Young Liberals (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

It's one of the conundrums for the libertarian in that to enforce such 'freedom' on the people they need a dictator to restrict the freedom of the people from choosing not to be so free.

gnrlies: If it were shown to you that a non-libertarian approach (for example, in education) yields better results(even if for whatever reason you view it as deontologically unjust), would you accept it to be the preferred approach?

I think many libertarians would be offended if I were to claim to be one; but I suppose I share many of their values. I share these values because I honestly believe that free market approaches are always better than interventionist ones (i.e. its a means to an end rather than the other way around). Subsequently to me, your question is flawed in that I would never accept that a non-libertarian approach could yield a better result (which makes the question an irrelevant hypothetical).

But to answer your question - yes, I would always support the best system that yields the best results. But I think the problem is that it is very hard to define 'the best results'. I think that the key difference between an individualist (libertarian) line of thought, and and collectivist one is that libertarians dont accept the notion of a single 'best outcome' (i.e. one that meets everyones needs). Sort of like if the government told everyone they had to wear pink ties but everyone wanted to wear different colours.

 

[Enteebee]

I think many libertarians would be offended if I were to claim to be one; but I suppose I share many of their values. I share these values because I honestly believe that free market approaches are always better than interventionist ones (i.e. its a means to an end rather than the other way around). Subsequently to me, your question is flawed in that I would never accept that a non-libertarian approach could yield a better result (which makes the question an irrelevant hypothetical).

Huh? How is it flawed exactly? It specifically states 'if it were shown to you that a non-libertarian approach yields better results', you may think this will never happen (something that hints to me that you're a bit of a blind ideologue), but that doesn't mean the hypothetical is flawed in any way.

But I think the problem is that it is very hard to define 'the best results'. I think that the key difference between an individualist (libertarian) line of thought, and and collectivist one is that libertarians dont accept the notion of a single 'best outcome' (i.e. one that meets everyones needs). Sort of like if the government told everyone they had to wear pink ties but everyone wanted to wear different colours.

Well, what I mean is the solution which gives the greatest overall benefit to the community i.e. It is my opinion that taxing those who already have a great deal of freedom and merely denying them rather extravagant displays of freedom in order to provide for basic needs (education & health) of others to give them much more important freedoms (someone with a low level of education is more likely to be at the whim of employers, unable to have as much power in the market place etc) equals a greater benefit to society than denying others the right to buy a Mercedes instead of a Toyota.

This being true even if you have to deny 100,000 people the right to get the Mercedes in order to provide for a decent level of education for 50,000.... the benefit to the 50,000 would just be that much greater in my opinion. Obviously for some things we'll have to take into account perhaps that charity will pick up a bit of the slack where government left off, though I think its inefficiencies would still lead to greater freedom being harnessed through forced wealth redistribution.

Do you disagree?

 

[gnrlies]

Huh? How is it flawed exactly? It specifically states 'if it were shown to you that a non-libertarian approach yields better results', you may think this will never happen (something that hints to me that you're a bit of a blind ideologue), but that doesn't mean the hypothetical is flawed in any way.

I think you will find that I said 'to me....it is flawed'. The reason I said this is because I wouldn't have liberal values if I didn't think it resulted in the best outcomes (i.e. I care not about the means but rather the ends). Subsequently the question is flawed to me (as it doesn't address the real reason why I think the way I do). A better question might tackle the issue as to why I think a liberal approach is better. I am not a blind ideologue. A blind ideologue would not care about the end, but rather the means (like the many socialists / communists that still exist despite the millions of people that have died in its name)

I will get to the second part of your message shortly

 

[Enteebee]

I think you will find that I said 'to me....it is flawed'. The reason I said this is because I wouldn't have liberal values if I didn't think it resulted in the best outcomes (i.e. I care not about the means but rather the ends). Subsequently the question is flawed to me (as it doesn't address the real reason why I think the way I do).

The point of the question is that a lot of libertarians I've read hold that greater freedom is more important than a utilitarian analysis of the likely results, they have a deontological form of philosophy/ethics where they feel it's necessarily always morally wrong (not just due to the outcomes) to deny freedom.

A blind ideologue would not care about the end, but rather the means (like the many socialists / communists that still exist despite the millions of people that have died in its name)

Blind ideologues can care about the end but never accept the possibility of flaw in their chosen means. I find it very odd that you can find exceptions to libertarianism where it works (national defense etc), but then can't imagine other exceptions possibly existing.

 

[gnrlies]

Well, what I mean is the solution which gives the greatest overall benefit to the community i.e. It is my opinion that taxing those who already have a great deal of freedom and merely denying them rather extravagant displays of freedom in order to provide for basic needs (education & health) of others to give them much more important freedoms (someone with a low level of education is more likely to be at the whim of employers, unable to have as much power in the market place etc) equals a greater benefit to society than denying others the right to buy a Mercedes instead of a Toyota.

