Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

As a hardcore techie, software developer and tech entrepreneur, you would think that I'd be lining up to support the Pirate Party. But, alas, other than cyber-security and digital rights issues, I don't necessarily agree with them about anything else. I also don't necessarily disagree but since they don't appear to have much a published platform and planks, it's hard to say. But I've seen some Pirates describe them as a "progressive" party, and I'm pretty skeptical of "progressives" and their policy positions. Anyway, for my money, it's the Libertarian Party that represents the path forward, not the Pirate Party.

Unfortunately, the problem in the US isn't that we don't have enough parties. We have tons of political parties in the US, ranging from the Libertarian Party, to the Green Party, to the Pirate Party, to the Worker's World Party, to the Prohibition Party, to the Modern Whig Party. No, the problem is plurality / first-past-the-post voting. As Duverger's Law notes, a plurality / FPTP voting system almost always results in a two party dominated system (like we have).

Switch voting to Approval Voting, Range Voting, or a Condorcet method, and we might see some meaningful change.

The fact that the "libertarian party" is a "thing" in the US is a large sign of what the problem is.

But in any case, what we need to do is get a party going who's only platform is voting reform. The only goal that matters right now is the end of FPTP and the two party system. Once that's done having all these "fringe" parties will be a good thing because my "progressive" parties will agree on a lot of policy with your libertarians (e.g. surveillance, world police force, etc.).

The only goal that matters right now is the end of FPTP and the two party system. Once that's done having all these "fringe" parties will be a good thing because my "progressive" parties will agree on a lot of policy with your libertarians (e.g. surveillance, world police force, etc.).

I agree that voting reform is crucial. Everything else really hinges on that.

The fact that the "libertarian party" is a "thing" in the US is a large sign of what the problem is.

Could you elaborate on that a little more? I think I get the gist of what you mean, but I'm not sure.

FWIW, I'll just point out that the "libertarian movement" (or whatever you want to call it) in the US is bigger than just the "Libertarian Party". There are, for example, the "little l libertarians" within both the Republican and Democratic parties, who espouse and advocate for libertarian views. There are (or have been) multiple "libertarian" parties in the US. There's obviously the "Big L Libertarian" party, but there was also the "Boston Tea Party"[1], for one.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_par...

>Could you elaborate on that a little more?

The Libertarian movement is an extreme right wing movement. They're correct with their international policy, and I agree with them on their stance on e.g. abortion and gay marriage (i.e. get rid of the religious concept of "marriage" in government). But they also have a lot of dangerous right wing stuff like massive deregulation, gold standard, etc.

Having said that, I've voted Paul pretty much every time I had the chance because while I think his right wing stuff is dangerous and crazy, I don't think that stuff would get through. If we had actual representative government (i.e. the party make up of congress really reflected closely with the populations ideals instead of the red/blue setup we have now) it would work fine because we could get through all those things that your party and my party agree on.

The Libertarian movement is an extreme right wing movement.

Everybody seems to think that, but I don't believe it to be the case. A better statement is that "Libertarians are right of Right and left of Left". So depending on your existing world-view, you would probably see the Libertarians as either radically Leftist or radically Rightist, and - in either case - you'd be partially correct and partially wrong.

For example, Libertarians align with the left, and would go further than the standard American Left on many social issues:

Abortion - Libertarians tend to be pro-choice and the LP platform specifically says that the State should not be involved in making those decisions.

Drug laws - a typical American "Leftist" position might be "legalize marijuana". A Libertarian position would be more like "The State has no authority whatsoever to regulate what you put into your own body. End ALL drug laws".

Death Penalty - Libertarians are generally opposed to the death penalty.

Gay marriage / minority rights - Libertarians believe the Govt. should have no say in marriage at all, which implies that homosexual couples should be able to marry if they want. Of course, it also implies that others should be free to choose not to recognize that marriage, but hey... that's the price of freedom: You want to be free, you can't compel other people to behave the way you want them to.

OTOH, yes, Libertarians tend to be more closely aligned with "the Right" on economic issues: taxation, trade, business regulation, etc. But I don't think it's fair to call the Libertarian movement "an extreme right wing movement". If for no other reason, because a simple "left / right" dichotomy is not a valid model for representing political orientation.

> But I don't think it's fair to call the Libertarian movement "an extreme right wing movement".

A good response to people who say that is to point out that there is nothing wrong with being "extreme." That word is just being used as an emotional smear tactic. "Extreme" basically means the same thing as "pure" or "principled," which are both potentially good things. (Ayn Rand has an essay that points all this out, it's not my idea.)

The guy may have a legitimate (to his view) objection, but it's that libertarians are extreme right, not extreme right. (Or, extreme anti-progressive if you want to reject the left-right terminology, which I pretty much agree with you on).

