| palou said:
Regardless of if we are conscious of the phenomen or not, without an agreement of any kind, stated or not, it will always be more logical to act against the collective wellbeing. Rellying on the good will of individuals is a catastrophe bound to happen (as the heavy fall of productivity in all attempted communist states has proven.)
I do not necessarily see the Paris Agreement, or anything similar, as being against libertarian principles. It is simply a collective aknowledgment that it would be in the interest of all if all participated. Each party has the power to break the agreement for all, but the nash equilibrium, with rational players, makes each member continue participating. Trump at least somewhat destabilized this equilibrium, which could lead other "players" to go back to their direct individual interests, instead of making agreements with others
Of course, in practice, people aren't rational, which makes game theory a much, much harder subject. The math is pretty beautiful, though.
In the end, I will always fundementaly be in disagreement with Libertarians; as I do not consider Liberty to be a fundemental part of morality, but mearly a tool. I believe in capitalism, and more specifically, in competition, as it does follow a sound mathematical model; however, it is also mathematicaly unquestionable that there are several instances where limiting the choices of individuals does bring to a greater collctive productivity/happiness.
I believe that this gives the right to breach the liberty of individuals; but I respect that some could disagree with that.
|
