What is the libertarian answer to non-rational actions?

If something where to be of “general interest”, everyone would comply voluntarily, but that is in many situations not the case; it has to be enforced by “higher authority”. Since I have learnt there is a difference between “general consensus” and “general interest”, I was stimulated to think about the question if there is (in a political and/or human psychological perspective) such a thing as general interest. But I, for now, concluded the important question is if a non-rational & not fully informed decision can (with force) be overruled? The libertarian concept functions imho perfectly when all actions are based on fully-informed & rational decisions, but that is a utopia!

For further study: how does the Libertarian Party answer this concern – as imho this is the only valid objection one can have to the philosophical foundation of the Libertarian Party. As currently I am a minarchist I am supposed to object to anarcho-capitalism, but how to defend the point that there should be a nexus of power (a monopoly on force)? Philosophically I can not … the ancient Greek philosophers (Pittacus, Thales, Sextus the Pythagorean, Isocrates, Epictetus, Epicurus, Plato’s Socrates) already stated (and many religions have in their core): The Golden Rule or, maybe better, The Platinum Rule. I, as an individual and also in my political views, want to (and do) believe it possible I can “act wisely” and properly deal with the objections Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell have 1 to the Golden/Platinum Rule.

So for all practical concerns I will treat the Libertarian Party as yet one step closer (to a desired utopia) in the way we, as humans, organize ourselves to deal with the random, the non-rationale and the (for now) unexplainable. Thus I have to conclude that politics is necessary, but the ideal should be to limited that as much as possible … where the fine line can not be defined, but is up to those who do. I believe elections are thus needed to poll the general consensus in the respect as to where the line is to be drawn at that particular time (and preferably also on what specific topic).

Postscript: in ancient times people where able to vote “with their feet” and moved to or followed those that where agreeable to them. How ever much I would like to go back to those times, perhaps in this modern time we should invent new governmental systems, like bringing ever political decision to those it will impact? This would not be a reversal in power and not the full freedom of power, but a healthy mix … but than again, also a truly democratic system is a utopia!

1 = Perhaps best summarized in this question: How does one know how others want to be treated?

Tags: ,

One Response to “What is the libertarian answer to non-rational actions?”

  1. The goal of politics should be to reduce the diversity in individual goals to a common set of goals.

Leave a Reply