-57 votes

Libertarian morality: the stupid deserve to suffer

I support many libertarian ideas, for practical reasons, not moral or ethical ones. There is nothing moral, fair or right about the social outcomes of the market. They are mostly arbitrary and random, less so a sorting of smart from dumb. The game is filtered on either end for sociopaths: the dumb sociopaths are filtered to the bottom (prison) and the far sighted ones rise to the top (politicians).

It's the best we can do as humans.

Whether there is anything really right and moral, or it's just an eat and kill world governed by a cruel and indifferent nature, I leave to others to decide.

***

Consider Bob, circa 8,014 B.C.

Bob has an IQ of 90, and he's a fisherman in a prosperous little riverside tribe. He has a fit wife with large breasts and 7 kids. He's dumb as a rock, but he eats fresh fish, game cooked over an open fire, has a drop dead gorgeous woman as dumb as himself, and all the happiness of a full active life and a community that loves him.

Yesterday, he helped burn Phil to death, whilst tied to a tree after a robust torture session, and fun was had by all except Phil. Phil belonged to a rival tribe and was a actually a high priest! He had an IQ of 145, and his burning flesh smelled just as delicious to both sides as if he had the intelligence of a fatted sheep.

***

10,000 years later.(Humans invent property and written laws in the interim.)

***

Meet Fred. Fred is descended directly from Bob, who was genetically prolific, wearing out at least seven wives during his tenure.

Fred has an IQ of 100, works 60 hours a week. He helps manage a McDonalds. He eats shit, literally and figuratively. The food is pure garbage, the people he serves treat him like the garbage he eats, and he hasn't touched a woman in 8 months.

The car he drives to work consumes all of his disposable income, breaking down about three times a year, and he suffers from myriad nervous conditions from his lifestyle and diet. His life is a misery even worse than Phil's final minutes.

He doesn't believe in God, knows none of his neighbors well, and spends his free time playing video games and watching pornography, will never have a wife or child, and will die from a painful disease in an unsanitary nursing home before turning 65.

***

Kyle works at Goldman Sachs. His yearly income is 250k and he lives in a prosperous little suburb. He can work from home or take a leisurely drive to the office, where his secretary provides a variety of services, some of which even his wife won't provide to the neighbor.

He hasn't lifted any object over 60 lbs in twelve years, outside of the health club. He has an IQ of 156 and does well for himself fleecing clients of moderate wealth and lesser intelligence.

***

There may indeed be practical reasons for us to support the market order and libertarian principles, very compelling ones. But let's take it easy with claims of moral truth or objectiveness in our sordid little make-shifts for surviving comfortably in an increasingly crowded world.

Bob, Kyle and Fred don't deserve any more, any less than each other, and get what they get largely from chance. We accept the roll of the the dice and the wheel of fate, and try our best to get ahead according to the rules, fair or not. Beyond that, we can't say much.

The law is not morality, and the facts are not the truth. If such a thing exists, it is not discerned nor discovered by laws or systems of ethics.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

protecting men from the results of their own folly

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own folly is to fill the world with fools." ~Herbert Spencer

Leges sine moribus vanae

if you care about the poor

if you care about the poor then don't neglect, but don't legalize theft either. don't compound evil with evil.

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

Ben Franklin knew

How freedom promotes morality.

Why don't you use him as an example instead of these fantasy people who don't exist.

More nonsense from the

More nonsense from the pseudo-libertarian troll.

Over and over again I have countered every single one of Bill3's logical fallacy riddled "arguments", pointed him the relevant literature, had patience, but enough is enough. This guy is not here to help the movement, doesn't care about learning anything new or actually considering any other argument, he is either trolling here for his own sick enjoyment or trolling for profit. Either way, don't feed the troll.

Hmm, maybe the low IQ thing struck a sore spot in Bill? Maybe the 3 is his IQ?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

What

"I support many libertarian ideas, for practical reasons, not moral or ethical ones. There is nothing moral, fair or right about the social outcomes of the market. They are mostly arbitrary and random, less so a sorting of smart from dumb."

My IQ hurts. so much wrong in such a short paragraph.Literally the beginning of Von Mises Economic Opus plainly states purposeful action by economic actors is the driving force of the free market, there is nothing arbitrary or random about it.If you can't even understand the rudiments of market actions by economic actors how could you even step up to moral questions?

bill = shill? thoughts

bill = shill?

thoughts anyone?

Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers

Naw.. Just a lonely, drunk

Naw.. Just a lonely, drunk old man.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

lmao

.

R U a Libertarian or an AZZHAT

Why would you say the stupid deserve to suffer like some MSM hack. The principle is you shouldn't force people by gunpoint to help the stupid, that is the Libertarian way. You help people because you want to, not because there is a gun to your head.

It's a good principle

in some contexts. But as a system of moral absolutes, it would indeed consider a stupid person suffering to be the moral outcome, if no one wanted to help. It would be morally imperative.

That's why it's best to avoid injecting morality into the discussion of practical property and social systems, as hey developed and regulate the affairs of human beings.

There's nothing fundamentally moral about suffering or succeeding due to luck or brains rather than superior physical strength.

If there are no moral absolutes, then why do you care

what happens to the stupid person?

Séamusín

Maybe I like him

In any case, he cares.

I doubt you ever read this

I posted this when I first arrived at the dp. I was inclined towards a non territorial, decentralized and distributed government. I had come to that individual understanding through a study of history, and the development of my own ethical premises. No economics, no substantive ethical philosophy(some spiritual, which is kinda the same but also very transcendent). As you can see, It didn't get rave reviews. I think it was too thick. Anyway, you seem like you have the stomach for it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/287667/government-i-spent-a-lot-of-...

Oh, and without moral absolutes, why should I care if you like him, or if he cares.

:)

Séamusín

Whether or not there are objectively

true, and binding, moral values and obligations, would be a separates discussion. I haven't argued here whether there are or aren't, and what they might be.

And what does any of that have to do with Libertarian...

ideology? There is no such thing as "Libertarian morality." Libertarianism is a political ideology.

You are assuming if we implement Libertarianism, limiting government and legislate more individual liberty, that there will be no one to save people from themselves.

People do stupid things all the time and no political ideology can save people from themselves without taking everyone's liberty.

If Libertarianism allows the dumb to suffer, then Communism is the most compassionate ideology, according to your logic.

What's Intelligence Got to Do With It?

Libertarians don't believe in punishing the group for the actions of a few of its members.

Each individual could be lumped in a group in accordance with their IQ, their sex, their sexual orientation, their ethnicity, their talent, their ambition, their skills, their income, their social position, their age, experience, or any one of an unlimited number of traits.

One of the main reasons I am a libertarian activist is because I object to being held accountable for the bad actions of someone in one of my groups.

I don't want to be blamed for things terrorists did, or spree shooters, or warmongers, or the voters. I don't want to be penalized because some people don't have auto insurance (why do I have to carry proof?), or because some people might be illegally in the country (why should I have to have a passport?), or because someone else might say something irresponsible (why should I have my speech restricted?).

On the whole, I prefer my sociopaths and Statists to be of less than average intelligence, but I would strenuously object to IQ tests for candidates in case I ever become one.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Fred the typical sheeple

Just give me my cheap food, I care not where it came from. It's a fact that GMO's are the most dangerous poison, some call food, I call it Rat poison. He most likely will die a painful death from colon cancer, because he loves his tasty GMO food and soft drinks.

Big AG and Big Pharma loves Fred, one makes tons of money trying to poison him, and the other makes money trying to fix the damage caused by GMO's.

Kyle is a typical Master over Fred, he owns stocks in the companies poisoning Fred for profits. Probably working on being a member of the 1%.

Kyle is not much different from Bob except Bob wants physical contact with his victims.

Are you a typical sheeple who loves his GMO's.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

I like talking about this--

I don't have to believe your entirely or think your ideas are perfect to see that they have value.

Spouse and I were both born to people with high IQs; we both have high IQs--

our siblings (except possibly one in spouse's family) have high IQs--

we were raised, subtly, with the idea that we deserved more, because we were intelligent.

And then, and then--

spouse and I raise a really special child who has a profoundly low IQ, yes, much lower than Bob's--

changes everything. Changes how you think about everything.

Like the guy who worked all the time and had the bad diet (bad diets go with low income, by the way, most of the time) he works harder and more than the boys who were in his scout troop growing up who laughed at him--

and makes much less. He lives in an unhealthy place, because he can't afford better--

on and on.

When someone you love turns out to be low IQ and works harder for less--

you think a lot about these things.

I don't have answers. I do believe in God. I believe that justice prevails, in the end.

