Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does Libertarianism have a Philosophy?

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

Someone defined "underlie"? Who?

To "underlie" in this case, refers to a philosophy which forms the basis for the understanding of another philosophy. Political philosophy refers to the use of collectivized force, and is therefore necesarily dependent upon ethics, which refers to how an individual lives his life. As I illustrated, multiple forms of ethics, even contradictory ones, can underlie a common political principle. On the other hand, one can build an ethical system without relation to a political system, because politics is not a requirement for ethics. The two should be integrated, but one comes before the other. As Ayn Rand expressed, her herierarchy goes as follows - metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics

And "action principle" is also not an expression I've ever heard before. I see you're using it as an adjective (principle is a noun), which further confuses me.

That was clumsily worded by me. I only meant a moral principle which denotes an action. For instance, "the state should not bail out bankrupt companies."

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To "underlie" in this case, refers to a philosophy which forms the basis for the understanding of another philosophy. Political philosophy refers to the use of collectivized force, and is therefore necesarily dependent upon ethics, which refers to how an individual lives his life. As I illustrated, multiple forms of ethics, even contradictory ones, can underlie a common political principle. On the other hand, one can build an ethical system without relation to a political system, because politics is not a requirement for ethics. The two should be integrated, but one comes before the other. As Ayn Rand expressed, her herierarchy goes as follows - metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics

Politics is then ethics in a societal context, yes? So the answer to the op's original question would still be a no, based on the idea that there are various and sometimes contradictory ethical principles 'underliing' libertarian political philosophy, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is then ethics in a societal context, yes? So the answer to the op's original question would still be a no, based on the idea that there are various and sometimes contradictory ethical principles 'underliing' libertarian political philosophy, no?

The OP's question was not, "does libertarianism have a SINGLE philosophy?" Libertarianism has A philosophy because it has many philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! All the contradictions make the head spin!

I can't believe so many people see this as plausible.

He was bashed from the left many times by Bakunin, Kropoktin, and Marx (grandfathers of the old left) for being sympathetic to individualism.

George Reisman did a pretty good job of explaining whats wrong with Mutualism. http://archive.mises.org/5194/mutualism-a-philosophy-for-thieves/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was bashed from the left many times by Bakunin, Kropoktin, and Marx (grandfathers of the old left) for being sympathetic to individualism.

George Reisman did a pretty good job of explaining whats wrong with Mutualism. http://archive.mises.org/5194/mutualism-a-philosophy-for-thieves/

Whilst Reisman's JLS article is worthwhile, I also find Long's review of Carson enlightening, as it lacks some of Reisman's hostility.

LAND-LOCKED: A CRITIQUE OF CARSON ON PROPERTY RIGHTS

mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_6.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To "underlie" in this case

I don't care about "in this case". If you're going to use a concept, define it. If you can't define it, don't use it. "in this case it means" is not the definition of a concept, it's the refusal to use concepts.

The "case" (context) in which your definition of "to underlie" should make sense is the entirety of logical thought, and the means by which it should be defined is that of other concepts related to logic.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about "in this case". If you're going to use a concept, define it. If you can't define it, don't use it. "in this case it means" is not the definition of a concept, it's the refusal to use concepts.

The "case" (context) in which your definition of "to underlie" should make sense is the entirety of logical thought, and the means by which it should be defined is that of other concepts related to logic.

This is rationalization to avoid my assertions. When I said, "in this case" I meant to qualify the meaning of the word "underlie," not the concept it represents. It is no different than saying "in this case, a mouse is an electronic device which attaches to my computer, and not a small fury rodent." "Underlie" in another context could refer to the physical state of one itee two concepts, they are not identical. Perhaps my qualifier was unnecesary, but it was also not what you claimed it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...