How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[Humes fork]

I'm sure most people here are familiar with Daniel Loxton's piece Where Do We Go From Here?. Among other things, he worries that skepticism is becoming too closely associated with atheism, humanism and libertarianism. I can see why he worry about the first one (I don't find it very troublesome, but that's another dicsussion), the overwhelming majority of skeptics are atheists. As for humanism, the term seems rather vague to me, but again I see his point, as the CFI (a major skeptical organization) actively promotes humanism.

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

[goodm0urning]

I agree with libertarians on a lot of social issues, though I find that they have a tendency to turn things up to 11. Extremism of any stripe is rarely the answer.

And then there are some libertarians (Ron Paul comes to mind) whose distrust of the government crosses the line into paranoia.

[AvalonXQ]

I would have assumed that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was most closely associated with skepticism.
That's certainly the vibe I get on this board.

[Mr. Purple]

I've never seen the venomous reactions to libertarians that happens here, happen many other places (could be sampling error).

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

Republicans are wrong about both halves of their platform...


(I do think that the skeptic community leans slightly left- IME).

ETA: Sorry, that's "I lean American-left". I forget JREF is so global...Euro-left is a whole other thing...

[jj]

This is a confusing question, taking the thread as a whole, because at least in the USA, "right" has been thoroughly tied to radical religions reactionaries. So most skeptics are a wee touch leery of creationism and such, and are going to look "left" by that standard. Most skeptics also know something about the tragedy of the commons, and are thence also skeptical of the religion that is hard-core libertarianism. But I would hesitate to say that they are left-leaning in their social policies, I see a lot of "let them starve" comments, "I've got mine, too bad" comments, and other social-Darwinist comments hither and yon, along with the progressivist "we are all guilty" version of religion-free Catholicism.

So, I think the issue is clouded by the rest of the world.

[lomiller]

If Libertarians held fewer views that required sceptical scrutiny then there would be more Libertarian sceptics.

The basic problem isn’t with Libertarianism itself per say but with the main flavour of it practiced in the US. Libertarians, at least people in the US who label themselves such tend to be idealists, and idealism and scepticism will usually end up conflicting because the sceptic s untimely following the science, which is itself a highly pragmatic endeavour.

[TubbaBlubba]

Liberal views of social issues (say, Marijuana), which happen to coincide with libertarian views, seem common. But the "Hurf dee durf, who's John Galt, screw you got mine" kind of Libertarian doesn't seem too common - probably because those tend to make testable claims which fall apart upon sceptic scrutiny. I personally find them the most difficult to stomach, let alone understand, of all political leanings.

[C_Felix]

There's that term I don't like that much called, "intellectual honesty".

I think what the term entials could easily be applied to both libertarians and skeptics.


I'm hungry and invovled in a facebook chat conversation with an old friend, so I don't feel like explaining

[daenku32]

Here's my theory:

Back in the 90s when the whole computer/internet craze was taking off a lot of the people (who were barely nerds anymore, due to easiness of getting into the computer field) were used to stealing any software they needed for their home built computer. As these same people got to the internet chat rooms and forums that anarchism easily adopted both skepticism and libertarianism. They didn't care for legal enforcement, but neither were they signing up to OSS movement, because that would have required effort and acceptance of a structure that you couldn't circumvent while pretending to own something expensive.

Since those days I've see increasing numbers of non-skeptics and non-libertarians on the 'internets', putting their ideology out there as well. Because now you don't have to be an off-grid anarchist to have a nice rig with a broadband.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't get it that any skeptics are Libertarians, but then I don't get it that we have our share of right wingers either yet we do. And at least a couple of those right winger skeptics are pretty reasonable off the politics threads.

Shermer went too far. His version of libertarianism as expressed in is book before last was not that different from religious fundamentalism. I asked him if he seriously thought we'd be better off with privatized police like Blackwater and he said yes. That was after the Bush admin had hired Blackwater to police New Orleans after Katrina where they were unaccountable and shot up the place, and after they committed murders in Iraq for which they were never held accountable.


The best economic system is a mix of public and private systems and anyone thinking one size fits all isn't too keen on evidence.

[psionl0]

From what I have seen, what passes for "libertarianism" in this forum is really "anarchism".

Many skeptics here do not believe that the government should be dictating personal choices (such as using marijuana) and that could be considered a libertarian view but they still believe in the right of governments to make laws and levy taxes (authoritarian?)

However, the people most strongly associated with libertarianism seem to deny any role for government whatsoever. This is not realistic since in any society, more powerful groups will dominate the less powerful. The more powerful group might just as well be government as any warlords or gang leaders.

A debate that implies that the only two choices are no government and unlimited government is not useful. It might be more useful to decide where libertarianism ends and totalitarianism begins.

