

The Non-Libertarian FAQ (aka Why I Hate Your Freedom) - vegai
http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html

======
michaelchisari
It mentions the Libertarian over-use of 1984. I've always found this
especially ironic, because Orwell was a Marxist who fought with the POUM in
the Spanish Civil War. Granted, a Libertarian Marxist, but I rarely see the
types this FAQ is addressed towards willing to make the distinction.

And this is unrelated, but I always like to add a nod towards it, if you enjoy
Orwell's work, pick up _Homage to Catalonia_. One of my favorite books, and
even if you disagree completely with Orwell's politics, his writing and
storytelling is extraordinary.

------
tzs
Libertarianism: the belief that the ideal form of government for a small
village scales to societies of hundreds of millions of people.

------
calpaterson
The problem with articles like this is that they're too patronising to be an
engagement with the opposition, and they aren't charitable enough to present
the opposing arguments in their strongest form. I say this as someone who
mostly agrees with the author.

Also, why is it missing all the obvious case studies in favour of focusing on
American ones? If you're going to talk about government healthcare
intervention, please please please mention the UK's national health service.

~~~
OpieCunningham
I didn't find it patronizing in the least. As to whether it presented the
opposing arguments in their strongest form, that's hard for me to say as I
strongly agree with the article and generally find the pro-libertarian
arguments to be weak.

As to why the UK national health service isn't discussed - why should it be?
The article is pretty specific that it's not intended to demonstrate all
statism all the time is perfect, but that some statism some of the time is
beneficial.

~~~
calpaterson
The fact that a person who agrees with arguments didn't feel personally
patronised isn't exactly shocking... Think about the structure and arguments
used here, things like "You lose." and "Tricked you.". There wasn't any real
need for the childish hostility against some imagined libertarian

If you don't understand why the NHS is relevant to the topic of government
healthcare intervention (which is discussed at length) then I'm not sure?

------
nhebb
_But to other people, libertarianism means that politics must be seen solely
as a cosmic battle between the State and the Individual, and that the only
solution to this dichotomy is to oppose the State in all its actions._

That is the most extreme definition of Libertarianism that I have ever heard.
Most Libertarians that I know are practical. They're not anarchists. Their
primary desire is to reduce the size and scope of government.

------
anonymoushn
This isn't actually anti-libertarian or even anti-anarchist. It is written for
a peculiar type of person who likes to call himself a libertarian and who
hates taxes so much that he doesn't want to pay for government services he
doesn't use. Unfortunately, the author already knows that this type of person
is more likely to dismiss his FAQ as the drivel of some Soviet Commie-Nazi
rather than read it.

------
neworbit
The zes and zirs kept getting in the way in this document and caused me to
take it less seriously.

~~~
vegai
Yeah, I prefer the Spivak pronouns myself.

------
mike_esspe
I can't understand people, who reject Non-Aggression Axiom
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle>).

~~~
_delirium
In my case, I reject armchair deontological ethics in favor of ethics that
have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the
world, so the non-aggression axiom fails for the same reason that Kant's
ethics and Christian ethics fail.

~~~
anonymoushn
Can you explain when "ethics that have at least some grounding in science and
empirical examination of the world" conflict with the non-agression axiom?

~~~
_delirium
They may or may not conflict; I just reject it as an _axiom_. It's possible
that there are good reasons to support a society structured around a non-
aggression principle, though.

(I don't have a fully worked-out ethical theory, but I'm intrigued by the
stuff Sam Harris is doing to try to reduce the gap between ethical theorizing
and science.)

~~~
anonymoushn
Oh, that seems like a pretty reasonable approach to things. Thanks.

