Libertarian philosophy

[RohinGupta]

I couldn't find dedicated thread for the purpose. So starting the new one.

Please enter your comments on Libertarianism in this thread.

(And link to existing threads that you know of)

Following article by Peter Schwartz, I think can be taken as benchmark for Objectivist positions.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HS02I

Its also available in the book "The Voice of Reason".

The following essays I think will also offer useful leads.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...=objectivism_fv

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ivism_sanctions

Though purpose is primarily Philosophical, I think historical perspective on the evolution of Objectivist viewpoint and corresponding actions would also be useful for illustration.

P.S: The reason why its added in Metaphysics and Epistemology corner. Because I think that its important to explore

the aspects of Libertarianism beyond politics, and how it impacts the individual's thought process and world view.

[RohinGupta]

Let me also clarify the necessity of this thread. It carries both +ve and -ve connotation.

Positive: Understanding by contrast the features of Objectivism. The process Leonard Peikoff calls "Horizontal integration" in his lectures on "Art of Thinking".

Negative: It will prevent us from unwittingly accepting Libertarian ideas and ideals.

I couldn't find dedicated thread for the purpose. So starting the new one.

Please enter your comments on Libertarianism in this thread.

(And link to existing threads that you know of)

Following article by Peter Schwartz, I think can be taken as benchmark for Objectivist positions.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HS02I

Its also available in the book "The Voice of Reason".

The following essays I think will also offer useful leads.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...=objectivism_fv

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ivism_sanctions

Though purpose is primarily Philosophical, I think historical perspective on the evolution of Objectivist viewpoint and corresponding actions would also be useful for illustration.

P.S: The reason why its added in Metaphysics and Epistemology corner. Because I think that its important to explore

the aspects of Libertarianism beyond politics, and how it impacts the individual's thought process and world view.

[TheEgoist]

Traditional, academic views of libertarian metaphysics/epistemology is a very loose indeterminism, characterized by an acausal mind. This view is accepted by many more people than political libertarians, so putting this in metaphysics may confuse things.

[Axiomatic]

Toohey: What do you think of Libertarianism Mr Roark?

Howard: I don't.

[Maximus]

Toohey: What do you think of Libertarianism Mr Roark?

Howard: I don't.

That about sums it up!

Here's some food for thought on the subject: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Edited February 28, 2010 by Maximus

[RohinGupta]

Let me further venture to say, desire and willingness to counter epistemology that led to Libertarianism. This was

one of the factors in motivating Ms. Rand to begin "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

Here is the evidence

An Excerpt From Ayn Rand’s Life: Highlights and Sidelights

by Harry Binswanger (Recorded 1993)

http://facetsofaynrand.com/additional/ar_highlights.html

11:08-

"Another contributing influence of course, but only contributing because my mind was made up, was my meeting with

Hospers".(John Hospers is a contemporary Philosopher who at this time was teaching at Brooklyn college. Today he is

a Libertarian, which is appropriate considering what she is going to say about the errors in his thinking). Conversation

with Hospers made me see the enormous holes in today's view of Philosophy and the unsolved issues. We had a few

Epistemological conversations. And more than the specific issues, he gave me the sense of a whole approach, a whole

method of approaching Epistemology.(That is his method), which is so clearly wrong, and made me see clearly why its

wrong. And what is it that I take for granted that they don't know.

Also check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hospers#..._libertarianism

....Any scholar out there who can further throw some light on Hosper's Epistemology?

[rebelconservative]

That about sums it up!

Here's some food for thought on the subject: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

er... seriously...?

this person suggests that by declaring something to be my "property" I am instigating force against all others who can no longer use my property...

it continues... "retaliation can be the initiation of force" based on the fact that "I don't need force to commit theft or fraud."

... "slavery is a sin of capitalism"

[Maximus]

It is flawed from an Objectivist point of view, but still has legitimate criticisms of Libertarianism that can be used as fodder for argument.

I'm sure we here are intelligent enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[khaight]

Toohey: What do you think of Libertarianism Mr Roark?

Howard: I don't.

I don't any more. My basic reason is simple. I think the growth of statism is fundamentally driven by the widespread influence of irrationalist and altruist ideas in the culture. Unless those ideas are challenged, uprooted and replaced with better ones the war against statism can never be won. Libertarianism as an ideology explicitly holds no position on epistemological and moral ideas -- it's a purely political movement. They say themselves that they don't care why someone supports the non-initiation of force principle, only that they do. As such, libertarianism has recused itself from the true battlefield. On the issues that really matter libertarianism has nothing to say. It's irrelevant, and therefore I ignore it as best I can.

