I think the drug is a bad example, doesn’t acting irrationally only means something if that person is capable of acting rationally at the time?
Jumping of a roof pretty much makes any decision made while falling down moot, but if your falling body breaks the neck of someone who breaks your fall that still make you guilty.
I would never support the Lib party of any country that I know they exist in (ie pretty much all the Western nations), nor do I think any Objectivist should work them in any capacity. They do not seem to have changed fundamentally since Ayn Rands day or since Peter Schwartz wrote his article “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty”.
The main issue I beleive Ayn Rand (which Schwartz points out quite clearly) is that the party is devoid of the requisite philosophical/idealogical underpinnings required. At best, some of the members seem not to realize that a fully philosophical defense of freedom, freedom can never be restored/established. I do not know if so many of the Libs are anti-idealogical these days, however I suspect so… (especially as they describe themselves as they describe their approach “people-centered approach to politics”, instead of a philosophically centered approach) in which case supporting the Libs would be a monstrous thing to do.
If anyone has anything to support that they DO actually have some sort of philsophical basing to their ideas that would be great, but I doubt much will be forthcoming.
I’ve always found it odd that Objectivist will on occasion support the Democrats or the Republicans but never the Libertarians. Of the three only one supports free market capitalism, individual right, and the separation between church and state. There are many in the LP that arrive to these conclusions in a different way than Objectivist, however discrediting the whole lot because of a few seems like tossing out the baby with the bath water. Like it or not the LP has huge ties to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. It would be like discrediting Objectivism because of the actions and words of David Kelly and his group.
The LP needs Objectivism, they already are arriving to the right conclusions but we could help them discover why they are right.
In answer to your question here is a sample of Objectivism influencing the LP:
Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5521.html
My very first exposure to libertarianism was provided by Ayn Rand
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0502a.asp
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ayn-rand.html
Also the LP has recently awarded John Alison The “Free Market Hero” title.
Democratic senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian party in 2008, and placed fourth in their shitty presidential convention despite having strong socialist leanings. What does that tell you about them?
However, I do like most of the Ron Paul crowd, if you consider them libertarians.
I’ve always found it odd that Objectivist will on occasion support the Democrats or the Republicans but never the Libertarians.
Because while Democrats/Republicans are an enemy that can be fought, Libertarianism could replace the proper concept of Capitalism so that there is nothing for, and with which to fight.
Because while Democrats/Republicans are an enemy that can be fought, Libertarianism could replace the proper concept of Capitalism so that there is nothing for, and with which to fight.
On the contrary. I’ve found that most Libertarians do not have a deeper understanding of Capitalism other than it gives more freedom to the individual and is the most efficient means of distribution.
The LP is not a Philosophy, its a political party meant to achieve political means. So long as their political means are in tandem with mine I will continue to support them. Many in the LP understand what’s right, they just don’t know why its right. Under your assessment Eddie Willers would be the most dangerous person in Atlas Shrugged.
It is because they are wrong about Capitalism that they could further the wrong idea about it.
Isn’t supporting the Libertarian Party instead of the Democrats/Republicans something of an ad hoc group? I’m simply supporting the free market and individual rights. I would also expect to get more Libertarians to consider Objectivism than Democrats or Republicans, as I was a Libertarian before I was an Objectivist. When I was a Libertarian, I still held some valid ideals, which I attempted to back up with morality/philosophy, but I still had trouble working out my altruistic wrinkles. I was introduced to Objectivism through my interest in philosophy and capitalism, and I know two friends who followed the same path. Although, both of them are still under contruction, as it were.
I think backing the Libertarian Party would get the Objectivist message out there better than backing the other parties, as a growing free market/individual right message would expose more people to Ayn Rand.
It is because they are wrong about Capitalism that they could further the wrong idea about it.
I wouldn’t say they are wrong about Capitalism they just don’t fully understand it. However, they recognize the benefits of such a system. They want individual freedom. You think everyone that fought in the revolution understood Thomas Pain?
There will never be a political party were every member completely understands Philosophy. However, if they continue uphold individual freedom and values that are based on Objective morality I see no reason why you wouldn’t join them. These are the qualities that I look for in a political party. The day they no longer hold these values I will withdraw my support. How the others choose to live their individual lives makes no difference to me.
The idea that a person would not vote for laissez-faire capitalism because not everyone who supports it understands laissez-faire therefore throwing in their towel with the socialist makes absolutely no sense to me.
I think backing the Libertarian Party would get the Objectivist message out there better than backing the other parties, as a growing free market/individual right message would expose more people to Ayn Rand.
