Misconceptions about libertarianism

[libertarian answers]

And that comment has just made all my efforts not only worth it, but you've just made my night!

Reading Ayn Rand's novels and her non-fiction will show you how to achieve/maintain that consistency in reagrds to the use of reason throughout the entire Objectivist philosophy, meaning throughout all the branches of a philosophic system (and other Objectivists particularly Ayn Rand's intellctual and legal heir Leonard Peikoff in his work Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand does this exceptionally well). Other works by Objectivists, can be found here

Oh and HERE is the Ayn Rand Lexicon that is now available for free searching! Just found out about it in another thread! Take advantage of it. You can ook up "taxation" "government" "moral practical dichotomy" and so forth.

Maybe some clarification is in order here. I've read the OPAR and have a fairly good but admittedly much shallower grasp on her ideas than most here. For me, reading Rand was well worth it. But I also came away with more questions than answers. Maybe the answers were there and I missed them. Maybe that is why I'm here.

[intellectualammo]

Is there a line of reasoning that logically explains why taxation for one thing is not as bad as taxation for another thing? Or do you view both as illegitimate based on a central principle?

I view both as being immoral/evil on principle.

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[libertarian answers]

Actually, based on your responses on this thread, I think you have been one of the most intellectually honest posters who has identified himself as a Libertarian that I have seen in a long time. I am glad to engage in this discussion.

And I must say that I have been treated well by the Objectivists here except for the warning I got for being a dumb noob. For clarity of thought, you guys are like a breath of fresh air. I hope my contributions paid for in value the time you spent talking with me.

[DMR]

I read some reviews of the book and the point seems to be that libertarians don't have a core philosophy and arrive at their conclusions as though they randomly selected them from a buffet of ideas.

I've actually read it, and that's not completely off the mark. The problem is that Swartz expects libertarianism to be like Objectivism: a well-defined, closed system such that if I say I am a libertarian, you know what I believe and what I don't.

This is not the case. The term "libertarian" is fuzzy. Some use it to refer to the umbrella political position that liberty is good, and thus the term has nothing to do with what their philosophical justification for this position is (if they have any at all), or what their position is on competing philosophical justifications is. For such users, Objectivists are libertarians who believe that the only proper justification of libertarianism is Rand's (and her contemporaries') foundational philosophy. Others use the term "libertarian" to refer to their particular composite consisting of politics and philosophical foundations, and thus that other systems are "false libertarianism" or at least "less-well-founded libertarianism" (the degree of censure towards competing justifications varies from thinker to thinker). Still others may, following postmodern terminology, use the term to refer to particular composites not necessarily their own, and speak of various "libertarianisms." The point is that libertarianism has few well-specified positions, so just because a particular libertarian thinker says X does not mean that the majority of libertarians believes X, in the same way that if Leonard Peikoff says X, you either believe X or you are not an Objectivist.

there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical and the practical and the moral.

What I think he means is that a state that always and forevermore protects individual rights is a pipe dream, and so if we want individual rights protected, we need to get rid of the state. When he says "It would be morally okay with me, but I don't think it would work," he means it in the same sense as "If things fell up instead of down, we could build an airplane without engines or wings." When I want an airplane, I want something that will fly, not something which (necessarily) has engines or wings. It happens that given the nature of the world and the state of our technology, we need engines and wings to make working planes. Insofar as I want something which actually flies in the real world, I want something with engines and wings. Likewise, if we had the sort of natures and lived in the sort of world in which it was possible to have a state which was a genuine protector of individual rights, libertarian answers would support a state which did just that. But he believes that we either do not live in such a world or do not have such natures, or both.

[Fireball]

The state is subsumed under government.

In an ideal politico-economic system, laissez-faire capitalism, the government does not steal from you via taxation. Taxation as such would be abolished, and only privately funded contributed to. The only thing certain in man's life is death, not taxes...

This is a bit tricky. Death is certain via taxation because governments tax away corporate profits needed to fund private medical research to cure cancer, heart disease, etc. In a society without taxation or regulatory bureaucracies like the FDA, corporations are free to spend profits where they decide is most profitable. And since many people want to live longer, healthier lives, some corporations would direct profits into developing marketable cures for cancer, heart disease, aids, aging, etc. and make the future of human death uncertain.

[intellectualammo]

This is a bit tricky. Death is certain via taxation because governments tax away corporate profits needed to fund private medical research to cure cancer, heart disease, etc. In a society without taxation or regulatory bureaucracies like the FDA, corporations are free to spend profits where they decide is most profitable. And since many people want to live longer, healthier lives, some corporations would direct profits into developing marketable cures for cancer, heart disease, aids, aging, etc. and make the future of human death uncertain.

Nothing tricky about it to me. To speak in the language you are using in this, I will then be able to say that "until then", my death is certain to me right now.

[DarkWaters]

So would it then be logical to force everyone to support that institution that defends individual rights?

Absolutely not. I was trying to articulate that a free market probably would not result in a greater standard of living for individuals, and might even degenerate into chaos, if most people are dangerously irrational. This includes individuals who would refuse to fund a government for a legitimate venture that is protecting their individual rights.

And I must say that I have been treated well by the Objectivists here except for the warning I got for being a dumb noob.

I am not sure what you mean by "the warning [you] got for being a dumb [n00b]." Just keep in mind that this forum often does get many trolls who identify themselves as some flavor of Libertarian. In other words, just try to understand if there was some initial suspicion.

Again, I perceive that you have asked questions in a respectful and intellectually honest fashion.

Edited October 27, 2007 by DarkWaters

[xavier]

Someone already mention the Ayn Rand Lexicon, but here's the direct link to Libertarianism:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html

I think it is a mistake to say: "Most Libertarians are anti-philosophical anarchists, but I'm a Libertarian who defends capitalism on rational grounds. Therefore, when you call Libertarians anarchists, you are being collectivist and over-generalizing."

In my view, a group, movement, party, etc. should be judged on its core, driving philosophy, not on the view of any one person who claims to be part of that group. Christianity is evil and rotten, but this does not mean that every self-described Christian is necessary evil and rotten. They may simply be mistaken. Yet it is correct to condemn Christianity as evil, and, on this topic, more importantly, to dis-associate yourself from Christianity. If you understand Christianity to be evil, yet try to reform it or otherwise continue to be associated with it, this itself is evil.

The core, driving philosophy of Libertarianism is anarchy and anti-philosophy. This is my observation, and I also think this is the Objectivist position. I think this is the conclusion you reach if you look at the Libertarian movement, its statements of all its political and philosophic leaders, its stated goals, its actions, etc.

Edit: Noodlefood has a good article on anarchy: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/12/epi...al-anarchy.html

Edited October 27, 2007 by xavier

[DarkWaters]

For such users, Objectivists are libertarians who believe that the only proper justification of libertarianism is Rand's (and her contemporaries') foundational philosophy.

These "users" would of course be dead wrong, especially since Libertarians and Objectivists do not necessarily arrive at the same conclusions on important issues.

Without more fundamental principles to determine what liberty is or why it is good, one would not have any guidelines to answer many complicated questions that arrive in modern politics and political theory. Does liberty mean that every fetus has a right to life? Does liberty mean that a slave owner should be free to maintain chattel slavery? Does liberty mean that an individual has the right to pursue retaliatory force? Does liberty mean that one should be free to download all of the movies and music he wants from the internet?

These questions are very difficult to answer if all one starts with is "thou shalt not initiate force."