[CastleBravo]

Libertarianism has no answer for irrationality, which is the root cause of the world's problems (as khaight said). It only seeks to pacify conservative warmongering and liberal spending, not address the real issue at hand. It seeks to validate personal freedoms, responsibility and "principle" but does not state why, what those mean or how they are beneficial to uhmurikuh. Libertarianism moves under the guise of individualism while accepting such broken anti-individual ideologies as Christianity and Anarchism. It's lack of solutions led me to Objectivism pretty quickly.

I am a secretary for the Libertarians at the district level and the only purpose it serves for me is padding for my resume. It also allows me to sharpen my mind with constant debate. I get to harass liberals and conservatives at least 4x as much as I normally would as well

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Here's some food for thought on the subject: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Well, I'm finding FAQ counter-arguments #6 (7,8,9), #15 and #29 a little tricky to answer, and Bastiat's quote refutal from the next section as well.

Edited March 1, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Black Wolf]

Libertarianism has no answer for irrationality, which is the root cause of the world's problems (as khaight said). It only seeks to pacify conservative warmongering and liberal spending, not address the real issue at hand. It seeks to validate personal freedoms, responsibility and "principle" but does not state why, what those mean or how they are beneficial to uhmurikuh. Libertarianism moves under the guise of individualism while accepting such broken anti-individual ideologies as Christianity and Anarchism. It's lack of solutions led me to Objectivism pretty quickly.

I am a secretary for the Libertarians at the district level and the only purpose it serves for me is padding for my resume. It also allows me to sharpen my mind with constant debate. I get to harass liberals and conservatives at least 4x as much as I normally would as well

I used to be a libertarian before I came to this site. I wanted to go to a forum where I can find common ground with libertarians, but sooner realized how stupid they mostly were. Aside from the "pro-life" Christians, there were "libertarians" who "aren't pure libertarians", and would be perfectly okay with tax hikes on EVERYONE to "take care of the wealthy". I'm just like "yeah, let's go".

[rebelconservative]

What do you guys think of the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video? http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&am...p;v=muHg86Mys7I

it is pretty basic, but as an introduction for the uninitiated, automatic collectivists, I think it is quite good. it should open the eyes of a few people. from there, they may find their way to Objectivism.

[Maximus]

What do you guys think of the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video? http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&am...p;v=muHg86Mys7I

it is pretty basic, but as an introduction for the uninitiated, automatic collectivists, I think it is quite good. it should open the eyes of a few people. from there, they may find their way to Objectivism.

Aww... ain't it cute?

[RohinGupta]

So what is a Libertarian? Whats that one characteristic that forms its essence?

Well, all facts point towards one fact. And that is, the one who encompasses and engages with anybody who claims to embrace Liberty, irrespective of the fundamentals on which that person's concept may rest on.

But more importantly, I am interested in the Ethical paradigm that will lead to such a viewpoint. Which will push

you to accept anybody and everybody who professes to value Liberty? If Liberty is valuable to this person, what is

his take on values? And the connection that becomes strikingly clear is, Values are intrinsic. And therefore value

of Liberty too is intrinsic, irrespective of how you(or anybody else) develops it, the kind of integration of

concrete values that led them to it.

Let me use Productivity by similar "logic", to derive communism from Objectivism.

Productivity is a virtue that enables men to put their ideas into practice. We observe that by engaging people who

have relevant skills, better productivity can be achieved(qualitatively and speed-wise). Therefore, engagement too

is a virtue IN THAT CONTEXT.

But since values are intrinsic, and virtues are values in the realm of action, therefore engagement is a value in

itself.Communist comes and says, by virtue of engagement in an industrial society, values are not created by single

bourgeois. He involves a section of proletariats to create values. Therefore its only right that the wealth created by these values are distributed fairly.

(Of course, context of voluntary exchange of values without any coercion being dropped here. But since both of you

have accepted engagement as an intrinsic virtue, therefore his argument cannot be challenged).

So there is a conflict(within and with others) in every aspect of Liberty, except its meaning - Non-initiation of

Physical Force that is.

- There are conflicts on what such value refers to in reality.

Liberty leads to prosperity, therefore money is good. What about money given for social welfare schemes or

affirmative action? Oh, that is to correct the historical wrong of unfair prosperity of ruling classes.(Here I am

referring to actions of Indian government and their justification by Libertarian Intellectuals). Plus these will

further increase wages, that will lead to further prosperity.

What about dilution of Human and material resources. Blank Out!

- There is conflict on how one should gain and keep it.

I heard XXX saying that the teenager was tortured by police.Lets overthrow the government which abused Force.

