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 3.
I presented a perfectly logical argument demonstrating that this must begin with public opinion.
Show me how public opinion will be moved with your reason and intellect argument. Explain your plan. Do not respond with another professorial sermon. I have work to do, and this is no longer an interesting distraction. PragerU understands what I'm talking about.
I have provided several messages, that may/may not be compelling, but they will get people thinking and probably a few moving over:
"Freedom requires responsibility" - So simple. We all agree, in wide spread freedom. However, these freedoms require people to take responsibility for the consequences, otherwise we are children and society breaks down. (I know you hate this, but you refuse to understand what I mean, and what everyone else will hear). Next obvious statement is "no government rules increase freedom, they only limit some people's freedom."
"Government is inefficient" - Therefore government action is not the way to provide services.
"Being charitable is great individually, but should not be instituted in government." Charitable and altruistic are equated in many leftist diatribes, which is how this stupid argument started.
These themes can get people's attention, get them thinking and take away the strength of the "Give a man a fish. Get his vote" Progressive campaign.
If I were running, I'd run on a platform of getting people off welfare, by letting them volunteer for a different program, where we hire private companies to get them on there feet, incentivized by modest term (3-5 years) of not receiving welfare. So easy to accomplish. So easy to dare Progressives to try it. What are they afraid of.
Of course this is not in line with our utopia, but 1) taking people off welfare and 2) demonstrating the capability of private companies, and 3) getting people understanding that handouts solve nothing, are GREAT steps.
I am completely sick of Libertarianism, which most people actually endorse when it isn't being misrepresented by the R's or D's, can not get any traction. Marajuana legalization and diatribes is all they have.
Spreading the fundamental ideas of reason and individualism as referred to on this forum does not mean walking up to strangers on the street and parroting "replace your irrationalism and altruism with reason and egoism". First understand yourself, then think and explain in terms appropriate to the context.
Therefore, starting with this dry message will fail, like most before it.
We must find a way to connect to the mainstream. Then after some success, begin the process of asking for logic and thinking.
The intellectual reform required is reason and egoistic individualism, not a shallow "government sucks at fixing" in an appeal to Pragmatism. Pragmatism is a destructive philosophy that has spread everywhere and is big part of the problem. People have stopped asking, 'works by what standard for what purpose?' Conceding to anti-intellectual, unprincipled Pragmatism is not a shortcut around the need for identifying and spreading the proper fundamental ideas.
This has nothing to with opposing "sympathy". Nothing. Altruism is not benevolence, and sympathy for a struggling underdog is not the growing altruistic egalitarian nihilism.
Rational understanding and communication does not mean "stoic" or "paladin" arguments, "pin-head definitions", or any of the other anti-intellectual parodies demeaning the required serious philosophic approach out of Pragmatism and frustration.
"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."
Candidates who do not win do not "do more for the cause of liberty" than sensible people who engage in activism that in areas where it is still possible does influence public policy. But that requires knowledge and action that Libertarian Party fantasizers know nothing about.
It contrasts the Libertarian Party with sensible people making a real contribution, contrary to your claim that the "Libertarian Party" "does more" by running losing candidates.
Half a century. 3%. Fringe party. Observable fact, not "intimidation". Please stop the name-dropping and other evasive copy and paste rationalizations. It is not serious discussion.
This is the first thing that need to be corrected.
Beginning with setting aside sympathy is a dead losing argument. DEAD. Does not play.
I understand what you are saying. I do. However, there is no chance these stoic, paladin arguments will overcome "You just haven't been given a chance because of the corporate cheaters, rich and/or bigots. Just give me the power and I'll champion you".
This is not the first step in changing the disgusting course of this ship.
Among libertarians, CEI seems to know better because of a couple of very knowledgeable individuals there. Others, like PERC, are a big problem.
Compelling me is preaching to the choir.
As for the “fringe” Libertarian Party, here again is a partial list of people and publications that endorsed Johnson and Weld in the 2016 election, according to Wikipedia:
Newspapers: Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, New Hampshire Union Leader, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winston-Salem Journal.
Performers: Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, Melissa Joan Hart, Joe Rogan.
Directors/screenwriters: Heywood Gould, David Lynch.
Scholars: Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Harvard University economics department, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, former Department of Economics chair at Boston University; Michael Munger, professor of political science and economics and former chair of Political Science department at Duke University.
No matter how one has voted for President in the past, his or her individual vote has never made a difference in the outcome. Nor will it do so in the future, even in a “swing state”.
So why vote at all? The reason is that the establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections.
On the other hand, voting for the “lesser of two evils” is saying in effect, “I am okay with the two-party system, and I’m not interested in supporting candidates from other parties, even if they have ideas that I agree with. I don’t like either of the two establishment party candidates, but I will vote for Establishment Party Candidate X because he is not quite as bad as Establishment Party Candidate Y.” This truly is a waste of one’s vote, and does nothing to advance the cause of freedom.
The fringe Libertarian Party has not "done more to advance the cause of liberty". Sensible people, who do far more than the Libertarian Party, know better than to run futile and flawed "candidates" and then claim to have "done more" as they cite misleading statistics to sell themselves as being significant.
Load more comments...