I just had a quick browse around the LP website, and on every issue they take the same kind of perverse stance that statism is bad because the statists measures are counter-productive. That welfare is bad because it doesnt actually help the poor, that foreign aid is bad because it doesnt actually help the africans, that enviromental restrictions are bad because the government itself pollutes etc. etc. It is clear from reading their stance on issues, that if they have any underlying morality, it is altruism, just with different kinds of policies as other altruists.
I mean, see for yourself:
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy
But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.
There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid. First, foreign aid has a widespread record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda, sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.
Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International Development admitted in 1993 that “much of the investment financed by AID between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace.”
Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive. Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, “Long-term feeding programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production.”
If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, “Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries – trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like – generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid.”
Nowhere in this article, that the Party has chosen as the one to introduce their stance on Foreign Policy??, do they even remotely touch the actual reason why foreign aid is wrong: Theft. They harp on about foreign aid not helping the poor in foreign countries, never questioning whether that is even a valid topic, and they just focus on the inefficiencies of the program.
On the topic of Poverty and Welfare: http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
Nowhere in the article do they talk about the immorality of stealing other peoples production, and they just go on about how the welfare programs dont actually help the poor. But the absolute worst part is this:
2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity
If the federal government’s attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.
To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.
After this, no one can say that the LP isnt by definition altruists. Their opposition to current welfare programs is clearly
just about their perceived wrongs of the poor actually getting the help, but they cling on to the fact that helping the poor should be encouraged. I mean, what they are proposing there, is a “selfishness tax”, which you can avoid by donating your money away.
What about taxes then: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes
The LP talks only about “cutting” taxes, and never about repealing forced taxation altogether. Even if you may say that the difference is small, philosophically it is huge. It is like a person in the early 19th century, not supporting ending slavery, and instead supporting a “Be nicer to your slave”-act. The difference between just a little theft and no theft is 100000000x bigger than the difference between just a little theft, and a lot of theft.
The argument that government programs dont actually help the poor should be made, if at all, as a footnote on page 96 of your political program, not as the main argument!
I really dont see why i should be interested in promoting the Libertarian Party because they share the same conclusions as me on many things. Im not supporting the KKK because they share the opposition of affirmative action with me either. The discussion can be had whether libertarianism as such is altruistic, but it is evident to everyone that the Libertarian Party is.
I wouldn’t say they are wrong about Capitalism they just don’t fully understand it.
That is a binary condition. There are no degrees to which you can understand Capitalism, only no or yes.
I just had a quick browse around the LP website, and on every issue they take the same kind of perverse stance that statism is bad because the statists measures are counter-productive. That welfare is bad because it doesnt actually help the poor, that foreign aid is bad because it doesnt actually help the africans, that enviromental restrictions are bad because the government itself pollutes etc. etc. It is clear from reading their stance on issues, that if they have any underlying morality, it is altruism, just with different kinds of policies as other altruists.
I mean, see for yourself:
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy
That’s no different from the conservative stance, anyway…
I just had a quick browse around the LP website, and on every issue they take the same kind of perverse stance that statism is bad because the statists measures are counter-productive. That welfare is bad because it doesnt actually help the poor, that foreign aid is bad because it doesnt actually help the africans, that enviromental restrictions are bad because the government itself pollutes etc. etc. It is clear from reading their stance on issues, that if they have any underlying morality, it is altruism, just with different kinds of policies as other altruists.
I mean, see for yourself:
I fail to see your point. What part of the it was wrong? How is an article against foreign aid altruistic? At what point in the article does it say helping others is “good” ? The point of the article was stated in the first sentence:
“Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations – with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.”
What part of it is altruistic? Where in this article did you get the impression that our moral duty is self sacrifice? The article actually states the opposite. It states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.
They do not state an LP foreign policy however, that was not the point of the article. It was to show how foreign aid is a waste, its not a foreign policy manifesto.
“Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations – with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.”
What part of it is altruistic?
It is utilitarian, pragmatism assuming altruism as the standard of what is disastrous or not. If foreign aid was effective, they would be compelled to argue in favor of it.
It is utilitarian, pragmatism assuming altruism as the standard of what is disastrous or not. If foreign aid was effective, they would be compelled to argue in favor of it.
I disagree. I think you assume too much. I fail to see how stating that altruism does not work in theory or practice is altruistic. The end the article they promote free trade as the standard for men to deal with one another not altruism.
I disagree. I think you assume too much. I fail to see how stating that altruism does not work in theory or practice is altruistic. The end the article they promote free trade as the standard for men to deal with one another not altruism.