Its replacement? Blank Out...!(Argument being used in Indian Administered Kashmir, the movement being supported by

Libertarian intellectuals).

- There is a conflict on how to understand Liberty while recollecting it. Since it is intrinsic, and whatever steps that did lead to it have

long been discarded or suppressed, only way you can know it is through intuition or feeling. Therefore if you are a

consistent Libertarian, feelings ( which quickly develop into hedonism) is your standard means of Cognition -- The

hallmark of culture Libertarians intend to build. After all, its Liberty from the necessity of thinking!!

Do you need rationality and logic in such a scenario? The answer came from one of the more honest Liberterian - "Logic is a very manipulative tool. It can be used to prove anything to anyone." (Liberty from corresponding to facts).

So rationality and logic becomes a means of twisting facts and words(by arbitrary pick and choose) to delude and then demonstrate intrinsic value(to themselves more than anybody else).

In a nutshell, Analytic of floating words you may call.

Objectivists and 'l'ibertarians who are 'L'ibertarian in essence.

They read "Capitalism: An Unknown ideal" or the equivalent. Moved by the convincing arguments, accept 'Liberty' AND 'Non-initiation of Force' as a standard. Meanwhile, they evade the series of steps that led them(or anybody else) to accept Liberty(for their premise of values being intrinsic still remains intact).And start treating Liberty with arbitrary linkages to realty.

An analogy: So if you ask a Libertarian or aforementioned 'l'ibertarians or Objectivists, what do you think Best reflects Objectivism in culture...

....A television show or a newspaper article mentioning Ayn Rand as a libertarian, having further word count of "Ayn Rand" thrice and Objectivism once. Never reflecting (in form or substance) what Objectivism stands for.

OR

An article celebrating virtues of Thanksgiving and Christmas(Celebration of Productive achievements that is), never mentioning the vocabulary that google spider will pick as Objectivist.

OR

A movie like "The Shawshank Redumption" which reflects a Romantic Hero with a Benevolent premise...

Guess what their answer would be?

[Dante]

Here I am

referring to actions of Indian government and their justification by Libertarian Intellectuals...Argument being used in Indian Administered Kashmir, the movement being supported by Libertarian intellectuals)... one of the more honest Liberterian - "Logic is a very manipulative tool. It can be used to prove anything to anyone."

Who are these Libertarians, specifically?

[Craig24]

Aww... ain't it cute?

Check this out. It's the same video with annotations by someone who disagrees with several major points.

[RohinGupta]

Who are these Libertarians, specifically?

Here I am referring to actions of Indian government and their justification by Libertarian Intellectuals...Argument being used in Indian Administered Kashmir, the movement being supported by Libertarian intellectuals)...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/op...how/3372132.cms

one of the more honest Liberterian - "Logic is a very manipulative tool. It can be used to prove anything to anyone."

Not somebody famous. But the point came out in this discussion.(You need google login I think)

Liberterians Anarchy and Kashmir

http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs.aspx?...680920613802440

Prashant 8/27/08

I am not going to do this for you one more time

"I know right now you're going through that "reason is the most powerful thing" phase, but trust me, logic is a very manipulative tool and it can be used to prove almost anything to anyone."

[ZSorenson]

Wait, I thought libertarians were for legal drug use, banning the FDA, legalizing (then regulating) whores, and lots of guns.

There's more to it? What's the need?

[Lucio]

[url=http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sanctions]http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?

"If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence"

really?

Wikipedia: Libertarianism has generally come to be associated with propertarian minarchism or a general tendency to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in the economic and personal realm. This definition of libertarianism is the most influential among the general public

I see libertarianism as a friend, socialism as the enemy.

It's stupid to declare war on libertarianism (as defined above).

[Lucio]

Check this out. It's the same video with annotations by someone who disagrees with several major points.

That someone is a stupid

he said: "you cannot own yourself"

"life cannot be owned"

Edited March 7, 2010 by Lucio

[Black Wolf]

It's worth noting that Kant was a libertarian.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

That someone is a stupid

he said: "you cannot own yourself"

Even Leonard Peikoff has said that. And even if that someone were wrong, why are you calling him stupid? He actually got some points right in that video.

BTW, why is this topic in the Metaphysics and Epistemology section anyway?

Edited March 7, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Maximus]

Wait, I thought libertarians were for legal drug use, banning the FDA, legalizing (then regulating) whores, and lots of guns.

There's more to it? What's the need?

That's only the hook they use to suck you in...

[Craig24]

That someone is a stupid

he said: "you cannot own yourself"

"life cannot be owned"

A "rebuttal" consisting of an insult and a mere quote of the offending statement isn't a rebuttal at all.