Our son is certainly developing what our parents' generation used to call 'character'. That doesn't mean very much to the people with whom he associates who have a lot more (by associating I mean his bosses, etc.)--

because many people still laugh behind his back if not to his face. But he has had to endure things the college-educated (and beyond) boys he grew up with have not had to endure, and he certainly doesn't lack for courage.

He lent his car to someone who was 'down and out'; it got totalled; he's riding a bike to a job where he works 19 hour days--

yesterday, on his day off, he was walking trying to look for a car; he had $300 in his pocket as a down payment; he was getting turned down--

he called us to talk about it, but he wasn't discouraged. Amazing.

He'll lend this next car to someone again; he's done it before.

Yes, we worry about him every second of every minute of every hour of every day. He lives far from us.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean now to me what it meant to me when I was always put in the top classes; same with spouse.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

OK, I'll take a shot at this...

First off, I don't separate practicality and morality...I think they are one in the same.

For example: if one system results in peoples' lives being better than any other system, then supporting that system (for "practical reasons") is precisely the moral thing to do.

On the flip side, I think it is extremely immoral to promote a system that makes people's lives worse, even when (or especially when) done in the name of "morality". Note: I realize you're not doing this, but I know people who do precisely this...they support solutions that they know will hurt the people they want to help, just because they wish it would help.

As to your example stories, I have a few issues.

The free market rewards people based on ONE thing: the value they create for others, as determined by those others.

The free market doesn't encourage us to "get ahead" by being smart or tricky...it encourages us to get ahead by helping to serve each others needs and desires. IQ may be a factor into how much value you create for others, but definitely not the dominant factor.

Also, I would hardly say that the free market causes "suffering" of the poor (or stupid). The lives of the poor are much better (and improve much faster!) in a free market than any other type of system.

BTW, even on a fundamental level (not looking at results), I'd still argue that libertarianism is moral. Libertarianism (to me) is about defending people's freedoms to use their bodies, their minds, their efforts, and their decisions to pursue their dreams as they see fit (and in harmony with other people's freedoms to do the same).

I, for one, am proud to support such a system.

The mafia could be "justified" in the fashion you describe

The game is filtered on either end for sociopaths: the dumb sociopaths are filtered to the bottom (prison) and the far sighted ones rise to the top (politicians).

Just by saying...

"The game is filtered on either end for sociopaths: the dumb sociopaths are filtered to the bottom (extorted, beaten, or killed by the mafia) and the far sighted ones rise to the top (mafia members)."

But just like the reason that "we cite" for why we all consider slavery illegitmate and that we don't just practice slavery, law or no law, many of us "cite" the NAP the same way.

Is it "binding" in any cosmic sense? Is ANY principle? They are just mental concepts, principles.

But IT DOES RESULT that you don't find MANY who disagree with the legitimacy of the principle that "slavery is immoral," and so "while not binding," it sure does seem that people recognize it for some reason or another. Perhaps because many individuals realize that "If I legitimize the use of owning another person (slavery)... THEN TO BE CONSISTENT I would have to agree that other people should be able to enslave me, and that doesn't sound like too much fun; Kinda like the golden rule. So I think we will leave that slavery thing alone haha."

And I disagree with notion "We should do things for practical reasons." Not in every case, but in matters that pertain to ethics and rights, I think we must argue BASED ON PRINCIPLE (like in slavery), not in outcomes, effects, or pragmatism (consequentialism, utilitarianism).

Because under utilitarianism, we can justify slavery based on an outcome; so it ignores what we consider "rights."

And how would a utilitarian explain why he doesn't molest children? "Hell the only reason I don't penetrate little Johnny over there is because the household is better off if I don't; else you better believe I'd be poking that boy."

If Phil

was so fuqing smart, how did he allow himself to get caught and roasted for dinner by a guy with less than 65% of his IQ....not that he knew that mind you.....

egapele's picture

On the Daily Paul apparently

Bill3 is making himself stupid lately.

laundryhead

disagree

To say "the stupid deserve to suffer" is to misstate libertarian philosophy. More accurate would be the statement, "the smart don't deserve to be held back with the stupid by the state." This latter sentiment doesn't prevent "smart" from helping "the stupid", but it does hold that the state shouldn't be making "smart" folks suffer more just because "the stupid" may be prone to suffer more.

Here's where you make your mistake

There is nothing written in nature that says one law of property is enforced, rather than another. Do we agree on that?

There is also no natural libertarian or anarchistic default state of of nature. The state of nature is all against all, gang warfare, all is fair, the devil take the hindmost and the biggest gang take the spoils.

