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 2.
The conservatives (as well as liberals) have in fact employed the notion of freedom requiring responsibility on behalf of military conscription and other statism to their liking. I don't have "bizarre issues"; it's what they have in fact done.
You did write yourself that "The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have". That is not a "fabrication".
But tweeking the slogan to be more ambiguous does not stop those with or leaning towards altruist/collectivist premises from understanding "responsibility" in accordance with their own premises. Making a slogan more ambiguous in an attempt to be appealing by avoiding controversy over individualist principles does not change the ideas that people already hold.
I did not say that your slogan "argued" for government-assigned responsibilities. You avoid mentioning your individualist morality by employing ambiguity in an attempt to be emotionally appealing, without regard for how others will resolve the ambiguity in terms of their own premises. It make the more "popular" slogan worse than useless as you are perceived by others as endorsing their beliefs. That is not the way to advance better ideas.
You are not reading and understanding, just snapping responses back to me that demonstrate you didn't read. I gave you a specific example just now.
You and I agree on almost everything. Yet, this may be the most aggressive argument I've ever had in this site.
There is no argument of "government-assigned "responsibilities"" in my statement. That is a completely inappropriate fabrication you created.
Further, the freedom you assert is hostage, is already hostage.
You have some bizarre issue with Conservative statements about responsibility, but no one has suggested a responsibility to government. It is responsibility for the consequences of ones own actions, which presently doesn't exist. I even gave you an example, which you ignore. This is fundamental to individual morality and freedom.
No one is suggesting that clear simple messages ("slogans" belittled in ewv vernacular) do not arise from logical debate of the fundamentals. However, logical debate is not the method of bringing around the masses. Clear, simple messages (slogans if you like) and success are.
"Who is John Galt" is a slogan, and it works.
Your repetitious stream of snide ridicule is there for all to see, summarized by the quotes at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The superficial slogan approach has been invoked and failed for years as the country continues to decline. That approach is not new. Frustration over high taxes does not make an anti-intellectual short cut possible.
Attempts to explain and describe this to you are ignored as "sermons" and "diatribes". It isn't possible to explain to you in a "compelling" one-liner slogan, let alone one that you can also parrot unchanged as "compelling" to a different audience of what you call the masses of "morons". The discussion here requires following a train of thought across multiple sentences and paragraphs.
It's not that campaign slogans have no role in politics, but rather the necessity of the proper fundamental ideas being widely accepted before a proper politics can succeed. Slogans are not a short cut around that. That is why even if the Libertarian Party were consistent it would be too soon and would still remain a fringe party. That is the principle. Understanding it requires understanding the nature of and role of philosophical ideas and their history -- the role of the mind in human life and society as illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. It's not a one-liner.
The most that can be expected today is to appeal on some issues to a large enough portion of the population that still has a decent sense of life, which is all that has prevented the country from fully following the progressives at even faster pace.
As an example of the role of slogans and public opinion, the meaning of "give me liberty or give me death" was well understood near the end of the 18th century in terms of Enlightenment principles. Run around saying that today and you would get in the name of liberty 'single payer' government health control and death.
Tell people the conservative slogan "with freedom comes responsibility" and you don't get an embracing of the principle of individual moral responsibility for one's own life as a principle prior to politics, but rather -- as has been discussed here previously -- government holding your freedom hostage to its government-assigned "responsibilities" in exchange for what is left of your freedom -- which is exactly what the conservatives intended when they used that slogan to argue for military conscription and the rest of their version of statism, and which is the meaning assumed by today's collectivism.
"Killing a person is morally wrong, like the guy that raped a person"
The meaning does not include an assertion that the first person or audience raped someone. Similarly, I never suggested you or anyone here said Libertarians were anarchists. Understand now?
I suspect you similarly refuse to actually read and understand other things I wrote.
There is not one reference in your collection of Thor-quotes that ridicules serious thinking. Not one. There are however, many examples of my demeaning serious, long logical argument to gain the attention of and compel a large population of people directly.
Even Ayn agreed, and wrote Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to compliment her logic. ... sounds familiar ... did one of us suggest something like this?
Why yes! It was such a good idea, someone had already thought of it.
That assertion is not true. Your posts here have repeatedly ridiculed serious thinking and the role of fundamental ideas, as demonstrated in the long list of snide quotes repeatedly characterizing your own posts https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
No one here has "equated" libertarians with anarchists, nor is there any connection between the two false assertions directed at me personally.
The long history of anarchism within the libertarian movement since the 1960s is one of the reasons that movement was rejected. Another is the kind of pervasive a-philosophical subjectivism that has characterized the movement and which led so much of it to embrace anarchism. That it also has embraced some correct ideas, mostly taken from Ayn Rand, in the inconsistent mish mash did not save it.
You say "You (me) are promoting "messaging" with a list of ambiguous and misleading slogans in the name of the "incremental", now misrepresented as "clear concepts". That is not a "tangible plan" and is not new as a substitute for serious ideas."
Prove it! Show why this will fail. While you are at it, show why my proposals are ambiguous (maybe) and misleading (not a chance). I laid out the simplest logic showing why Public Opinion must come first. You disagree, but have presented no logical argument against it. (This might be the 3rd or 4th time I've asked)
You stand on valiant principles that you assert can not be compromised to achieve success, but all year you pay far more than on-half your taxes to support public altruism. Is the next step in this mess a massive uncompromising new set of laws we institute on January 1, 2xxx, or do we gain endorsement of people a little at a time. If so, then the only question is "How to persuade people?"
You reject the importance of fundamental ideas required to replace bad premises such as altruism, -- which fundamental ideas you smear as "irrelevant", "without simplicity and clarity" and "beginning with fundamental ideology", as if explanation were unclear rationalistic deduction from arbitrary axioms in what you call an attempted "killer move".
