rabbits regardless of ability to financially support the children be more successful in a libertarian capitalist society or a democratic socialist society?  The other thing that I consider is that human nature, as far as I'm aware, appears to depend on equal parts nature and nurture... in other words, genetics is only one factor to consider... the other being how a society "relates" to its citizens in terms of education and providing infrastructure.  In other words, I would expect that changes to a society would influence both the development of its culture and, over long enough periods of time, the evolution of the species.  So, I ask myself 2 questions: what kind of society do I want to exist in the future, and is there anything I can do today to give us a gentle nudge in that direction?

Also, it sounds like we have different ideas of what would be required to make a society without restrictions on personal freedom viable.  I don't consider universal cooperation to be a requisite, or even desirable, quality.  On an average day I meet at least five people on the street who want me to give them money for food, and I never do.  It's not because I'm being greedy... I couldn't care less about the money.  It's because I consider giving them money to be bad for society as a whole, because they'll just buy food, metabolize it, and then end up in exactly the same situation again without contributing anything.  I'm less concerned with nobility than practicality.

I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've been defending the libertine POV for years under the guise of "fairness" - i.e. that it is unfair to forcably take from one and give to another in any case, and that utilitarianism certainly cannot justify such a sacrirfice of individual liberty. After reading this, I realize what I've really been defending is my idea of justice.

But notice the words I've bolded in your statement above.

You seem to say that complete freedom is impractical and hard to achieve, because things may not work out the way we'd like. Now there is part of me that agrees with that; however, the author of the article would take serious issue with such a statement. He says that we must be idealistic and push for change regardless of percieved practicallity, because in compromising our ideals for what is currently possible, we undermine the very things we really want to achieve. I think the same mode of thinking applies to what the RRS is trying to achieve.

If we believe something is right and just, should we not push for it fully and to be fully implemented? There will be a period of adjustment, sure, but isn't it better to push for the full implementation of the ideal now and deal with the consequences and adjustments down the road?

Your thoughts?

 

Fine.  Allow me to clarify.  Just because someone is socialist does not mean that she believes in big government or big taxes.  What I believe in is the social equality of all people in Canada based on their relative incomes.  The government of Canada might be one of the biggest bureaucracies on the planet, but it is largely effective.  You'll notice that in Ontario, which follows the same format as the federal government (even after a referendum), voted to keep it's current voting system, which is really defunct, because it's almost the only way that a minority government might be elected (unlikely in Ontario because of the massive Liberal support though in question because of the polls that indicate the Green Party is a contender for a serious plurality vote in some ridings, meaning a four party minority parliament in Ontario, though likely a Liberal government) and practically guarantees a Liberal government unless they really fuck up, despite Mulroney, which really means a socially responsible government that is committed to both the environment (though not as much as it should be) and to the social welfare of Ontarians (which is necessarily debated in parliament).  I anxiously await the post-summer session as it is one of the most productive sessions of parliament.  Ontario has so far been bogged down by appparently uselesss legislatory acts that are meaningless to the general population.

 

A very reasoned response, and I agree up to a point.

Things are seldom as black and white as the examples given in Rothbard's essay. Or, rather, they are seldom so black and white until we look at them in hindsight. Certainly, he picked the examples he did because they were easily dissected in order to make his point.

I'm simply concerned that while we contemplate things in debate and what not, nothing actually gets done, and compromises are made before action is ever even taken.

Take for example the RRS. When we first started, atheists came out of the woodwork telling us that what we were attempting to do (taking an offensive approach to the subject and using terms like delusion) would divide the atheist commity (how that would have been possible at the time is beyond me, organising atheists is like herding gerbils) and ultimately do more harm than good. We went forward anyway. We did the Blasphemy Challenge, debated Comfort and Cameron, waged a war on Christmas - and where are we? I think we've done a lot of good, I genuinely do, even if it was only to create this community. That wouldn't have happened if we listened to or kept arguing with those in the atheist community who at the time represented the status quo.

Now, the status quo has adjusted to include us and our agenda - but only because we forced our way in. Had we recieved no support, we'd have been gone by now - so clearly others do feel as the core RRS did when we started this whole thing, and we are providing an outlet and service nobody knew they wanted until we created it.

So, I am in agreement with you that debate and discussion of how to proceed never hurts, so long as that debate and discussion is not allowed to fall into stagnation.

At some point an idealist, any idealist, has to actually take action - and to hell with the consequences, the chips will fall where they fall. Otherwise, what the hell is the point other than intellectual masturbation?

I've believed for years that anarchic communism is a perfect form of government, in the ideal. However, human nature fucks it up, every time, and so anarchic communism isn't a viable form of overall government. (Though it might work small-scale for certain groups.)