Whatever system of property becomes the norm requires the social welfare of collective force to be upheld.

So, the system that enforces a set of property rules or laws, which, in practice, reward brains over brawn, or talent over mass numbers, etc., is not inherently more moral than any other system.

The libertarian philisophy does indeed prevent a stupid person from living if no one is willing to assist in his survival and he can't make it on his own. His existence, his physical strength, etc., give him no basis to claim anything.

Therefore, it is moral (which is to say, deserved) for the idiot to suffer an die, if and when violence is required to prevent it. Therefore, the libertarian morality says that the stupid ought to/should/deserve to/it is moral that they/ suffer, at least in those conditions.

It's inescapable even if you don't like the way I put it. I'm not arguing against the system, just pointing out that it has no special moral standing or objective status. It is just what works best, now, and so we invest it with a moral halo.

more to life and liberty than law of the jungle

Nature may be opportunistic, but it isn't devoid of heart. "Smarter" animals, especially humans, have been known to go out of their way to help others in need, even other species. Perhaps acts of altruism favor survival of a species.

If my neighbor is struggling physically or financially or otherwise, it may very well be to my advantage to lend a helping hand... pay it forward, so to speak. There's only so much territory I can maintain. I'd rather have friendly helpful folks around me maintaining theirs. Seems like common sense from a naturalistic world view and makes even more sense from a spiritual one.

Using a word like "deserved" reminds me of the concept of karma, a concept to which I very much subscribe, but in a far more complex sense than a 2-Dimensional smart-stupid spectrum, especially when themes such as grace, service, charity, love, etc. are considered. Indeed, such themes can elevate us above the law of the jungle to a vantage point in which basic libertarian "truths" appear self-evident.

Interesting

but in no way contradictory to any of my points.

Hahahaha!

That is hilarious! I don't know how you created your philosophy, but surely it's not the result of understanding reality. You say, 'The law is not morality, and the facts are not the truth.' Who says laws create morality? Morality is known internally, one of the arguments for advocating for limited government is because they keep trying to legislate morality, have you ever listened to a guy name Ron Paul? We all know trying to legislate morality results in totalitarianism. Or are you saying there is no internal morality? If the brain is healthy, is there not some form of internal check before one harms another? Surely one can become indifferent to the wellbeing of fellow human being, normally as a result of pain or self-centered brain activity. You say 'facts are not the truth', but isn't is so that facts are the only truth? If facts are not truth, what is? I think you may need to revisit this subject, your story has no foundation in actuality

Enonesoch

One of the biggest problems I have with some of my...

Republican friends is convincing them that Libertarians aren't anarchist. See, anarchist are anarchist, they don't have a party, they don't believe in the constitution.

Libertarians actually believe we should follow the constitution. We don't filter everything the constitution says through the Bible first. We don't have to for the constitution is moral. We put the constitution before the Bible so everyone that chooses can put their religious beliefs before everything else in their lives or not.

Democrats would say Republicans believe the dumb should suffer because they don't favor the state providing for the dumb. They want the dumb forced to have children that they don't want and aren't capable of caring for.

If Libertarians allow the dumb to suffer it's only because we don't believe the state should rob us to care for them. We have nothing against private charity and believe that it's more helpful to the dumb than state welfare.

Libertarian morality and constitutional morality are one and the same.

Libertarians aren't all anarchists

But the ones who think it through are.

The Constitution would, if it were a magical shield against tyranny, still be sub-optimal.

The value of the Constitution is in only one thing. It in theory binds the government. If it actually did this we would have the Rule of Law. But it doesn't so we have rule of men.

Unfortunately it never really has bound the government. The very first things the congress did was pass the alien and sedition acts, the supreme court ruled in Marbury vs Madison that it had the power to interpret the Constitution (which power is not granted to it in the Constitution), and Adams issued executive orders and started playing general.

This was the very same people that signed or endorsed the Constitution.

Even if it did bind the government, it would still be a low bar for civilization. There is nothing against the rule of law, say, for a law to exist that bans alcohol, or enforces segregation, so long as everyone, including legislators are bound by it.

So if we had the Constitution 'back', which would be the first time we ever had it period, it would be far from perfect.

All that said, if you can somehow figure out how to bind the government to the Constitution that would be swell. All for it. If you had a credible plan, other than giving more men power over other men, like electing them and ensuring they are corrupted by power, I'd support you wholeheartedly.

I just don't see how it is possible.