[Antiquehunter]

I haven't seen any definition of 'libertarian' I could throw myself behind. (I am not a US resident.) There are aspects of 'libertarianism' that intrigue me, and if asked to define my political beliefs, I usually say 'libertarian' but with 'a small 'l''.

Non-loopy libertarian?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Mr. Purple

I've never seen the venomous reactions to libertarians that happens here, happen many other places (could be sampling error).

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

Republicans are wrong about both halves of their platform...


(I do think that the skeptic community leans slightly left- IME).

ETA: Sorry, that's "I lean American-left". I forget JREF is so global...Euro-left is a whole other thing...

A friend of mine puts it this way:

"The problem with the left is they don't like guns, and the problem with the right is they don't like rights."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

I haven't seen any definition of 'libertarian' I could throw myself behind. (I am not a US resident.) There are aspects of 'libertarianism' that intrigue me, and if asked to define my political beliefs, I usually say 'libertarian' but with 'a small 'l''.

Non-loopy libertarian?

FWIW, if you look at the Libertarian Party platform it's pretty loopy.

Quote:

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

There's a lot in the platform that is totally unrealistic. Are roads supposed to zig zag around property owners wouldn't sell? And when there is a contract dispute, how are the parties supposed to resolve the problem if no government can intervene?

It's loopy extremism.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Purple

I lean left, and as such, agree w/ libertarians on half of their issues (broadly speaking). I honestly don't get where the venom comes from.

I think it comes about as a "skeptical anti-body reaction" to the dogma and zealotry of many of the more visible libertarians.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't get it that any skeptics are Libertarians, but then I don't get it that we have our share of right wingers either yet we do. And at least a couple of those right winger skeptics are pretty reasonable off the politics threads.

Oh, that's simple: full-blooded skeptics don't exist. Everybody have blindspots and areas where they, more or less consciously, don't apply skepticism. Often, those areas involve political standpoints.

[randman]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I'm sure most people here are familiar with Daniel Loxton's piece Where Do We Go From Here?. Among other things, he worries that skepticism is becoming too closely associated with atheism, humanism and libertarianism. I can see why he worry about the first one (I don't find it very troublesome, but that's another dicsussion), the overwhelming majority of skeptics are atheists. As for humanism, the term seems rather vague to me, but again I see his point, as the CFI (a major skeptical organization) actively promotes humanism.

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

I think there was a time when many skeptics were libertarian but that's changed. Just my opinion from experience, but seems skeptics today are often statists and that libertarians are often people of faith with very conservative political views being largely libertarian except on a few social issues like abortion. But one could argue protecting life is a libertarian stance. Certainly Ron Paul does and likely most tea partiers.

[Sophronius]

Hm, I do remember the majority of Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias declaring themselves to be libertarian. I've wondered about this myself. It does seem overly idealistic to me. Sure, it would be nice if humans were free to do as they please with no government intervention, but just as with communism humanity just isn't the right species for it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by randman

I think there was a time when many skeptics were libertarian but that's changed. Just my opinion from experience, but seems skeptics today are often statists and that libertarians are often people of faith with very conservative political views being largely libertarian except on a few social issues like abortion. But one could argue protecting life is a libertarian stance. Certainly Ron Paul does and likely most tea partiers.

People of faith with very conservative political views appear to be the very opposite of libertarian on subjects like homosexuality.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by psionl0

From what I have seen, what passes for "libertarianism" in this forum is really "anarchism".

Many skeptics here do not believe that the government should be dictating personal choices (such as using marijuana) and that could be considered a libertarian view but they still believe in the right of governments to make laws and levy taxes (authoritarian?)

However, the people most strongly associated with libertarianism seem to deny any role for government whatsoever. This is not realistic since in any society, more powerful groups will dominate the less powerful. The more powerful group might just as well be government as any warlords or gang leaders.

A debate that implies that the only two choices are no government and unlimited government is not useful. It might be more useful to decide where libertarianism ends and totalitarianism begins.

What's the difference between dictating personal choices and making laws?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Twiler

What's the difference between dictating personal choices and making laws?

You don't see any difference between laws that (say) prohibit murder and laws that prevent someone from using marijuana (or criticizing the government)?

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You don't see any difference between laws that (say) prohibit murder and laws that prevent someone from using marijuana (or criticizing the government)?

No. They all restrict freedom (at different degrees), for the ostensible purpose of maintaining order.

[psionl0]

So as far as you are concerned, it is a pure dichotomy between government and no government.

Fair enough.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So as far as you are concerned, it is a pure dichotomy between government and no government.

Fair enough.

I don't know if you understand me. I understand that there are different degrees of government, but I don't think there's a difference between controlling people's lives and making laws.

Even if the only law is 'Do not kill', that's still government oppression.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Even if the only law is 'Do not kill', that's still government oppression.

