Rationality s more than one thing. Even if there are defenses of neoreaction and libertarianism as epistemic rationality, they are open to the criticism that they are not instrumentally rational pursuits because they are too far out to influence anything in the real world.
I don’t see how this is a reply to my question. Being impractical doesn’t mean something is irrational and politically extremist. If you look at the comment thread, you’ll see that I’m reacting to a certain poster deciding to quit posting on Less Wrong due to “politically extremist” ideologies, where he gave libertarianism as an example. I think it’s a bit silly to refer to libertarianism as a “politically extremist” ideology, hence my question.
If you want to go on a tangent and discuss whether libertarianism is practical or not, then sure, we can do that. To start, Bitcoin (or crypto-currency in general) has the potential to create massive changes to the economic landscape, where the government may lose a lot of control over the flow of goods and services. This could create a more libertarian world without requiring the normal process of passing legislation and influencing politicians.
I don’t see how this is a reply to my question. Being impractical doesn’t mean something is irrational and politically extremist.
Something that is impractical, that cannot be achieved, is instrumentally irrational. If you don’t understand, that is probably because you are not noticing the difference between epistemic and instrumental rationality.
Full strength, axiomatic, dismantle-the state libertarianism is impractical. If your central example of libertarianism is bitcoin, then that is not impractical.
Why are you focusing on so heavily on whether it’s “rational”? He said that it’s an irrational, politically extremist position. The whole statement is what I was replying to.
Full strength, axiomatic, dismantle-the state libertarianism is impractical. If your central example of libertarianism is bitcoin, then that is not impractical.
See here for a good overview of how the State is already being dismantled.
Rationality s more than one thing. Even if there are defenses of neoreaction and libertarianism as epistemic rationality, they are open to the criticism that they are not instrumentally rational pursuits because they are too far out to influence anything in the real world.
I don’t see how this is a reply to my question. Being impractical doesn’t mean something is irrational and politically extremist. If you look at the comment thread, you’ll see that I’m reacting to a certain poster deciding to quit posting on Less Wrong due to “politically extremist” ideologies, where he gave libertarianism as an example. I think it’s a bit silly to refer to libertarianism as a “politically extremist” ideology, hence my question.
If you want to go on a tangent and discuss whether libertarianism is practical or not, then sure, we can do that. To start, Bitcoin (or crypto-currency in general) has the potential to create massive changes to the economic landscape, where the government may lose a lot of control over the flow of goods and services. This could create a more libertarian world without requiring the normal process of passing legislation and influencing politicians.
Something that is impractical, that cannot be achieved, is instrumentally irrational. If you don’t understand, that is probably because you are not noticing the difference between epistemic and instrumental rationality.
Full strength, axiomatic, dismantle-the state libertarianism is impractical. If your central example of libertarianism is bitcoin, then that is not impractical.
Why are you focusing on so heavily on whether it’s “rational”? He said that it’s an irrational, politically extremist position. The whole statement is what I was replying to.
See here for a good overview of how the State is already being dismantled.