This being true even if you have to deny 100,000 people the right to get the Mercedes in order to provide for a decent level of education for 50,000.... the benefit to the 50,000 would just be that much greater in my opinion. Obviously for some things we'll have to take into account perhaps that charity will pick up a bit of the slack where government left off, though I think its inefficiencies would still lead to greater freedom being harnessed through forced wealth redistribution.

Do you disagree?

I think a libertarian would argue that the best scenario for society, is one where individuals can make individual decisions to maximise their own welfare (which would leave to a collectively desireble outcome)

On education: Well yes, you know I agree with you... But what makes our values more worthy than someone else? Most people would share our values so under a libertarian system people would fund education. But maybe under a libertarian system they wouldn't fund other things like middle class welfare, or elitist activities (whilst the govt currently does). I think this is more socially desireble than a government that forces us to pay for things we dont want.

As an aside, I think that the best type of welfare is one that allows people opportunities. So education is a big part of that (i think that ideally every child should have the same opportunities irrespective of their parents). Then they can achieve their own goals by themselves without the help of the govt.

 

[Enteebee]

On education: Well yes, you know I agree with you... But what makes our values more worthy than someone else? Most people would share our values so under a libertarian system people would fund education.

They would fund education for their own children but I sincerely doubt that you'll get an equal level of funding to the education of every child as what the government currently gives them and I don't think people should have the right to deny children these freedoms in order to preserve their ability to buy more expensive luxury items.

But maybe under a libertarian system they wouldn't fund other things like middle class welfare, or elitist activities (whilst the govt currently does). I think this is more socially desireble than a government that forces us to pay for things we dont want.

Like what? I'm definately up for some cuts to government welfare, but I'd like to know specifically what you're talking about because sometimes I feel there can be benefits which aren't immediately noticable i.e. high funding for universities which then go on to produce graduates/ideas which increase the wealth of the country, it's forcing people to make wise investment decisions for the country (which may not be individually the wisest investment decision for themselves).

 

[gnrlies]

The point of the question is that a lot of libertarians I've read hold that greater freedom is more important than a utilitarian analysis of the likely results, they have a deontological form of philosophy/ethics where they feel it's necessarily always morally wrong (not just due to the outcomes) to deny freedom.

Well those that subscribe to JS Mill would argue that the only way to maximise total utility is to maximise total liberty so I disagree with your statement. Some libertarians would certainly hold freedom as a core moral value but there are more people on the other side of politics who are willing to fuck people around based on their moral values.

 

[chicky_pie]

*rates this thread a 5 star.

 

[gnrlies]

Like what? I'm definately up for some cuts to government welfare, but I'd like to know specifically what you're talking about because sometimes I feel there can be benefits which aren't immediately noticable i.e. high funding for universities which then go on to produce graduates/ideas which increase the wealth of the country, it's forcing people to make wise investment decisions for the country (which may not be individually the wisest investment decision for themselves).

Sorry im dealing with your responses in patches here!

Anyway, I'm talking about middle class welfare that essentially sees the government tax individuals and then hand it back in the form of welfare. This churning is not only expensive due to admin costs, but it provides disincentives to work, etc. Other types of govt. spending could be replaced with private solutions. The fact that we even have a debate against electricity privatisation demonstrates the way governments (and the public unfortunately) tend to think.

Yes there are advantages to things like higher education, but let me put this equity arguement for you:

Why should someone on minimum wage pay for someone to go to university to become a lawyer who will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars? I think we have a good system because it encourages higher education through loans (reducing entry barriers), but still internalises the costs to the person who accrues the benefits.

 

[Enteebee]

Anyway, I'm talking about middle class welfare that essentially sees the government tax individuals and then hand it back in the form of welfare.

Sometimes I might agree, others disagree... I can see myself agreeing with a government forcing people to make 'better' decisions i.e. forcing a minimum level of payment into superannuation, while it takes away some of their freedom now, it allows them much greater freedom in the future.

Yes there are advantages to things like higher education, but let me put this equity arguement for you:

Why should someone on minimum wage pay for someone to go to university to become a lawyer who will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars? I think we have a good system because it encourages higher education through loans (reducing entry barriers), but still internalises the costs to the person who accrues the benefits.

They shouldn't have to, fellow rich lawyers etc should have to and for the most part that's the way it ends up as poorer people often pay much less in tax than the benefit they get back through welfare while richer people pay much more than they get in return.

 

[gnrlies]

Blind ideologues can care about the end but never accept the possibility of flaw in their chosen means. I find it very odd that you can find exceptions to libertarianism where it works (national defense etc), but then can't imagine other exceptions possibly existing.

Sorry missed this bit (I told you it was patchy

I dont disregard its flaws but you have to consider alternatives. I do believe it is better than any alternative.