First, "extreme" does not--basically or otherwise--mean the same thing as "pure" or "principled". Not generally, and not specifically in this context. That being said, characterizing the libertarians as extreme anything is, indeed, a generalized attempt to paint with broad strokes of discredit. Better to specifically reason against their ideals.

Second, Ayn Rand and her Objectivist 'principles' are ideological bunk masquerading as rational philosophy. Given your comments further down, in attempting to champion the need for a rational basis for policies, there is much irrationality in Rand's positions and ideology, and her ideas only trend toward sacrificing the many for the needs of the few. This opposes the purpose of civil society, as well as the cause and foundation of justice. Furthermore, we already have enough individualism going around. It has not made the world a better place.

It doesn't appear that you've read her work. Everything you've said about Rand is straightforwardly incorrect. For instance,

> her ideas only trend toward sacrificing the many for the needs of the few

She specifically and clearly explains in her work why that is not the implication of her philosophy, and there is no reason to believe it would be.

Another, simpler way to put it is that, generally, Libertarians are very right economically, and are left socially. They basically want minimum government and maximum freedom.

My issue isn't with what they want, but rather how little thought they've put into the consequences of their actions.

> A better statement is that "Libertarians are right of Right and left of Left".

Only if you go by the American standards of "left." Libertarians support capitalism, which places them at best a shade left of center in a more global scale.

Only if you go by the American standards of "left."

True. That's OK though, as the context of what was being discussed here was clearly American specific.

Libertarians support capitalism, which places them at best a shade left of center in a more global scale.

That's not completely true. There are Libertarians, even in America, who are more socialist than capitalist. I will grant you, however, that in terms of "general usage" of the term libertarian, more self-described libertarians in America probably do fall into the "pro capitalist" camp. There's nothing about libertarian ideology per-se, however, that mandates capitalism. Libertarianism basically reduces to the Zero Aggression Principle (or "Non Initiation of Force Principle") which says nothing about economic systems.

Sure, I just wanted to point that out. All the 'libertarian socialists' I know have gotten sick of arguing terminology and just call themselves 'anarchists.'

While in theory, the NAP says nothing about economics, the reality of the general philosophy of those who subscribe the NAP is inherently capitalist. Libertarian philosophy is derived from property rights, starting from the rights of self-ownership. See "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" for example, which starts off by building on top of Locke. Also, the Wikipedia article on the NAP states that there's a strong relationship in the first few sentences, linking to http://mises.org/daily/3660

The Libertarians do align "left of the Left" on social issues, but those social issues were never the basis of the Left anyway. Left means proletarian-driven economic positions, and that means the Libertarians are pretty firmly not-leftist.

There's also the fact that Libertarians have pretty much never actually endorsed left-leaning governments, while they have endorsed quite a few right-leaning but impurely-libertarian governments.

> The only goal that matters right now is the end of FPTP and the two party system.

Alas, there is so much money, power, and political infrastructure in maintaining the status quo. Changing this structure will not be popular and will quickly be relegated to "wacko" status, and minimized in the mainstream press..... which has a vested interest in maintaining the current system.

> . But I've seen some Pirates describe them as a "progressive" party, and I'm pretty skeptical of "progressives" and their policy positions.

I agree with you. They are a progressive party, they are anti-individual rights, and that's why they have "Pirate" (literally a thief) in their name.

The cause of liberty cannot be advanced by backing movements that do not base their ideas on a rational foundation.

You're speaking from an Objectivist position, aren't you?

In this case, I would say no. What I said is a very basic observation. Why do you ask?

A religious devotion to rationality is the most insidious form of irrationality.

I completely agree. I would have phrased it as:

A religious devotion to "rationality" is the most insidious form of irrationality.

Scare quotes are the great hallmark of a rationalist. </sarcasm>

Well, rationality can't be irrationality, and vice versa, so that's why scare quotes are necessary.

Kirk would infamously defeat Spock at chess by making surprise moves that made no sense, thus confusing and destabilizing his opponent. A good rationalist should see genuine irrationality as part of their toolbox.

I thought you were basically trolling me before.

> A good rationalist

"Rationalism" is actually an error. It means thinking in a way that's disconnected from percepts. Rationalism is the opposite of "empiricism," which is also wrong. It means thinking without abstraction.

tl;dr: being a "rationalist" is not good. Being "rational" is.

> should see genuine irrationality as part of their toolbox

Being genuinely irrational is never going to help you accomplish anything. Kirk was feigning irrationality.

Except that Spock is a total strawman of a brainy person in the first place.

Random deviations from what your opponent thinks is your strategy are in fact known-good components of good strategy.

Could you elaborate on how they are against individual rights?

> Anyway, for my money, it's the Libertarian Party that represents the path forward

Time to shave your neckbeard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com