Same with democratic capitalism -- it's an excellent ideal, but it too is broken by those who would game the system, who use it to gain even more economic (and therefore political) power. I believe it's just less-broken than anarchic communism.

A question, then, Hamby: how would we go about forming a government (or non-goverenment, as the case may be) around the principles you describe? How would a society protect itself from the defectors? Is there a rational solution, or do we just keep going with the least-broken? (And if that is the case, which is the least broken?)

I completely agree with the Rothbard the author if you don't press as hard as you can the injustice will only continue. Over 30 years ago I encountered Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy when a friend gave me 'We the Living' to read. After I read this book I eventually read everything she ever wrote. Ever since I have been a Libertarian. She wrote that any compromise with evil only evil wins. Any erosion of our liberties is a compromise with evil. In one of her articles she said it was unjust to force someone to buy shoes for ever last person in Patagonia. As America developed we also created an unfair market as well. There is no such thing as a Free Market in this world except perhaps in the Amazon jungle where the natives have no contact with civilization.

The US is violating your civil liberties by allowing religion to be legitimized, by regulating your pursuit of happiness, by denying you the right to make your own choices. All of us pay for this every single day. If you want to smoke pot, you have a right to do so. I personally don't but that doesn't mean I have a right to force my values on you. If it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol please explain why it did not take one to ban pot and all of the other drugs. The only power the US Constitution really gives the government and hence the FDA is to ensure the quality of products in interstate commerce. I'd really like to see someone challenge this. Consider Nevada allows prostitution but no other state does. Why the fuck is it a crime to charge for something you can give away free?

These examples are areas where the government has decided to ignore the Constitution in favor of forcing other people's values on all. Fuck that. It is just as easy to force other bullshit down our throats. Consider the Patriot Act.

Since Bush got his Patriot Act even more liberties have been taken. The goal was to prevent terror acts but the price is loss of freedom. Our government can probably stop 99.9999% of attacks if we give up more and more freedom and liberty. You can probably protect your children this way from illness too, of course they'd be living in a plastic bubble they never could leave. Freedom involves risk and many of us have lost sight of that in our pursuit of leisure. Everything has a price and the price we pay for feeling safe is 80 year old grandmothers are frisked at the airport, a log of your book purchases and use of library materials is available, you can be held for years in protective custody, or held with no trial. Wake up, this is what fascism is about.

I don't have time to read the Rothbard piece, but I do have to say that he's one of the best economic thinkers of this century.  The Austrian school is the only school of economics that studies monetary theory to the fullest extent.   What has Government Done to our Money is essential reading at least for the first few chapters.

I recently took the Nolan Survey at: http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

I'm 100% libertarian.  Here are the answers I picked:

1. Speech, Assembly, Press, Internet, and Property Rights

Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don't violate other people's rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.

2. Guns

The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly protects the right of all individuals to bear arms. Government regulation of guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. Having the right to self-defense is meaningless without also having the means to defend yourself. An armed society is a peaceful society, is the best defense against criminals, and serves as a deterrent against government tyranny. Gun control has encouraged society to become lax and negligent in teaching and training on the safe handling and maintenance of weapons by individuals.

3. Homosexual Marriage

There should be no laws regarding homosexual relationships among consenting adults. It is a private, contractual matter between free, private individuals that should not be regulated.

4. Foreign Policy

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none," said President Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address. America's interventionist policies over the past 100+ years have done little or nothing to reduce international instability, have led us into an endless series of wars, and have cost us dearly in American lives and money. The best defense of our borders is to defend our rights and liberty, not to sacrifice them while constantly growing our gigantic military, led by a parade of Presidents who repeatedly stick our nose into other countries' affairs.

5. National ID Card

There should be no national ID card. Period. The issuance of required National IDs controlled via interconnected databases will effectively end all privacy in this country.

6. Corporate Welfare

End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.

7. Trade and Money

End government barriers to international free trade. The regulation of trade tends enrich selected interest groups and industry captains at the expense of everyone else. We must move away from the inflationary approach of the Federal Reserve by re-adopting a hard money approach and dissolving the Federal Reserve system. Ever wonder why prices of everything (including real estate) keep going up over time? The Federal Reserve system is the culprit. President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law regretted his decision three years later saying, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country."

8. Social Security

Let people control their own retirement and they'll retire richer and better off. The Social Security system is already bankrupt, despite what the politicians and bureaucrats keep telling us. Allow individuals to choose for themselves whether to opt out of the Social Security system. If we force everyone to remain in its pyramid scheme, the end result will be disastrous. We must act now before Social Security becomes completely insolvent.