Because free trade is better for the welfare of foreigners. Altruism.
No. Free trade is better because its better for the individual and foreigners. Capitalism is the best and most efficient means for not only for individual but also the masses because of the wealth it creates. Just because something is good for a population does not mean that altruism in nature. Individual ambition rights and ambition lead to a common good.
The ARI released a similar article some years ago called"Paying More Blood Money to the IMF." it claims that the pouring of money into the IMF does more harm than good. The same premise that the LP had about foreign aid. And the conclusion was the same as well:
“What happened to the lessons we supposedly learned from the worldwide collapse of socialism? If we see the evils of a government-managed economy, why can’t we see the same evils of a government-run global management agency that offers additional subsidies and controls? It’s time that capitalism–true, laissez-faire capitalism–be allowed to function. That is, no subsidies, bailouts, or controls, not for the smallest wage-earners or the biggest banks.”
They both claim the same thing: Handouts makes the problem worse and should stop. The solution is capitalism.
I fail to see your point. What part of the it was wrong? How is an article against foreign aid altruistic? At what point in the article does it say helping others is “good” ? The point of the article was stated in the first sentence:
“Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations – with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.”
What part of it is altruistic? Where in this article did you get the impression that our moral duty is self sacrifice? The article actually states the opposite. It states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.
That is bs, so let’s go through every paragraph of the article, with higlights added by me:
Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations – with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.
And in their “Welfare” section, they base their whole argument on why it doesnt actually help the poor, and how charity is so much better, and how people who give to charity should get tax breaks. By “disastrous effects”, they dont mean theft from individuals, but to the non-help of the poor.
The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid – far less than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.
It does not say: The idea of foreign aid is based on the notion that it is our duty to help people in poor countries. We Libertarians oppose to that view, as foreign aid through taxation is theft, like any other form of taxation, and it completely violates a mans right to his own life. It can also be noted, that in addition to foreign aid being theft, it does not even help the people it is “intended” to help.
Notice the word “but”. It clearly shows that their opposition to foreign aid is not because it is theft, but because it does not actually help the people in the poor countries. If they had switched that “but”, to an “also”, after first explaining what is actually wrong with foreign aid, then i’d have no problem with it.
Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, “Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status.” In fact, despite massive amounts of international aid, the average annual increase in per capita GNP has declined steadily in developing nations since the 1960s, with many of the Third World’s heaviest aid recipients actually suffering negative economic growth.
Once again, only talking about the effect it has on the poor countries…
Tanzania provides a perfect example. Since the early 1970s, Tanzania has received more international aid per capita than any other country. Yet, the country remains the world’s third-poorest nation and has had no per capita GNP growth between 1980 and 1992. During the same period, inflation averaged 25% and energy and agricultural production declined dramatically.
…and again…
A recent study by Peter Boone of the London School of Economics and the Center for Economic Performance confirmed that U.S. economic aid does not promote economic development. Studying more than 100 countries, Boone concluded that “Long-term aid is not a means to create [economic] growth.”
Implying that “economic growth” in poor countries is something that the US government should be conserned about.
There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid.
Here are the “many reasons” they name:
First, foreign aid has a widespread record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda, sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.
Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International Development admitted in 1993 that “much of the investment financed by AID between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace.”
In other words, it is wasteful because it built tennis courts in poor countries, sewing machines where they were inoperable, and hospitals where they weren’t needed, implying that if they just had built nice schools in poor areas, power plants before bringing the sewing machines and hospitals in areas with none, they would have nothing against it.
It is fraudlent and abusive, because the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders, once again implying, that if the leaders were benevolent honest “men of the people”, then they would have nothing against it.
Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive. Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, “Long-term feeding programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production.”
Once again, implying that if only the long term feeding programs didnt cause disincentives for food production, there would be nothing wrong with using tax money, and if just the poor became self sufficient in America after getting welfare, theres nothing wrong with using tax money.
Specific examples of counterproductive aid policies are easy to come by. For example, following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program. As a result, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, “food aid stood in the way of development.” According to journalist Michael Maren, a long-time volunteer with such groups as the Peace Corps, Catholic Relief Services, and AID, aid to Somalia aggravated the country’s famine, disrupted local agriculture, and turned nomadic tribesmen into “relief junkies.” Similar results have been documented in countries as diverse as Colombia, Haiti, and India.
Moreover, foreign aid has often been used to prop up failing Socialist economies, preventing countries from moving to free-market economic policies. Yet, an examination of world economies clearly shows that those countries with free markets experience the greatest economic prosperity.
As a result, Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes that foreign aid is “structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country has to answer to the people.”
