WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH LIBERTARIANISM?
Libertarianism can be based on experience as conservatives do. I do not doubt that if people could observe a libertarian/capitalist regime in practice and compare it with monarchism, socialism, syndicalism, etc., many would see the enormous benefits of freedom and choose Libertarianism. In making arguments for liberty, John Stuart Mill, of course, focused on practical (utilitarianism) arguments that it produced the greatest good for the greatest number and I believe that a libertarian-capitalist regime does that. But one question is: how does a full, working libertarian regime come into existence in the first place? How does on advocate it before it exists and we have experience of its benefits? Also, how to defend it since there always will be intellectuals prepared to argue that there are benefits higher than freedom: for example, eternal salvation of the soul, living a virtuous life, preventing ugly excesses that liberty permits. When Irving Kristol went from communist to capitalist, he wrote "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and, also, an essay, "When Virtue Loses All Her Loveliness." Capitalism worked but it was esthetically hard to take. And then, how to defend liberty against being gnawed away by constant compromises? Sure, liberals would say, today, we need to be free and we love the benefits of "the market," but you can have those and still have a robust welfare state. And you can keep having more intervention while the market is working--until suddenly the market not longer does not "work," liberty is gone, and even advocating it may come under censorship. It is only philosophy, fundamental principles about man's nature, the nature and role of reason that operates volitionally, the connection between reason and innovation and survival that enable one to argue in principle that encroachments on liberty may appear at first to be harmless but in principle you are headed in a wrong and disastrous direction. And Ayn Rand showed us, brilliantly and in detail, because defenders of capitalism could not make a philosophical case against altruism, a Christian society in the end would not tolerate the selfishness that capitalism involved. And the Christians who supported capitalism tried every possible argument from results of capitalism--and kept losing and losing, as we know. So an ethics of selfishness must be defended because capitalism indeed is the politics of pursuit of one's own happiness. And that ethic of selfishness cannot be defended without reference to man's nature, the nature and role of values, and the connection between freedom of judgment and action and achievement of ones highest value: maintaining and fulfilling ones own life. Which only consistent freedom makes possible.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
" (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."
Altruism is not sympathy for the underdog, nor is it inevitable and universal. It means the standard of living for others as the criterion of moral good. The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of one's own happiness with one's own goals was and is the opposite of altruism.
The intellectual establishment has been pushing altruism, collectivism and statism for over a century against the American independent sense of life. With no intellectual defense, that sense of life has been declining, and is now rapidly declining, which is why there is now an increase in acceptance of socialism on principle.
Everyone already knows that "government sucks at fixing". The dominant trend supports more government control despite that. The answer is not demand "voluntary altruism" while claiming altruism and capitalism are compatible. They are not and everyone knows it.
That we are progressively becoming closer to losing the bill of rights is part of the trend resulting from collectivist and altruist premises. The country is not gone yet; it is still possible to make a difference politically in some realms, but without intellectual reform such political action is only temporary, it's potential for even that is shrinking, and it does not reverse the downward trend. If that trend continues, which is likely, the bill of rights and a lot more will be gone.
4,489,233 votes in 2016 presidential election.
(A 250% increase from 2012.)
168 Libertarians holding elected office.
Not bad for a "failure".
Getting them to understand that the government sucks at fixing this is the key.
Our arguments need to compel simply. I do not agree at all, that people can not be convinced that government is not the solution, first. This is easy, with overwhelming evidence, unless one is a totalitarian (which virtually all politicians are, but few people support). This is where to start.
Early on the platform states, “We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”
I’m willing to compare the political philosophy of the Libertarian Party with that of any party that exists or has ever existed in the United States. It is not 100% Objectivist, but neither is any other party. Do you apply the same standards to the Republican Party that you do to the LP? If so, is it therefore immoral for Objectivists to engage in partisan politics at all?
Ayn Rand qualified her definition of capitalism by stressing, “When I say ‘capitalism’, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism . . . “ So she was aware that other definitions existed, and that it was important to distinguish her definition from the others.
Without that, people embracing collectivism and statism cannot be convinced that "using the government to fix problems is wrong". No matter how often socialism fails (by rational standards), they are always ready to try another way because their moral ideals require that.
The country is not yet gone; there are still backlashes when the left moves too fast -- some political action holding them back is still possible -- but that does not stop the trend.
This is not optional. Either the basic ideas accepted by the public change or the country continues to decline (or abruptly collapse) into even more dangerous collectivism and statism. If that happens, which it may very well, then throwing rocks from a wheel chair will not help.
Once again you ignored that a capitalist social system depends on more basic principles of reason and individualism. It is not a matter of capitalism "leading to individual liberty".
The country was founded on the Enlightenment principles of reason and individualism. Those principles were not formulated for "white males and a few others". The Declaration referred to "all men". Those founding principles made it possible to abolish the slavery, mostly in the feudalist south, that began with the pre-Enlightenment British slave trade. That is in contrast to the Marxist revisionist history obsessed with trashing the founders of the country as operating for upper class economic class interests requiring slavery.
Enlightenment principles taken for granted by the founders in establishing a limited government means that they did not have to formulate and spread a new philosophy, in contrast with today. Your apologia for the Libertarian Party repeatedly ignores the required philosophical basis of politics both then and now, as if the non-initiation of force political principle were axiomatic, and goes out of its way to trash the founding of this country in sympathy with the far left.
That is also how the Libertarian Party operates in trying change politics without regard for the more fundamental ideas on which politics depends. It is not the only observed a-philosophical, subjectivist behavior for its half century of failure remaining a fringe party, right up to the two clowns leading it in the last presidential election, who were anything but "serious".
Arguing against what people today call compassion and common sense (not asserting they are), and attempting to replace them with individualism, when so few have the skills and balls to support individualism, is DOA.
There are almost twice as many people in the US as there were when we were born. There are more people without skills and a lot less gumption. People are significantly "softer. There is MASSIVE support for socialism.
We will not win this game in one giant killer move based on intellectual honesty and individualism. People have to be convinced that using the government to fix problems is wrong (inefficient, slow, ineffective, and/or immoral - they only need one of these reasons). This is step number one, not some Vulcan argument for logic over emotion. That must come later.
Load more comments...