9. Health Care

Government regulation of health care is the main cause of the health care industry's upward spiraling costs. The FDA, EPA, Medicare, and a host of other bureaucracies have created mountains of regulations that have led to the deaths of thousands and even millions of people who were denied needed treatments and resources. The cost of creating new treatments is also out of control because of this regulation. The only way to make health care affordable again is to get government out of the health care business.

10. Taxes, Spending, and the National Debt

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. This will have an incredibly positive impact on the economy starting at its very lowest and smallest levels. The national debt must be paid down rather than endlessly increased, or we'll soon face national bankruptcy.

 

Edit: this survey isn't perfect but it's the quickest way to find out how much of a libertarian you are.

 

-RR

 

Same score here.

Generally, I score as a right-libertarian. IOW, extremely socially liberally (smoke and fuck whatever or whomever you'd like) and advocating that the government simply stay the fuck out of trade, welfare, and the economy in general whenever possible. Rather, that government, other than self and local government, is unnecessary, oppressive and full of fail.

This is a good quiz too:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm:

Economic Left/Right: +6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.96

 

Yes..... even a couple of ancient civilizations knew, as is well-documented and as Carl Sagan put it, "that the uncontrolled pursuit of profit posed a serious threat to the 'soul' of the nation."

Carl was most often prosaic, but he sure knew how to be wonderfully poetic when he saw the need. Miss that guy.

I fail to see how it is relevant at all. This piece is taken from one of Rothbard's books. It wasn't written for Mises, it's simply Murray Rothbard's take on why people are libertarian, and I have to say, I agree with him. I've made many of the same points in the past, before I even knew who Rothbard was or that Mises existed. Rothbard does get the points across much more eloquently than I ever have, and as I mentioned above, this piece actually helped me better understand what I've been trying to get other people to understand for years. Like I said, I've always approached and defended the philosophy of libertarianism from the POV of what I considered fair - I now realize what I've been defending is my concept of justice.

Again, I fail to see how this is relevant. I'm generally suspicious of socialists and folks who watch American Idol.

Personally, I'm not aware of the complaints you make against Mises or who actually makes them. Feel free to cite your sources.

I am well aware that Mises has an agenda, but I hardly think you can hold that against them. RRS has an agenda as well. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda, especially when you are honest about having one.

I've read a few articles on Mises that I felt were misguided, poorly argued, and just plain wrong. So what? I don't get my political philosophy from a website, I simply like what they post on occasion.

This article is on the money, and it hit home personally, and that is why I shared it with you all. It's posted in plenty of other places than Mises as well, I simply found it there, so I linked to it there.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I post an article I like from a particular site that I necessarily agree with or support that site. I may or may not - and it really matters fuck all in the end. For fucks sake, I've posted things I've found on Alex Jones' site, and I think that guy is a tatal nutbag - doesn't mean his site doesn't churn out the occasional provocative and insightful article.

So, yeah, I fail to see your point and find little value in your comment.

Here's one of the problems in discussing political systems: the notion that one or another will result in more crime. I've never seen anyone be able to correlate crime with a political system and I doubt it's even possible. Especially since the state decides what "criminal" means. To be honest, I think any political system has exactly the same amount of crime as another. My reasoning is thus: any organization can only outlaw and police a certain number of things, as the organization's time and energy is limited. It must pick its battles. Thus, activities considered criminal by a state are decided based on the ability of the state to pursue action against offenders. Some decisions of that nature can be irrational (the war on drugs) and some rational (outlawing murder) but ultimately the functioning of the system is limited to the group's energy to operate it.

... at temporarily stabilizing prices and placating a petulant public filled with entitlement.

You're actually describing any modern mixed economy, which has been thrown the loop of the modern corporation. The modern corporation is the only organization other than the state that has taken it upon itself to be excessively wasteful. And no wonder! It's a monster from the get-go; a parasite on states, without which it could not exist and thrive. Now it's the corporation that can be excessively wealthy, as opposed to a monarchy or fiefdom. It's the corporation that now has power not only over the poor, but over the middle class.

Now you're describing Canada. That's exactly what we have going here. Of course, we're bolstered by the fact that we're among the top exporters to the US ...

Re-read this whole paragraph. To me, there seem to be many contradictions. You acknowledge that bureaucracy is inefficient, but the controls you mention would require a huge bureaucracy to manage and enforce. Also, show me a "very smart government" and I'll find you a unicorn.

You mean like ... libertarianism? That last bit sounded pretty libertarian to me. I saw "individual goal" in there ...