The Libertarian Paradox

[@nathanschab4796]

I consider libertarian beliefs to be sort of like Christmas lights. Everyone puts them up around election season, and some people just leave them up all year around, but it's still mostly an aesthetic thing.

[@maxgg7290]

Wow, I will reuse this analogy, its great !

[@devilmansanchez]

Perhaps the solution is to revise the societal function and add information as a crucial factor. Unanimous solutions can only be reached based on the available information. In the example that Dr. Bonevac gave, the only reason why the solution was suboptimal was because Jones and Smith were apparently oblivious about the decision that the other person would take, or were limited to making one decision and not capable of revising it once the other's decision was known. If Jones initially decides not to read it (and hopes Smith won't either), then Smith decides to read it, why doesn't Jones simply revise his decision and reads it after all? Being that the case, it would yield a solution that both agree on: Both read it. How can, after all, a unanimous decision be taken if we do not know about others' decisions? That clearly requires a degree of coordination, and such coordination requires information, and that information comes from action-at least in the context of libertarianism. So it is not that the societal function produced a suboptimal solution, is just that we stopped half-way of the computation. If we let the function run: Jones doesn't read it > Smith reads it > Jones updates his decision and reads it > which means both read it > and since both agree on this decision, the unanimous principle stands.

[@xaves2]

Hello Prof. Daniel. Thank you so much for your videos. I watch a lot of them! I dont know if you can make a video on Thomas Kuhn someday, if there is one i didnt found it. Thank you

[@Tm-kt3uw]

Professor Bonevac, I also wanted to ask you whether you can make the video about Hypatia of Alexandria? She is famous for her tragic death. I know that she was Neoplatonic philosopher, but don’t know much else about her philosophic ideas. Maybe you would be able to tell us about her philosophy.

[@kensho123456]

How Smith and Jones can choose between whims.

[@Tm-kt3uw]

Professor Bonevac, thank you for another great video! I think the problem here isn’t that Libertarian principle clashes with Pareto condition, but that this principle simply can’t be used in this situation. Both John’s and Smith’s preferences about their own decisions depend on the choices of other person. If Jones reads book then Smith prefers not to read it, while if Jones doesn’t read it then Smith prefers to read it. So in this situation nobody can’t decide whether to read book independently of the choice of the other human.

[@IvyCatholic]

I think this is a good point, however logically speaking you do need to have another condition (in this vid's case, the weak pareto principle) to get a real clash. The reason is the libertarian principle on its own won't lead to a clash. Yes, both have preferences about what the other person does, but if you just have the libertarian principle alone, these other-person preferences don't matter! The libertarian principle is merely "each person should be allowed to do what they want in their own sphere". You need some other normative principle on top of that to get the paradox/conflict.

[@adarshiyer4805]

This is quite interesting, another great video from Dan Bonevac. I wonder if the issue is simply that the preferences that clash are ones which are the conclusions of different premises. Clearly, the moral systems of Jones and Smith are different, but in particular, they have different beliefs about the goals of the other. Jones believes that Smith is desperately longing for some sinful reading material, so in the set of outcomes, Smith not reading the book is valued. Jones has no premise which asserts Smith's "selfless" consideration of Jones. Conversely, Smith has a positive attitude towards the book, but feels more strongly about the issue of whether Jones reads it, so scenarios where Jones reads it are prioritized. Also, perhaps one should consider that for one's preference in the set of outcomes, the primary criterion of both individuals is one which dictates the actions of the others. In a way, a desire for the social choice function about something outside one's sphere of liberty is an authoritarian mindset; that if the king were my friend, this is what I'd ask him to make my neighbor do. Perhaps this shows that libertarian principles do not work, not only governing authoritarian actors that do not even obey the principles, but even governing those who simply have authoritarian ideas, beliefs, or preferences that they keep in private and/or allow to influence what actions they personally take within their own spheres of liberty. Just a few thoughts, thanks again!

