This shares the same underlying principle that first discredited libertarianism in my mind. I think Scott Alexander, or perhaps it was another blogger, pointed out that sometimes a marginal decrease in overall freedom leads to a significant net increase of individual freedom. Examples include the prohibition on (flagrantly) false adverti…
This shares the same underlying principle that first discredited libertarianism in my mind. I think Scott Alexander, or perhaps it was another blogger, pointed out that sometimes a marginal decrease in overall freedom leads to a significant net increase of individual freedom. Examples include the prohibition on (flagrantly) false advertising, and the use of prisons to reduce public risk exposure. This is exactly the sort of thing governments are good for - reducing the redundant burden upon individuals to responsibly practice their own freedoms.
Much like almost any "-ism", when it becomes the only thing you believe/consider/use, it is probably going to be bad in lots of cases. However, the idea of valuing and considering the impact on personal freedom is one that should be, at the bare minimum, a component in almost any political decision. In my opinion, I agree that "maximize individual freedom and choice, and damn the consequences!" will probably lead to sup-optimal outcomes in a lot of places, but our current society is so far in the other direction, that I think following that credo in 90% of cases would be better than what we currently have.
So even though I don't personally consider myself a "libertarian" (or any other -ist/-ian), and agree that personal choice/freedom is not always the most important consideration, I think that in the current political milieu it's a better political heuristic than most others.
Also, I think your sugar/salt example is ridiculous enough to undermine the point you are making.
You're right, I don't mean the whole breadth of the philosophy, rather how it is currently imagined and discussed by the majority of its advocates in the USA. I think the main reason it's such a good heuristic right now is that the US is old! There's a lot of legal "junk DNA" that causes unintended problems and makes better solutions seem less important. Also, trying to pass reform in that direction is like trying to get tigers to vote to remove the long grass.
This shares the same underlying principle that first discredited libertarianism in my mind. I think Scott Alexander, or perhaps it was another blogger, pointed out that sometimes a marginal decrease in overall freedom leads to a significant net increase of individual freedom. Examples include the prohibition on (flagrantly) false advertising, and the use of prisons to reduce public risk exposure. This is exactly the sort of thing governments are good for - reducing the redundant burden upon individuals to responsibly practice their own freedoms.
Edit: removed a real reach of an analogy
Much like almost any "-ism", when it becomes the only thing you believe/consider/use, it is probably going to be bad in lots of cases. However, the idea of valuing and considering the impact on personal freedom is one that should be, at the bare minimum, a component in almost any political decision. In my opinion, I agree that "maximize individual freedom and choice, and damn the consequences!" will probably lead to sup-optimal outcomes in a lot of places, but our current society is so far in the other direction, that I think following that credo in 90% of cases would be better than what we currently have.
So even though I don't personally consider myself a "libertarian" (or any other -ist/-ian), and agree that personal choice/freedom is not always the most important consideration, I think that in the current political milieu it's a better political heuristic than most others.
Also, I think your sugar/salt example is ridiculous enough to undermine the point you are making.
You're right, I don't mean the whole breadth of the philosophy, rather how it is currently imagined and discussed by the majority of its advocates in the USA. I think the main reason it's such a good heuristic right now is that the US is old! There's a lot of legal "junk DNA" that causes unintended problems and makes better solutions seem less important. Also, trying to pass reform in that direction is like trying to get tigers to vote to remove the long grass.