The simple way to make this argument is to say that the ‘individual’ is temporally too big a unit to be best ruled over by one part in a (temporal) position of power. The relevant properties of the right sized unit, as far as the usual arguments for libertarianism are concerned, are lots of information and shared care, and according to these a far future self is drifting toward being a different person. You shouldn’t be allowed to externalize onto them as much as you like for the same reasons that go for anyone else.
Think about it. How many people kind of wish they could have gone back in time with their current level of wisdom and slapped some sense into their younger, dumber selves? Sadly, we cannot do this. What we CAN do, however, is pay it forward. Suppose rather than having to build a time machine to go back in time yourself, you could have access to a personality profile of a person from the future. You then match your future personality profile with someone alive in the present day and have them mentor you to guide you away from your own potential mistakes.
In the aggregate, is this not what social norms and mores are? Basically a way for the collected wisdom of disparate people to come together and guide our more myopic, parochial selves away from potential problems and pitfalls? Granted, it can sort of break down when there are real and substantive generational differences that olds can't relate to as well. But for the most part, it's how we've been getting along.
Ah but remember. The point isn't that one generation gets to rule over another. The point is that the you who exists at any specific point in time exerts an undue amount of influence on all future yous. It's the same principle as the environmental movement, the present shouts and the future whispers.
This has what to do with libertarianism? Ignoring the ridiculous concept of viewing "your future self" as a separate individual person*, how is this anything but an intractable problem with no conceivable solution? The author's use of "irrationality" is also very value-laden.
I don't know of any libertarians that don't consider custom and conventions to be vitally important for a functioning social order. The whole point is that the state can do little or nothing to improve upon the customs that evolve through voluntary interaction and problem-solving.
*Seriously, interpersonal utility comparisons are already impossible; now we're talking interpersonal and intertemporal comparisons of utility?
Ignoring the ridiculous concept of viewing "your future self" as a separate individual person*
*Seriously, interpersonal utility comparisons are already impossible; now we're talking interpersonal and intertemporal comparisons of utility?
So it's "ridiculous" because it's hard to quantify? You realize how inane that is right?
I don't know of any libertarians that don't consider custom and conventions to be vitally important for a functioning social order.
There is a difference between agreeing to a statement on an intellectual level and actually behaving as if a statement is true when making policy prescriptions. Generally speaking, libertarians tend to be pretty radical in terms of what people can and cannot dictate to each other. The idea that being dictated to by "the government" is qualitatively different from being dictated to by "custom" is farcical. It amounts to the same thing at the end of the day. In fact, the entire reason people get the government involved in more and more business that custom used to govern is because people now function in larger social units than customs were meant to handle and you can no longer take shared agreement on these things as a given. So when a lot of people with different norms get together, you end up with a sort of compact between them to decide what mushy middle-of-the-road norm to adopt for consistency's sake.
Gah, sorry, been trapped on an island for the past six months with no real.... interactions with people:
I was reinforcing what NaraVara said. The "customs" of society have degraded. Ask your dad or grandpa how much a handshake meant. Ask them what it meant to give someone your word. Meant a lot, didn't it?
So, with the Libertarian train of thought that people should be ruled by social norms and whatnot, I ask you what "customs" are still in place that would prevent a collapse of any company deals, if the person's word has the quality of shit to it? Is a government suppose to just sit back and watch as companies deteriorate and fall on each other through poor business practices?
Was more of a direct response to NaraVara's rather than addressing the original post.
It's been 24 hours since Atlas Shrugged was released in theatres. I am writing this on a peice of wood I pulled from the ruins of civilization, and hope that someday, it may reach someone....
Libertarianism isn't about being dictated to by culture as opposed to government. Libertarianism is about a live and let live mentality. Saying that libertarians would rather have culture as their master as opposed to government defeats the purpose of being a libertarian.
The point of libertarianism is small government and the freedom of choice. Sure, culture and government can provide you with all the information to make wise decisions, but in a libertarian society they can't compel or force you to do anything. That's the point of libertarianism and I feel that you missed the point of it when you decided to refute it. I suggest reading John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty."
You do realize that Mill was a Utilitarian and not a Libertarian, right? They're not synonymous. In fact, much of Mill's writings would lead to the development of the British welfare state (as well as any other number of Victorian writers).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by pointing out that he was Utilitarian and not Libertarian when much of his writings are used by Libertarians to help define the boundaries of government and personal liberty. Regardless of his position, many Libertarians still find that he has many valid points and he is a great source of ideas and justification.
Mill is a proponent of utilitarianism and he was used to justify the British control of the market; while his later writings predicted the welfare state. Utilitarianism justified the use of classic liberalism, a main part of libertarianism, by the British government to control the market. However, Mill is still used by modern Libertarians.
Except to claim that he was a full-on laissez-faire type is about as accurate as the current conservative deification of Ronald Reagan. Anyone can take a text and use it to justify their own agenda but to say someone shares that same worldview seems rather... overzealous, I suppose would be my choice of words.
Mill shares the view that government should be minimal and that personal liberty should be protected and come first. That's all I'm saying. That's the primary libertarian goal. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Not that the original meaning of those words (capitalization is important) is worth a damn, they've been so sufficiently gutted by the American political process, but the point stands.
What I meant to say in fewer words than was needed is, save money and spend conservatively while socially do what you want but leave everyone else the hell alone. So being fiscally conservative and socially liberal still makes more sense.
]