[@Zanuka]

I thought the idea of the libertarian principle is that your liberty ends after you, i.e. you only decide for yourself, not others. This video seems too focused on deciding for others, i.e. preventing liberty for the individual/others. Does that make sense? I don't see the paradox. Maybe I'm missing something.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

I think the paradox is easily resolved by simply pointing out that the two principles in conflict are not equal. That obviously the libertarian principle should trump the weak pareto condition. Why is this obvious? Consider the case where the disagreement isn't over who should read a book, but rather, who should murder their son. Jones is a normal person that don't want anyone to be murdered, and Smith is a murderer. If we simply allow the libertarian principle to protect the children, we don't need to do further analysis. But since the weak pareto condition apparently is worth considering, let's see how it turns out: *Smith's* preferences are: Smith murders his son Both murder their sons Jones muders his son no one murders their sons *Jones'* preferences are: no one murders their sons Smith murders his son Jones muders his son Both murder their sons Here we see the least agreement on "no one murders their sons", and the most agreement on Smith's son being murdered, so apparently that's the most optimal solution. How are we to take this result seriously? Clearly the weak pareto condition is, as the name suggests, weak reasoning.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Nice point. The problem is that the weak Pareto condition, though it seems innocuous in itself, can allow agreement on busybody preferences to figure into the outcome in a counterintuitive way.

[@gwpiaser]

Nice video (although the lighting could be better)

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Yeah I know. I'm having trouble getting lighting right in the room I've been filming in-the windows make it difficult.

[@oldager1662]

I think Goedel has something to say here and actually about (nearly?) every paradox. There is a higher and objective realm that is more important than subjective preferences (and even things that appear objective) in a lower realm. This is not anti-libertarian as long as I am "allowed" to espouse a view that claims a relatively objective (now that is a funny term. What I mean is an assertion at a higher level than the arena it claims to override) point of view that trumps the paradox. Aren't many of these paradoxes just suffering from incompleteness?

[@alexeyklyshnikov7145]

Freedom of association kinda resolves this situation, if reading or non-reading the book is an important issue for our heroes the best solution for them is to part their ways, mr Jones would be much happier in his grumpy ways in metaphorical Texas and mr Smith should run for presidency of Marquis de Sade literary society in metaphorical California.

[@alexeyklyshnikov7145]

Am I failing my logic class ?

[@levizander5584]

Jones single choice to not read the book disqualifies the top 2 of 3 outcomes under the weak Pareto condition. There is no paradox, because there is then no conflict between the options. By choosing to wipe out 2/3rds of the possible scenarios, Jones leaves one possibility for Smith, and that's for Smith to read the book he wanted to anyway. If Jones were forced to read the book, as if the world necessitated operating under weak Pareto optimizations, weak Pareto would hold but libertarian principles obviously would not, as Jones was forced to something he'd rather not.

[@levizander5584]

Additionally, the assumption that both men value all outcomes equally, such that each derives the same value from one step up their "scenario ranking", seems extremely unrealistic, and is probably the easiest way out of the paradox.

[@kallianpublico7517]

First off where'd the name "libertarian" in libertarian principle come from? Why wasn't it called the autonomy principle? The mind your own business principle? The leave me alone principle? The don't touch me principle? Is it related to the heads I win tails you lose principle? I like how you reluctantly, resort to game theory at the end, as if you weren't there all along. It is one thing to rely on Nature and it's foundations to find consistency. The "context" of Nature is the riddle of Oedipus: the advantages and disadvantages of knowledge. It is another thing, entirely, to rely on logic to find consistency. The pretexts of logic is the riddle of "The Emporor's New Clothes". One may find a shining garment of pretexts adds up to quite a flimsy thing. Much like Zeno's Paradox of halfway there means never there. Game theory relies on pretexts just as language and math do. While it seems ok in the 21st century to think that our use of pretextual coherency, especially science, is a successful strategy, it may not always prove reliable. I imagine the Sumerians, Egyptians and Romans all thought their pretexts were reliable as well. In the late 19th century early 20th century the Haber-Bausch process saved us from possible starvation. Now we're finding that industrial farming has depleted our soil of nutrients, making the food we eat today less nutritious than a hundred years ago. The context of Nature does not always prove foreseeable by the pretexts of science. What is the purpose of engaging in this game? To find a "seemingly" ultimate compromise to social stability? One that doesn't resort to violence? To a pacifist this may sound fine. How does this sound to a realist? One who relies on Nature for his guide. "The sacrifices to God are a broken heart and a..", I forget the rest of the psalm. A crushed skull? Is it better to fear error than to fear death?

