Topic: Max Keiser - "Libertarians are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots" - page 7. (Read 10373 times)

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

And still, you avoid stating how libertarianism fails to meet Maslow's needs. C'mon, chief. Out with it.

Here, I'll start you off. The only need which government has any role in providing is safety. AnCap provides that with protection agencies and arbitration/restitution, and a libertarian state provides that by it being the one service that it provides.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Countries that were conquered during WWII were looted. Switzerland was not a military threat, but would have been conquered and looted as soon as resources were available. Yes, sometimes you have to "shoot twice" that's life. The French Underground was a good example. They never really stopped resisting. So I guess you would never choose violence as a course of action? Ghandi would have been a better example for you, although nowadays they too are a member of the nuke club.

Libertarianism is not based on science. I have no reference for defending it. You have not posited a clear specific argument where AnCap is sustainable. The Wikipedia article mentions historical roots to related philosophies, but that's like saying we have a mission to Alpha Centauri planned because we went to the moon. I think your philosophy has a lot of development to do and probably requires a technological breakthrough of some sort before it should be attempted.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Switzerland is an even better example than you think. It is basically Europe's biggest bank, all the powerful families store a bunch of wealth there thus providing disincentive to anyone who wants to attack.

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

Awww... I really like Max too, kind of a shame to see him get so sloppy.  Definitely a low point with this episode of his show here IMHO.
Hopefully this can be a wakeup call to Max if he wants to keep any respectability.

Some problems here:

1) Shows disrespect or ignorance of 2nd amendment
2) Shows disrespect for fortune cookies
3) Shows disrespect for LSD
3) Shows disrespect for regulatory capture
4) Shows disrespect for improved security methods such as bitcoin by implying we could be better off if we return to ancient system
5) Shows disrespect for personal liberty


Mostly it seems when watching this episode that he doesn't respect you because he just goes for volume and emotional response rather than reasoned arguments.  

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

Exactly.

The government we have today DEPENDS on a hierarchical monetary system. Money originates from the top of the pyramid, and then those at the top decide who it trickles down to.

By replacing the monetary system with a decentralized one, the same will happen with government.

A decentralized government is akin to no government at all.

None of that even touched the original statement. I'll answer your question, but I'd appreciate an explanation of what basic needs need to be met, and how libertarianism doesn't offer to meet them.

Now, as to your question, I assume by "in the middle of", you mean in a position similar to Switzerland during WWII. And, in my opinion, it would be handled much like it was by Switzerland. Free trade with whomever came peacefully, and armed resistance to any who came in aggression.

Bingo.

I don't know how much detail you want. That's what Universities are for. Well just look at all the marvelous technological development that came from feudalism. Basically nothing other that sharper sticks and throwing bigger stones. Even before Maslow, Jesus and others said we are our brother's keeper. Since the 1940s when we established social safety nets, Europe and America have created a technological explosion. We make nuclear power instead of just nuclear bombs. We make moon rockets instead of just missiles. If America, Europe and USSR decided to punish Germany by genocide, they would have reverted to their monarchic roots. Instead they rebuild Germany, well mostly. If America had rebuilt Afghanistan in the 1990s, there would be much more progress there.

How would a Libertarian country deal with being in the middle of global conflict?

Agorism in a nutshell.

I don't really care about these definitions of libertarians and poster boys or whatever. If you think about it, framing arguments with that kind of stuff is a distraction.

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. I also think the current system encourages stereotyped thinking and orthodoxy while discouraging experimentation and cleverness (especially academia). Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

Also, (IMO) the job of a democratic government isn't to "meet basic needs", it is to use a monopoly on legal violence in order to provide an environment conducive to the general welfare. Perhaps meeting basic needs is a part of this, perhaps not. The primary job, though, is keeping any other malicious entity from occupying the space of "biggest gang". The game is not letting the government itself become so powerful that when malicious powers take over (and they will eventually) it is not too big to stop without taking everything else down with it.

My point is, if the actions necessary to "meet basic needs" are an obstacle to limiting government power, then perhaps those actions should not be taken.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

Well, you're the one that says there's a problem. How can you point out a problem, if you can't define it?

Libertarians think human nature is fine as is. We just need to build a system around it, instead of trying to build a system to constrain it.

This system will crumble. What takes its place will probably the same thing that always does. Feudalism. It may be a more technological feudalism, but violence will be at its core.

I didn't define human nature. I said behaviorists are working on that. How do you fix a problem when you can't even define it?