Greed is Good (Fodder for a broad discussion of economics :))

[Pointedstick]

I think for highly intelligent people, Libertarianism is a great stepping stone to something more mature, because once you really drill down into it, Libertarianism is full of contradictions and unresolved problems. Some examples: there have been no discovered limitations on state power that can keep it minimal, yet existent. And if coercion is bad, but all state action is coercive, what morally justifies keeping the state around, even in a minimal form? There are many more.

The direction you take to mentally solve these problems is dependent on what kind of a person you are, but if you're a deep thinker, it seems like you usually wind up going somewhere else--to anarcho-capitalism, or paleo-conservatism, or populism, or libertarian-themed liberalism, or wherever. And it's good to be libertarian-inspired, because libertarianism has a great focus on personal freedom and avoiding hurting others, but the world is more complicated than just being able to leave it at that.

Of course liberalism, conservatism, populism, and all the rest have their problems too, but for some reason Libertarianism seems to attract a more intelligent crowd that is more enamored of theories and abstract reasoning, and these are the people who tend to care about internal inconsistencies in their theories and are dissatisfied with the really obvious ones in Libertarianism.

[jafs]

[WiseOne]

I think for highly intelligent people, Libertarianism ia a great stepping stone to something more mature, because once you really drill down into it, Libertarianism is full of contradictions and unresolved problems. Some examples: there have been no discovered limitations on state power that can keep it minimal, yet existent. And if coercion is bad, but all state action is coercive, what morally justifies keeping the state around, even in a minimal form? There are many more.

The direction you take to mentally solve these problems is dependent on what kind of a person you are, but if you're a deep thinker, it seems like you usually wind up going somewhere else--to anarcho-capitalism, or paleo-conservatism, or populism, or libertarian-themed liberalism, or wherever. And it's good to be libertarian-inspired, because libertarianism has a great focus on personal freedom and avoiding hurting others, but the world is more complicated than just being able to leave it at that.

Of course liberalism, conservatism, populism, and all the rest have their problems too, but for some reason Libertarianism seems to attract a more intelligent crowd that is more enamored of theories and abstract reasoning, and these are the people who tend to care about internal inconsistencies in their theories and are dissatisfied with the really obvious ones in Libertarianism.

+1.  Desert is right, the forum has evolved, due to all these thought provoking discussions.  I never would have imagined myself developing a hard-line anti-illegal-immigration stance a few years ago. 

I had a debate with my staunchly Democrat brother from Berkeley on this a while ago, where he trotted out all the usual arguments about how no one not from Mexico/Latin America would be willing to pick raspberries or work in a slaughterhouse.  When I tied illegal immigration to wage stagnation and loss of the middle class, he actually shut up for a moment and looked interested.  I can't wait for Round 2.

[Pointedstick]

A simple fix for both complaints is closed borders libertarianism. Only nationals allowed to own anything, and limited supply of workers. Under those circumstances libertarianism is actually approaching a sane system. Just give it some serious environmental protections and figure out how to make it zero growth and I'd sign off on it in a heartbeat.

Indeed, me too. Sounds like a serious and realistically implementable improvement on the status quo.

[Libertarian666]

I think for highly intelligent people, Libertarianism is a great stepping stone to something more mature, because once you really drill down into it, Libertarianism is full of contradictions and unresolved problems. Some examples: there have been no discovered limitations on state power that can keep it minimal, yet existent. And if coercion is bad, but all state action is coercive, what morally justifies keeping the state around, even in a minimal form? There are many more.

That is not a contradiction in libertarianism, but in statism. Libertarians who have been paying attention know that there is no way to limit state power, so long as there is a state. Hence, the only solution is anarchism.

The direction you take to mentally solve these problems is dependent on what kind of a person you are, but if you're a deep thinker, it seems like you usually wind up going somewhere else--to anarcho-capitalism, or paleo-conservatism, or populism, or libertarian-themed liberalism, or wherever. And it's good to be libertarian-inspired, because libertarianism has a great focus on personal freedom and avoiding hurting others, but the world is more complicated than just being able to leave it at that.

Of course liberalism, conservatism, populism, and all the rest have their problems too, but for some reason Libertarianism seems to attract a more intelligent crowd that is more enamored of theories and abstract reasoning, and these are the people who tend to care about internal inconsistencies in their theories and are dissatisfied with the really obvious ones in Libertarianism minarchism.

FIFY.

[Libertarian666]

Also, I agree that socialist/communist idealists are very similar in essence to anarcho-capitalist ones - they all feel strongly that their system is more moral and works much better than what we've got now.  The systems are very different, of course.

Yes - the communists think commerce and economics don't matter, the ancaps think those are all that exist! They think a country is nothing but a giant company.

I wonder why neither group seems to be able to do what all actual great societies in history have done, and admit that commerce is important as part of a larger ecosystem that must thrive as a whole to create a place worth living in.

In my view, Marxists are like a group who wants to save the environment by killing everything but elk, while the anarcho-capitalists say "That's foolish and naive, we need to kill everything that isn't a buffalo!"

No, what we actually say is "Government by its nature violates the non-aggression principle (NAP). Anything which violates the NAP is morally invalid. Thus, government is morally invalid."

Hope that helps.

[Pointedstick]

I think for highly intelligent people, Libertarianism is a great stepping stone to something more mature, because once you really drill down into it, Libertarianism is full of contradictions and unresolved problems. Some examples: there have been no discovered limitations on state power that can keep it minimal, yet existent. And if coercion is bad, but all state action is coercive, what morally justifies keeping the state around, even in a minimal form? There are many more.

That is not a contradiction in libertarianism, but in statism. Libertarians who have been paying attention know that there is no way to limit state power, so long as there is a state. Hence, the only solution is anarchism.

Right, some become anarchists to address the particular contradictions I outlined (no practical way to limit state power, immoral to support any government if all government action is coercive).

[Libertarian666]

I think for highly intelligent people, Libertarianism is a great stepping stone to something more mature, because once you really drill down into it, Libertarianism is full of contradictions and unresolved problems. Some examples: there have been no discovered limitations on state power that can keep it minimal, yet existent. And if coercion is bad, but all state action is coercive, what morally justifies keeping the state around, even in a minimal form? There are many more.

That is not a contradiction in libertarianism, but in statism. Libertarians who have been paying attention know that there is no way to limit state power, so long as there is a state. Hence, the only solution is anarchism.

Right, some become anarchists to address the particular contradictions I outlined (no practical way to limit state power, immoral to support any government if all government action is coercive).

And the others just give up trying to resolve the contradictions.

Just like everyone else who has any other logically inconsistent position, i.e., 99% of the human race.

[Libertarian666]

To create a good society, it needs standards that are tried and proven over the course of millennia, and it needs to enforce those standards by any means necessary, up to and including naked force.

Who decides what the standards are, when it is necessary to enforce them, and by what means?

Then how do we keep those people, whoever they are, from running roughshod over the rest of us?

As soon as you can answer that, I'm on board.