[@firewizzard86]

Beautifully put, I don't know why they stuck the best comment all the way down here!

[@123darkdeal]

Libertarianism is a little utopian. There is another "paradox" that comes about when applying libertarian principles across a society. A prime pillar of libertarianism is to not do harm to others. Another, as in this video, is that people can make their own decisions as long as it only affects them. What happens then, if individual choices that affect only the individual have a significant negative impact on society as a whole when a critical mass of individual in said society choose to partake? Drugs and Porn are both examples of this. Libertarians believe that individuals should be able to consume them if they so like as they aren't harming others. Yet, when so many in society partake of drugs and/or porn, it has a very negative effect on society as a whole, thus harming everyone.

[@firewizzard86]

A. That would never happen because people will look around them and see the empirical data of said negative affects even if they are not educated on these subjects which they should be given the more freedom you have the more information you need. B. In a free society the smartest and wealthiest members of society will be the rockstars because it is much more attainable, rather than the dregs of society. Drugs will only be freely available and so will treatment when people are judged to be of an age to make rational decisions, so people who do hard drugs will be looked on as bigger losers than they are now because of the choices available. C. If a majority did drugs it would no longer be cool.

[@123darkdeal]

@@firewizzard86 You are ignorant if you don't see the evidence that it is already happening. There are already systemic problems in society due to porn/social media addiction and drugs.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

Provide evidence how it could harm "everyone" that someone is consuming porn. It simply doesn't follow logically. You seem to be engaging in the fallacy wherein you have given "society" the same status as an individual. As if it's a being that can be harmed. But that's a mistake, society is merely a collection of individuals. It is no thing onto itself. There can be no "harm" to society, only to individuals in said society. And if you agree with the premise that consuming porn only harms the consuming individual, then you have no argument that it can harm society as a whole.

[@123darkdeal]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter the evidence is all around. It's not the individual that causes societal harm, but the critical mass of people consuming porn. The has of porn on the individual is thoroughly documented. Extrapolate that out to millions of people. The damage to dating and in tune families is playing out now. That is only one negative outcome among many.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@123darkdeal What's the damage to dating? If you do porn, you obviously don't care about dating. Like, have you never properly thought through arguments before? Why are you on a philosophy channel? It baffles me you would say something so vague, and so stupid as "the evidence is all around". it's what christians say about God too; "evidence is all around us, how can you you not believe? just look at a trees!" So since you're not gonna explain anything, I'm just gonna say the evidence is "all around you" why that line of reasoning doesn't work. Oh, and responding to my main thesis that there is no "society" would be nice too.

[@wind_sd]

This libertarian principle seems to be a stronger version of the non-dictatorship condition in Arrow's impossibility theorem

[@tomsh1398]

Not really a paradox as Libertarians have no take on preferences unless they’re universalisable.

[@VaraLaFey]

Any so-called "paradox" is almost guaranteed to be based on at least one false premise. I've been an Ayn Rand Objectivist for 30 years, and no form of libertarianism I'm familiar with has any notion of a social preference. The idea that it has any such notion is a strawman, and this strawman is the important false premise in this presentation. Because libertarianism by itself simply doesn't have the cited conflict. A false premise of lesser importance is that any such thing as a "social preference" exists at all outside of statistics and other strictly mental exercises. The conflict cited in this presentation is between libertarianism (each individual's sphere of liberty) and utilitarianism (a busy-body preference of striving for optimal outcomes for a majority of individuals, or for all of them). Being imperfect creatures, we don't always achieve the optimal or even any _proclaimed_ optimal. And whether anyone achieves optimal within his own sphere of liberty is truly none of anyone else's business because it literally doesn't affect us in any significant way. That's life. Live with it. Any philosophy which cannot live with these things is literally useless garbage at best, and at worst and at its most common is a scam to trick people into something. Attempting to _enforce_ either real or proclaimed optimal outcomes would be fascism in the Mussolini/Hitler sense wherein the head of state molds "his" country however he thinks he can. The single difference is whether to confine such efforts inside national borders. And to continue this correlation, didn't the nazis call social preference "the will"?