In your Pragmatist, anti-intellectual 'marketing plan' for political reform as "efficiency" and a collectivist "greater good" in the name of the "tangible" you seem to have no idea at all of the role of Enlightenment ideas in the founding of this country in contrast to emotional "sick of royalty", let alone what Ayn Rand was talking about. We could have discussed how to approach the application and communication of fundamental ideas, but could not because you dismissed them out of hand.
Anti-intellectual, demeaning, snide, ridicule of ideas and explanation required to replace false premises such as altruism are all through your posts:
"Altruism is difficult to set aside in a philosophical argument. However, it is unnecessary. The question is not 'Is there, or should there be altruism?' The question is should it be instituted in government. This is simple to defend against. All the rest of altruism is irrelevant as voluntary, and we'll find it in everyone."
"This is funny. I don't see 'sacrificing for others in any definition of altruism'. I understand your point, and was trying to be unargumentative about my point.If you just want to argue, then please respond, and I'll waste some more time irritating you about your pin-hole narrow definition, that, among other things, like those of many zealots, completely fails to help convince other open minds of anything except to ignore you"
"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."
"Asking this nation of ironic union Walmart shoppers to become intellectual to change politics is about as likely as a majority of 15 yr olds rejecting video games. "
"there is no chance these stoic, paladin arguments will overcome"
"Will convince no one. Get your rocking chair and rocks ready. "
"Overwhelming evidence demonstrates public opinion is not cerebral."
"So we play this on Fox or CNN? "
"Do not respond with another professorial sermon. I have work to do, and this is no longer an interesting distraction. "
"Good luck with serious discussion. Please do let me know how it goes. "
"Thinkers, long-winded logical arguments and diatribes are not going to reverse this."
"You again have offered nothing tangible as an alternative (and at thin point, I suspect you can not in less than ten pages)."
That was your own "ten pages" of "diatribe".
Those who are serious about what is intellectually required can read Ayn Rand's essays directly on this topic: "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let it Go" in her anthology *Philosophy: Who Needs It", which have been discussed here previously. They, too, are not "sermons" and "diatribe'.
I am completely tired of us all being undermined with clever lies, and sound bites. I have not asserted that we return with lies. I have asserted we respond with clever, tangible, graspable, clear, concepts that can generate evidence that freedom will provide more efficiency and a greater good.
The concept that people must be responsible for the consequences of their actions for the freedoms they enjoy, has been rejected by precisely zero people (except you because you will not get off an inappropriate definition of responsibility). It has generated endorsement from conservatives, liberals and socialists. It gets thinking started, where people, particularly dogmatic, stubborn people would start shouting or otherwise stop listening. Then the discussion goes to what freedoms, and what consequent responsibility and why we should all pay for it through a government program. This concept is not a slogan. It is simplicity and obvious. We want marijuana legalized, yes, great. However, if one uses it, drives and causes an accident, one must take responsibility. Obvious, argued against by virtually no one. People followed Washington, Jefferson, Franklin (in particular) and the rest because he made clear statements they could grasp and support. The whole of the US that revolted was not "enlightened". Today we are faced with an additional problem that people's attention spans are much shorter. Gone are the days when reading a newspaper was almost the nicest distraction from the mundane. What we do for work today is generally more fun that what the Revolutionaries did for pleasure.
I am demeaning, again, the concept of convincing people without simplicity and clarity, and beginning with fundamental ideology, rather than an incremental step from where we are. There is nothing illogical or irrational or deceitful about this. I have NEVER seen anyone on the fence convinced by and argument starting with fundamentals of human rights or behavior. That just goes to a Scientific American Mind article where you are wrong.
You asserting that I have ridiculed thinking is misleading, very much like the the inappropriate statements made equating Libertarians with anarchists.
You again have offered nothing tangible as an alternative (and at this point, I suspect you can not in less than ten pages). Neither have you explained with any clear logical argument where my suggestions will fail. I suspect you can not, because they are simply followed up with an explanation for why the policies succeed, which brings the discussion back to fundamentals.
As for the socialists admitting that socialism can work only if they enslave is an understatement. Enslavement is built in from the beginning -- the moment the individual is subordinated to the collective. It is intended to enslave; that is what they mean by "works".
We are just going to agree to disagree again.
Mao Zedong is alive and training everyone in the US. For the moment we can argue against it. You reeducate the country. I am going to find other people that want to see some successful measure attempted, and grow that seed.
France rebelled against its tyranny, too, and got the tyranny of the French Revolution out of its "fraternity" substituting for Enlightenment individualism.
A couple of centuries of American success already show what is possible. It got the attention of the whole world. The observed comparison doesn't change the march to collectivism because collectivism is increasingly accepted as the good. A few 'demonstration' projects will not change that.
Start another revolution today out of anger with no understanding and you will get the slaughter of worse collectivism and statism. Keep denouncing and ridiculing thinking and you will get it sooner.
Now we have even more stuff, we are fat and comfortable. Why not just keep throwing alms to the poor, medical care for all, and free college? Who of these people wants individualism? Not many.
A significant reduction in standard of living (probably in the works), is what is required to anger people now. Then the socialist-totalitarians will says we need more, more, more, and the only way out is another revolution (Gulching or shooting).
Thinkers, long-winded logical arguments and diatribes are not going to reverse this. However, demonstration of one or more successful applications of freedom and private industry can start getting attention. Then, some logic may get people thinking and change the trend. Without a modern, recent, significant example, it is just boring reference to Milton Friedman or massively negatively viewed reference to Ayn.
It did not happen to a population of comfortable, overfed, overpaid, TV/video game junkies.
There is no parallel here.
The message are provided elsewhere.
No one advocating "starting with this dry message" when speaking to others.
Load more comments...