…more of the same.
If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, “Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries – trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like – generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid.”
This is the last paragraph. As you can see, nowhere in the article do they adress the fundamental problem, just insignifigant details. This just leaves these people philosophically disarmed, because in the cases where little Ndukwe from Kenya, whose elementary school was built by american tax money, becomes a succesful doctor and wins the Nobel Prize. What can the libertarians say then? Just like in the case of Thomas Sowell, who i otherwise respect a whole lot, was totally disarmed in his opposition to affirmative action, when Charlie Rose told him that Judge Clarence Thomas got into Yale due to affirmative action in an interview. If you base your opposition on something other than the actual principles, your opposition is worthless, when your detractors finds counter examples. They will never find a single counter example to a real principle, because it is impossible.
This is actually one of the major problem with libertarians. They spend their time trying to convince everyone that everyone will be better off in a libertarian world, with no regard on philosophy. A poor is poor today because of welfare, they say, a drug addict is miserable because he’s persecuted by the government, Africans are poor because of foreign aid etc. The libertarians have a knack of creating principles out of insignifigant corollaries of actual principles…
So, how do you get the impresison that the article “states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.”. Nowhere in the article do they even border on the subject of the payer, or the looted, so its absurd for you to claim that it opposes altruism. And about the fact that they dont say that it is your moral duty to help others: Well guess what, neither do the democrats. Your not going to find a single democrat who says that it is your moral duty to help others. But it is implicit in what they say, just like in this case. They spend the whole article on one argument, the fact that the aid doesnt actually work. Not one word, about he one who is being taxed, not one.
I mean, this reminds me of the debate about Obama’s anti-americanism, where a couple of posters claimed that Obama opposes wealth distribution even when the evidence is right in front of them…
They do not state an LP foreign policy however, that was not the point of the article. It was to show how foreign aid is a waste, its not a foreign policy manifesto.
On their site, under the title “Issues”, that is the only article that comes up when you click “Foreign Policy”. It’s clearly not just some random article on page 596, against why foreign aid doesnt help the poor, its the article they want people to see when quickly browsing through the LP positions.
I disagree. I think you assume too much. I fail to see how stating that altruism does not work in theory or practice is altruistic. The end the article they promote free trade as the standard for men to deal with one another not altruism.
No, they dont, and stop your obvious lying, please. They say:
If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, “Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries – trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like – generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid.”
They dont say that pursuing free trade policies is what helps you, but that “if you truly want to help other countries”, pursuing free trade policies is good. They dont talk about a standard for men to deal with one another, they explicitly state that this is what a man should do, if he wants to help other countries. If your purpose is “helping other countries”, then it is altruistic. Other countries do get richer by free trade, and it does help you, but they dont talk about that. They talk about helping other countries as such.
No. Free trade is better because its better for the individual and foreigners. Capitalism is the best and most efficient means for not only for individual but also the masses because of the wealth it creates. Just because something is good for a population does not mean that altruism in nature. Individual ambition rights and ambition lead to a common good.
True, but the LP does not adress the fact that free trade is better for you. The fact that it is good for others as well is a corollary of the principle of individual rights, but they state it as the primary concern. Nowhere, and you can read the article as many times as you want, do they adress that free trade is beneficial to you.
“What happened to the lessons we supposedly learned from the worldwide collapse of socialism? If we see the evils of a government-managed economy, why can’t we see the same evils of a government-run global management agency that offers additional subsidies and controls? It’s time that capitalism–true, laissez-faire capitalism–be allowed to function. That is, no subsidies, bailouts, or controls, not for the smallest wage-earners or the biggest banks.”
They both claim the same thing: Handouts makes the problem worse and should stop. The solution is capitalism.
They dont both claim the same thing, at least not in the paragraph you quoted. There is no mention in that paragraph that the “evil” is that it doesnt help the poor. Yes, handouts makes the problem worse and should stop, but even though they are talking about the same conclusion, they are not talking about the same “problem”.
On their site, under the title “Issues”, that is the only article that comes up when you click “Foreign Policy”. It’s clearly not just some random article on page 596, against why foreign aid doesnt help the poor, its the article they want people to see when quickly browsing through the LP positions.
Who’s lying I honesty do not believe that altruism is their intent. Here is the LP statement of principles from their official platform:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Again your looking too much into this. It clearly states in their national platform that individuals should make up their own minds about charity and hand outs and it should not be the role of government is not to make people " sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others".
As their platform goes on to say:
“Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.”
I see where you are coming from and I think this particular article was poorly worded. However, as you can see they clearly don’t support altruism.