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 7.
There is almost no case-in-point more obvious than the last election. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had almost universal name recognition and with that came negative (and positive) associations largely dependent upon which side of the aisle one was on. This is very rare in politics because it meant that the debates were largely a formality - not a public perception changer like they were for say Romney vs Obama in 2012. As a result, the tactics for both individuals were to capitalize on the other candidate's perceived flaws rather than on what they, themselves would do.
Marketers have a very difficult task. They have to include just enough of that which is familiar with just enough of the unknown. The familiar is there as the hook to get the potential customer to learn more. The unknown is there to provide an avenue for the marketer to influence or educate on. From a purely marketing perspective, Rand's choice to title her book The Virtue of Selfishness didn't score her many points on the marketing interest scale other than as a provocateur.
(As an aside, Christians don't attribute selfishness to acting against the well-being of others nearly as much as acting to please the emotional/short-term at the expense of the spiritual/long-term. I don't think Ayn Rand understood that she was taking an antagonistic stand when in reality there was very little real difference between her own use and that of Christians.)
I'm speaking of (perhaps not what we here call altruism), not a morality and a common emotional response to other's needs. It is just a common (normal?) thought process, probably rooted in tribalism. It is one emotional input to consider when making a logical decision.
I am sure you are not asserting that me going over to my friends house to help him with a giant tree that fell across his driveway uncompensated is immoral.
Selfishness has always meant acting in one's own interest. Christianity simply assumed that meant acting against the well-being of others.
Acting selflessly can only lead to personal destruction.
So if you asked what is wrong with Capitalism, I would say nothing if you truly make it laissez-faire with separation of State and economics / State and religion.
Venezuela is what we are headed to become. THAT should be the picture to combat Cortez, Sanders, O'Rourke, and the other socialists. Its the poor people who are wanting the freebies today and vote for these people who are DESTITUTE in Venezuela. The rich have left, after being looted.
Really, that is the argument of this brief piece. And its is an exposition of the fundamental objection that Ayn Rand had to litertarianism. Later, when the theory flirted with anarchy, it no longer was worth discussing.
I still argue that this was Rand's greatest tactical mistake: to try to re-brand a word with known connotations and definitions to suit her own interests. (Woodrow Wilson was able to do it with "liberal", but he had half the country behind him in that effort and it still took more than sixty years.)
To continue the Treebeard analogy, however, right now the Socialists/Progressives are waging a scorched earth policy a la Saruman and the orcs. As much as they may not want to admit it, Libertarians are either going to have to side with Conservatives in this fight or there will be nothing left.
I cannot stand arguments that include this unstated premise that the burden is on the person who has something to justify why someone else should not take his stuff. The burden should be on the people wanting to take.
We hear it most commonly from people wanting to take away people's guns or drugs. "What does anyone really need with..."
It seems to me that objectivists are a subset of libertarians. There is nothing in objectivist beliefs that I have seen that would be considered completely out of bounds of the broad definition, although there are certainly people within that broad definition who are not objectivists.
And that's really the essence of politics and political organization. As Treebeard says in Lord of the Rings "I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side." Unless we are going to be a party of one, we have to work with people with varying visions that are sufficiently compatible with ours.
Because in reality, and we are talking about the real world, the mass of people will use force to enforce their will. You can have constitutions and governmental protection but when the right circumstances come up there will be a New Deal and then it doesn't really matter what protections you have built and whether your philosophy gives the state the right to initiate force against you. Reality gives it the ability.
The reality of wealth is not that someone HAS that many assets, at some point we are not talking about how many assets you have to purchase goods and services, we are talking about what assets you control, what you can manage and invest.
And that's the essence of capitalism. In capitalism we give control of assets to people who have demonstrated that they can protect and grow them. The idea that these assets would be better placed in the hands of people who have never run so much as a hot dog stand is ludicrous. It's wrapped up in words like "fairness" and "caring", but it's really about who will do the best job of managing assets.
"Religious influences are not the only villain behind the censorship legislation; there is another one: the social school of morality, exemplified by John Stuart Mill. Mill rejected the concept of individual rights and replaced it with the notion that the “public good” is the sole justification of individual freedom. (Society, he argued, has the power to enslave or destroy its exceptional men, but it should permit them to be free, because it benefits from their efforts.) Among the many defaults of the conservatives in the past hundred years, the most shameful one, perhaps, is the fact that they accepted John Stuart Mill as a defender of capitalism."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mil...
Rand and Mill were polar opposites as are individual rights and the public good. Why are you using Mill and his Utilitarianism to argue for liberty?
I have no problem pointing out that libertarianism works from a utilitarian standpoint. That's not the same as supporting utilitarianism.
Regarding the end, I agree with it, and after reading The Virtue of Selishness I don't understand why anyone, including Christians, won't abide selfishness. Do they try to take advantage of their friends and neighbors, getting them to help with projects, childcare, lending things and then try not to reciprocate? Do they want g/fs or b/fs to go out with them out of pity? Do they what their boss or clients to keep them b/c they feel sorry for them? It seems like selfishness should be easy to accept.
Load more comments...