Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw

[SPC]

If libertarianism were a utopian ideology, this would be true. However, libertarians recognize that this is not always true. However, libertarians do believe that individuals are generally more apt to rationally determine what is in their own best interest than a group of strangers that have less investment in the situation at hand. Unless one is a pure nihilist, one need not subscribe to the fallacy of individual rationality to devise a social system based on the idea that some people would be better at making certain decisions than others.

Libertarians believe Peter is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life than Paul, communists believe Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life if Paul has been selected by the politburo, absolute monarchists believe Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life if Paul has been ordained by divine right, and the median American voter believes that the taller of Peter and Paul is better equipped to deal with Peter's personal life for short intervals of time.

[SPC]

Hardcore libertarians never get around the issue of imperfect information and of transaction costs.

Rather than have environmental regulations that we all have to abide by and that a small fraction of our tax dollars go to pay to enforce, they'd rather we all sue each other every time someone pollutes. Never mind the time and money involved, and the fact that the polluters (major corporations) would automatically have more resources to prevent this than Joe Somebody who makes $40K a year and can't pay a retainer and $500/hr attorney bills.

I would question how having a set of bureaucrats thousands of miles away from the scene in question setting arbitrary dictates about which practices are safe solves the problem of imperfect information.

As for the wealthy having greater resources, I would refer you to the concept of regulatory capture.

Human beings do not act rationally; therefore, we will appoint a few people to impose their boundless irrationality on the rest of us. If you're not a rational thinker, capable of self-governance, how can you possibly pick someone to govern yourself?

You inadvertently answered your own conundrum. People are rational thinkers. People are not rational actors.

Exam drug rehabilitation clinics. Every patient entered because they know they have a drug addiction. They know it is bad for their well-being. They know they need to curtail it. The question is, if they know, why are they paying a clinic a large sum of money to enforce this knowledge upon them? Because while they can rationally think, they cannot always rationally act upon their thoughts in moments of actual decision making.

Are you seriously comparing the problems that face society to drug addiction? Do you honestly think that those advocating tax cuts sincerely believe that tax hikes are the key to economic prosperity, but solely due to self-control issues cannot help but advocate the opposite viewpoint as a matter of public policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is a philosophy earnestly arguing against society (perhaps you are thinking of anarcho-primitivism?), then your argument would make sense. Of course, that is not as conducive for your conflation of society with state compulsion.

As far as the drug/fast food addict analogy holds, the flaw breaks down when you consider that the rational thinker/irrational actor voluntarily submits to rehabilitation in an attempt to have an external locus of control wean him off of his self-destructive behavior (Of course, the very nature of such a problem accepting an external locus of control leads to a high relapse rate, but let us ignore that for the time being). Thus, the analogy does not hold, unless you accede that everyone voluntarily relinquishes their freedom to a select group of bureaucrats, on the basis that they cannot rationally decide how to manage their own affairs. This is a stretch even by the standards of social contract theory.

[SPC]

Regarding the point of my original post, I was echoing what SPC said. If humans like the ability to operate a rational self-interest creatures, they are also incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses.

They are incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses. That's why they don't do it.

At least you do not subscribe to the social contract theory. I am listening...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nevermind, you do subscribe to social contract theory. So, a people incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system are (or at least were) capable of delegating the responsibility of nation building to a group of people that (ostensibly) acted rationally for the masses? How is that not a paraphrase of everything AggregateDemand, just said?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that system exists due to a series of convention compromises between those "Founding Fathers" that wanted to establish a strong central government and those that wanted to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states. The Articles of Confederation already had a unicameral body of legislators appointed by the states, so the Senate was no new innovation. The House of Representatives was a body directly elected by the people, so that kind of undermines your argument. Considering that Congress was the only branch endowed with legislative power, I am failing to see the chains of "representatives appointing representatives appointing representatives" that you allude to. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that gives a justification for the lawmaking powers of unelected bureaucrats from the Executive Branch that you see commonly practiced today. And again, you allude to a straw man by denoting libertarianism as some absurd autarchist ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the fact that voluntary hierarchies of merit spontaneously arise in a free market (an observation I have no objection to), is justification for elected dictatorship? (I acknowledge that the last word is a strong choice of words, but how else does one describe a system where the arbitrary dictates of obscure bureaucrats are coercively enforced because the people are allegedly too stupid to decide anything for themselves?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am studying to become a physician/scientist, but nice red herring.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And those people who feel they are too irresponsible to make their own financial decisions voluntary hire financial planners; the state does not forcibly hire a bureaucrat to check off all of their financial decisions. Explain how the fact that some people feel the need to hire someone more skilled at managing money implies that everyone must abrogate power over their savings to government bureaucrats to make decisions for them?

Are you seriously comparing the problems that face society to drug addiction? Do you honestly think that those advocating tax cuts sincerely believe that tax hikes are the key to economic prosperity, but solely due to self-control issues cannot help but advocate the opposite viewpoint as a matter of public policy?

This may come as a shock, but there are issues in society that are not taxes and have nothing to do with taxes. If you're a libertarian because you don't want to pay taxes, you're in it for the wrong reason. You can have a communist/totalitarian/whatever-you-want-it-to-be state with no taxes. Fiscally conservative government policy can be rationally thought out. Advocating a viewpoint in the academic sense like "low taxes would sincerely be good for our economy" is NOT an action.

I was using taxes as an example of a government policy. Perhaps you require a bureaucrat to read your opponents arguments so you can properly interpret the context in which they make them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, yes! I accede this! It is not a stretch. Normal people who aren't arrogant blowhards with their head up their own asses like ITT do not genuinely believe they can rationally manage their own affairs! I do not believe this of myself! There are other people that are better at me at performing certain tasks in my interest. There are other people out there that are more knowledgeable of the anatomy my own body that I entrust with medical decisions, there are better public speakers in law firms I trust on my behalf in the court of law, there are business managers better at managing my work schedule and financial advisers more adept with my 401(k). I went to school to learn rather than teach myself! It's true! It's all true![/quote]

And you voluntarily hired the doctor, lawyer, accountant, and teacher from a plethora of individuals who chose to make that their occupation; you did not have one coercively appointed to you. You are arguing against a straw-man if you believe libertarians do not believe in the division of labor. Ironically, the very fact that you were able to obtain all the services that you are incapable of performing yourself from the free exchange of goods and services is a testament to the spontaneous order of capitalism, rather than the coercive managerial state for which you advocate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So which decisions do you feel more comfortable delegating to an individual or business that you trust, and which ones do you feel you are too incompetent to even hire the right person to do for you?