I think probably the biggest critique of libertarianism is that it is long run focussed. All of the benefits accrue in the long run and may cause some transition problems in the short run, or may be too slow to respond to changing conditions (which means that we may need govt to intervene).

I accept this. This is why I do support some level of government intervention. But I do believe that govt solutions should complement rather than compete with markets.

 

[Enteebee]

I do believe it is better than any alternative.

But obviously not in all circumstances... (i.e. Defense), so the door is open to the posibility that there are in some circumstances better alternatives. I think the biggest critique is that it simply doesn't always lead to the best result, sometimes perhaps because it's NOT far-focussed enough... I mean without government intervention in some industries, you end up with a corporate monopoly, which is essentially the same as having a state-run monopoly but without the responsibility to the people through voting power.

But I do believe that govt solutions should complement rather than compete with markets.

I agree, that's why I'd consider myself more of an Ordoliberal.

 

[gnrlies]

They would fund education for their own children but I sincerely doubt that you'll get an equal level of funding to the education of every child as what the government currently gives them and I don't think people should have the right to deny children these freedoms in order to preserve their ability to buy more expensive luxury items.

Yes well in actual fact I support this type of transfer.

But then again I dont believe in state schools. (i think a voucher system is better)

 

[Enteebee]

Yes well in actual fact I support this type of transfer.

But then again I dont believe in state schools. (i think a voucher system is better)

Do you believe we should have an accreditation system with somewhat standardised curricula?

I wouldn't totally reject the idea of school vouchers, though I have a few issues...

 

[gnrlies]

Sometimes I might agree, others disagree... I can see myself agreeing with a government forcing people to make 'better' decisions i.e. forcing a minimum level of payment into superannuation, while it takes away some of their freedom now, it allows them much greater freedom in the future.



They shouldn't have to, fellow rich lawyers etc should have to and for the most part that's the way it ends up as poorer people often pay much less in tax than the benefit they get back through welfare while richer people pay much more than they get in return.

Why beat around the bush? Why not make them pay later when they earn a higher income? Giving students a blank cheque for free education is not a good way to make students accountable for their studies.

 

[gnrlies]

People on low incomes effectively pay no tax anyway. The cost isn't internalised. University grads pay most of the cost of their degree back themselves. The shortfall the government pays on CSP places is more than made up by the additional tax that graduates will pay over their lives as higher income earners.

Chadd and I were never arguing for free higher education. I'd say maintain the status quo, which means free primary and secondary education. Do you think the market would adequately provide education for low income children?

'
Yes well you know I would argue for the status quo as well because I support students paying for their own education. As for the contribution that governments make - its about opportunity. Would you prefer the government purchase more future income for soon to be rich graduates; or would you prefer them to spend it on more pressing needs (like carers etc).

 

[gnrlies]

But obviously not in all circumstances... (i.e. Defense), so the door is open to the posibility that there are in some circumstances better alternatives. I think the biggest critique is that it simply doesn't always lead to the best result, sometimes perhaps because it's NOT far-focussed enough... I mean without government intervention in some industries, you end up with a corporate monopoly, which is essentially the same as having a state-run monopoly but without the responsibility to the people through voting power.



I agree, that's why I'd consider myself more of an Ordoliberal.

Well ive read some interesting stuff on competition policy recently and it blew my mind (haha not really, but it it added a different perspective). It suggested that you in fact didn't need govt intervention here. But we will save that for another day....

In anycase I would argue that the role of government is to establish and enforce property rights and that defence is just a function similar to the police and legal system.

 

[Enteebee]

Why beat around the bush? Why not make them pay later when they earn a higher income? Giving students a blank cheque for free education is not a good way to make students accountable for their studies.

I'm not talking about free education in the tertiary sector, all I mean is with regard to the extra payments governments make to universities (hecs is a large portion of their funding, but obviously not all of it) ...

As for accountability, I agree it helps a little to make people pay for themselves, but for the most part I don't believe people feel as accountable to hecs as they do to car repayments, they just don't want to fail so they can get their degree and get a good job.

 

[gnrlies]

Do you believe we should have an accreditation system with somewhat standardised curricula?

I wouldn't totally reject the idea of school vouchers, though I have a few issues...

Well not necessarily.

The only reason we have one now is because our universities have a standardised entry criteria. If you didn't have that you would find that different schools would find their own niches and we wouldn't be studying the same dumbed down crap.

But of course with things like the UAI the content needs to be standardised

 

[Enteebee]

Well ive read some interesting stuff on competition policy recently and it blew my mind (haha not really, but it it added a different perspective). It suggested that you in fact didn't need govt intervention here. But we will save that for another day....

In anycase I would argue that the role of government is to establish and enforce property rights and that defence is just a function similar to the police and legal system.

You don't need government intervention to stop monopolies/oligopies? You really think if we stopped all regulation right now there wouldn't all of a sudden be corporations taking total advantage of their priviledged status in the marketplace? Tell me exactly why we wouldn't have oil cartels.