I think the question I always have to ask is, as opposed to what? The problems of the free market are the problems of excess, you can get your vices delivered overnight, but you can also get everything else.
As far as I can tell, any system that restricts your vices restricts your virtues as well.
The correlation between income inequality and crime might be correlated (and i agree) but income inequality might not be correlated to increasing libertarian economics (i think the opposite even). I should look into it a bit more but as i understand it countries with restrictive economies tend to have more income inequality like latin american countries (which also are quite violent). But countries with more open economies tend to have more income equality like nordic countries, switzerland, estonia or japan. I should look into the numbers though and its true that those countries mentioned have high tax burden but i understand they are still quite open in libertarianism standards.
I have my own problems with libertarianism, though some might argue it is just lack of understanding certain arguments.
My problem with Paul's post is that that there some bad arguments in it. The 99 to 1 dollar thing is easily correct when we are talking about 1 dollar. Even just a couple of hundred of dollars to thousands might be able to sway a lot of people, not to speak about higher numbers. Yes, spite is a thing, but there is a threshold after which people will suck it up and accept the deal. When it is 1 dollar, even a homeless guy might value the spite more than what he can accept. Yes, there is value in not accepting the money, that's the issue with example. You might start arguing if it is rational, or not, but I think many will think of it as completely rational that "revenge" in that situation is totally worth more than a messily one dollar. Some sort of social judgment and punishment was cared on. So it is not something or nothing situation.
There is a lot more of an argument to be made about addiction. Though, first, I do believe the idea of how much effort is spend on manipulating us is in general a bit overly exaggerated. I believe it is often just luck and timing. The appeal and addiction of short videos seems basically self-evident now, but does it take a genius psychological manipulator to think of it or eventually someone tried it and succeeded? We even had Vine in the past and it was booming for a bit, but then it died off, because of it is own circumstances. Even the algorithms, we say all the time even the people trying to optimize them, don't completely understand how they work, because there is a black box element to parts of how they work. Though that by itself I also think is also often said to obfuscate the control those companies have over their algorithms, but there is some true to it. Either way, what's ultimately their trick? Showing you what you engage with the most. It is kinda basic. In a way, you can argue that exploiting human mental weaknesses is not difficult, as we are not that complex in many ways. Bread and circuses is not new.
It does come down to if people can focus on the long-term consequences than short-term and often short-sighted benefits of something. You would hope that as we grow up we become better than it, and some do, many don't. If we accept the government has to protect us from such addictions, it is having to accept to some level that humans fail to mature, which is probably true. It becomes quickly risky to how much of nanny state things can turn into, though. I think a lot of people already think of Western states as nanny states, just rarely initiating new "babycare" program that we like. I am undecided myself. I would like to have some guardrails for people, but I am not convinced that governments in general have done a good job of it and I am unsure how much even social pressure work, as socially, not many places are punishing strongly addictive behaviour and the people exploiting it.
I am also not sure that it is so easy to just say libertarianism = neo-liberalism, though I can definitely see how you are reaching that conclusion. Anyway, I don't have more time to think about it, I gotta run.
I think you would have been better off just saying "I adopt all the standard critiques" and ending the discussion there. This essay mostly reveals that your engagement with the debate on these views you believe have "fatal flaws" goes no further than having read a few standard criticisms.
I think the question I always have to ask is, as opposed to what? The problems of the free market are the problems of excess, you can get your vices delivered overnight, but you can also get everything else.
As far as I can tell, any system that restricts your vices restricts your virtues as well.
The correlation between income inequality and crime might be correlated (and i agree) but income inequality might not be correlated to increasing libertarian economics (i think the opposite even). I should look into it a bit more but as i understand it countries with restrictive economies tend to have more income inequality like latin american countries (which also are quite violent). But countries with more open economies tend to have more income equality like nordic countries, switzerland, estonia or japan. I should look into the numbers though and its true that those countries mentioned have high tax burden but i understand they are still quite open in libertarianism standards.
we are not utilitarians paul literally no libertarían believes in utility
I have my own problems with libertarianism, though some might argue it is just lack of understanding certain arguments.
My problem with Paul's post is that that there some bad arguments in it. The 99 to 1 dollar thing is easily correct when we are talking about 1 dollar. Even just a couple of hundred of dollars to thousands might be able to sway a lot of people, not to speak about higher numbers. Yes, spite is a thing, but there is a threshold after which people will suck it up and accept the deal. When it is 1 dollar, even a homeless guy might value the spite more than what he can accept. Yes, there is value in not accepting the money, that's the issue with example. You might start arguing if it is rational, or not, but I think many will think of it as completely rational that "revenge" in that situation is totally worth more than a messily one dollar. Some sort of social judgment and punishment was cared on. So it is not something or nothing situation.
There is a lot more of an argument to be made about addiction. Though, first, I do believe the idea of how much effort is spend on manipulating us is in general a bit overly exaggerated. I believe it is often just luck and timing. The appeal and addiction of short videos seems basically self-evident now, but does it take a genius psychological manipulator to think of it or eventually someone tried it and succeeded? We even had Vine in the past and it was booming for a bit, but then it died off, because of it is own circumstances. Even the algorithms, we say all the time even the people trying to optimize them, don't completely understand how they work, because there is a black box element to parts of how they work. Though that by itself I also think is also often said to obfuscate the control those companies have over their algorithms, but there is some true to it. Either way, what's ultimately their trick? Showing you what you engage with the most. It is kinda basic. In a way, you can argue that exploiting human mental weaknesses is not difficult, as we are not that complex in many ways. Bread and circuses is not new.
It does come down to if people can focus on the long-term consequences than short-term and often short-sighted benefits of something. You would hope that as we grow up we become better than it, and some do, many don't. If we accept the government has to protect us from such addictions, it is having to accept to some level that humans fail to mature, which is probably true. It becomes quickly risky to how much of nanny state things can turn into, though. I think a lot of people already think of Western states as nanny states, just rarely initiating new "babycare" program that we like. I am undecided myself. I would like to have some guardrails for people, but I am not convinced that governments in general have done a good job of it and I am unsure how much even social pressure work, as socially, not many places are punishing strongly addictive behaviour and the people exploiting it.
I am also not sure that it is so easy to just say libertarianism = neo-liberalism, though I can definitely see how you are reaching that conclusion. Anyway, I don't have more time to think about it, I gotta run.
I think you would have been better off just saying "I adopt all the standard critiques" and ending the discussion there. This essay mostly reveals that your engagement with the debate on these views you believe have "fatal flaws" goes no further than having read a few standard criticisms.