Yes, the truly good people of the US groan under the iron heel of the oppressor who doesn't let them kill anyone they happen to feel like killing. Look at what they did to that nice Dahmer boy.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Yes, the truly good people of the US groan under the iron heel of the oppressor who doesn't let them kill anyone they happen to feel like killing. Look at what they did to that nice Dahmer boy.

I don't think being oppressed makes them good.

And I'm not using oppression in the 'bad thing that must be stopped' sense, I'm using it in the 'literal meaning' sense.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Twiler

I don't know if you understand me.

That makes two of us.

Most people would argue that the government has a right - even a duty- to make laws that restrict some human activities - especially those activities that leave victims in their wake. Fewer people would make the same argument regarding "victimless" activities.

Either you don't support this point of view or you are trying to start an argument over the meaning of words.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

FWIW, if you look at the Libertarian Party platform it's pretty loopy.There's a lot in the platform that is totally unrealistic. Are roads supposed to zig zag around property owners wouldn't sell? And when there is a contract dispute, how are the parties supposed to resolve the problem if no government can intervene?

It's loopy extremism.

Yup - still haven't found a description of 'libertarianism' I could get behind. Guess I'll have to form my own party.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That makes two of us.

Most people would argue that the government has a right - even a duty- to make laws that restrict some human activities - especially those activities that leave victims in their wake. Fewer people would make the same argument regarding "victimless" activities.

Either you don't support this point of view or you are trying to start an argument over the meaning of words.

I would agree that the government has a duty to restrict human activities, but I don't think you can make a clear division between laws that leave victims, and those that don't. Any activity that anyone undertakes can potentially create victims. While there seems to be a distinction, this breaks down when you consider more complex cases, such as abortions, and the 'ripples' that any activity creates through society.

Myself, I agree with some laws, and I disagree with others, but this a subjective position based on my judgement rather than a semantic principle.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That makes two of us.

Most people would argue that the government has a right - even a duty- to make laws that restrict some human activities - especially those activities that leave victims in their wake. Fewer people would make the same argument regarding "victimless" activities.

Either you don't support this point of view or you are trying to start an argument over the meaning of words.

No.

Rights are created by a society, how a society chooses to see that those rights are respected varies and can include everything from peer pressure to governments.

Representative governments are "us". To me many of the USA libertarian posters often seem to consider that the government is not part of society, that it is not created by society, that it is some great big alien thing that has landed and imposed itself on people. In the USA (like the UK) that is getting the cause and effect the wrong way round. Society (which is just shorthand for saying the emergent property of humans interacting) has decided to create a government or governments to handle X, Y and Z. What X, Y and Z is at any point of time will vary and how X, Y and Z is achieved will vary.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Twiler

I don't think being oppressed makes them good.

And I'm not using oppression in the 'bad thing that must be stopped' sense, I'm using it in the 'literal meaning' sense.

Oppression n. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

So infringing on Dahmer's rights to kill people was a cruel or unjust exercise of authority?

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Oppression n. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

So infringing on Dahmer's rights to kill people was a cruel or unjust exercise of authority?

Oh.

I didn't realise that was the dictionary definition. I'll have to find a better word.

Restriction? Does that work?

Apologies to any I have offended.

[Wudang]

"Restriction" is pretty neutral - "constraint" might work.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Wudang

"Restriction" is pretty neutral - "constraint" might work.

How about "regulation"?

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Chaos

How about "regulation"?

Although technically correct it implies a lesser constraint than laws, implying more bureaucracy than government.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would have assumed that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was most closely associated with skepticism.
That's certainly the vibe I get on this board.

That's mine as well. Hence my surprise over singling out libertarianism as too closely associated with skepticism.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

That's mine as well. Hence my surprise over singling out libertarianism as too closely associated with skepticism.

I think the problem with the identification with "liberal" is how the word has been denigrated, mauled and fed through the shredder in the USA! In the rest of the world it doesn't mean "pinko-commie-facist-child-murderer"

[Dunstan]

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

I'm curious about why that should be the case. I think perhaps it's that libertarians have a tendency to want to build a political philosophy from universal ironclad principles, whether Ayn Rand's or somebody else's, and so it pushes them into reasoning like "all taxation is theft, theft is wrong, government requires taxation, therefore government is wrong." Whereas people who identify themselves more on the traditional left-right spectrum seem more accepting of the notion of grey areas and balancing the benefits of government with the costs. But then I suppose that just invites the question of why libertarians have that fondness for universal ironclad principles.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by randman

But one could argue protecting life is a libertarian stance.

Hahaha yeah. It’s a-OK to let people starve because social security/taxation is evil, but we’ll use the all-powerful force of the coercive state to limit the ability for women to control their own bodies. Now that’s freedom!

[geni]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

Well not that high but probably higher than the general population. Not unexpected. There are some very smart PR people pushing libertarianism as part of a low tax agender for those cases where god and guns doesn't work.