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 6.
For entrenched religionists who reject reason, no communication or understanding is possible. That doesn't imply that explanation and proper use of valid concepts should be abandoned -- either outright or through contradictory 'compromises' seeking 'common ground' with the irrational -- out of fear that understanding requires that an emotionalist "must renounce his very religion". We communicate with those who, partially religious or not, do use reason and who want to understand.
That requires valid concepts and definitions, not subservience to belief in the supernatural. Ayn Rand looked at the requirements of human life here in reality and proceeded to formulate her ethics accordingly in rational terms. Understanding cannot be bent to accommodate the irrational for 'pragmatic', 'tactical' purposes destroying the understanding. Pragmatism "does not work".
Religion is not "merely the set of principles by which one lives their life". Religion requires faith, in opposition to reason. And as a primitive form of philosophy it takes positions on much more than ethical principles in the form of duties for living life, such as belief in the supernatural to begin with.
Including non-belief in the supernatural under the first amendment does not make atheism a religion. Appeal to that fallacy is a crude attempt by religionists claiming an equal intellectual status for their faith. Faith and reason, including reason's rejection of faith, are different concepts. They are opposites.
So are 'liberty' and 'courtesy' different concepts. Liberty is a political concept concerning government coercion. It does not "require courtesy". Courtesy is a form of personal interaction towards those who deserve it or who still have the benefit of the doubt. Lack of courtesy, properly or not, is not a violation of rights. Neither 'liberty' nor 'courtesy' are based on a vague "inherent worth of the individual". Every individual has the same rights by the nature of human being; not an "inherent worth" to everyone else regardless of what he is or may be There is no "inherent worth" of belief on faith.
There is no evidence that a supernatural "could exist". Assertions of possibility require proof of the possibility. Speculating whatever one feels like that a "kind of supernatural" "could exist", and then "looking for evidence" claimed to be "found", is crude rationalism for the arbitrary, not "logical". It is what creationists do when they insist that their rationalizations are science as they demand to be taken seriously.
Self sacrifice and altruism have in fact been "all through religious teachings". Duties to sacrifice one's life on earth as an imagined "investment" in an imagined supernatural are in fact duties to sacrifice one's life here on earth during our finite lifespans, which is the context of ethics in which one makes choices in life. An "egoism" for irrational claims to an "afterlife" in the supernatural is not egoist ethics. An alleged duty to sacrifice our lives to the supernatural contradicts an ethics of rational egoism.
Rejecting faith in a supernatural does not mean "everything becomes for the moment". Life is not a "moment". Principles for flourishing over the span of a lifetime are not hedonism for "the moment". Religious duty versus hedonism are two sides of the same irrational coin: a false alternative.
The morality of exercising the right of abortion is not even in the same category as the right of "drug use and prostitution". For a rational person the choice to not have a child one does not choose to commit to is moral, for one's life over decades, not "for the moment". The destruction of hedonistic indulgence in drug and sex abuse is not. The political freedom to choose any of them is not subject to religious duty and its theocratic prohibitions under law denying the right of the individual to think for himself in choosing his own goals and actions over any time span.
Ayn Rand's rational egoism is not the utilitarian standard of "dollars and cents" and is not "much more questionable and hard to defend intellectually" "without an afterlife". The subjectivism of faith in "an afterlife" is not a standard for anything, let alone intellectual defense of moral principles.
Either people are open to reason in order to understand or they are not. Those who militantly insist on respect and openness to faith are not. That is not a "useless distinction". There is no "common ground" between reason and its opposite in which we "take turns" uttering "beliefs".
Atheism is not a "religion" and not the basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Atheism, rejection of belief in a supernatural, is a consequence of a rational philosophy, not its foundation. That rejection does not require "proof". When assertions are meaningless and/or pushed with no evidence then the rational approach is to reject them out of hand, not to try to "prove" a negative. The positive values of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not "nihilism" and not a "road to nowhere" for rejecting the irrational.
This is so true, and that's such a terse way to say it. I do think people can rise above the desire to extent socialism beyond their immediate family. When I travel abroad, I have no desire to make everyone American. If you travel on the Interstate and stop in Madison, you might see bathrooms labelled men, women, and gender-inclusive. I don't imagine Trump supporters want to make us live as they do. When I drive through KY and people call me "baby doll", I know it's not flirting or meant the wrong way. I don't expect to buy curds, brats, and cheep liquor everywhere. I don't want to make them into WI.
I do have a fantasy of the US being bound mostly by a well-regulated militia of people coming from all places, races, and walks of life with their own guns and medical/repair kits, agreeing only on the US Constitution and to defend US if someone bothers us. I know this fantasy is not compatible with the modern world, but IMHO it should be a goal, a concept car we strive for.
BTW, we try not to have too much socialism in our house. I think we created a debt by having kids. If we teach them to take care of themselves, the debt will be paid. We try to be overly generous about giving them money for work and letting them spend it in ways we disagree with, just to set the idea that you if you want live free you have to provide services to others so they provide things to you. They're 8 and 10. I steel myself for when they're teens and move on to bigger mistakes.
I completely agree with you here. I gave you the definition I use and why. I simply pointed out that the definition you are using is a straw man because it leads to the nonsense equivalencies you bring up. Though you may not see it, the absurdities you bring up are the result of a fallacious definition. We actually agree on much more than you might think.
"certain descriptions are not propositions but statements about thinking"
Nonsense. If you are going to assert atheism and make the entire dismissal of "religion" hinge on an assertion of a lack of proof, you render your entire argument moot (and more than a little bit hypocritical) if you can not then prove your own assertion withstands argument reflection. This is why asserting a negative is a failing technique in a logical debate. As soon as your opponent turns your own assertion around on you, you lose.
That's why I find it a much easier and logically consistent plan of attack to mimic Plato in The Republic. In that work, Plato (and his mentor Socrates) criticizes the notion of the Greek Pantheon by pointing out the inconsistencies of the "capricious" wielder of such enormous power as that supposedly held by Zeus et al. Plato did not deny that some form of higher power could not exist, but that the description posited by the ancient Greeks regarding the Pantheon (which literally translated means "all gods" or "the encompassing supernatural") violated basic logical tenets upon closer inspection.
The last point I would make is that you take it for granted that there is no proof when in fact the opposite is true. Probability itself is one such evidence. If you wish me to explain more, I will do so in a private thread as we are in agreement that this conversation is veering away from the thread topic.
There is an often used legal contrivance of words -' for the purpose of the Act'.
It means, not that A=B, but that A is to be regarded as B for this Act only.
As stated, the court found that a constitutional right belonged to followers of all religions but recognizing possible doubt about those of no religion applied the usual wording to clarify the ambiguity.
To claim this as proof that at least in US law atheism is a religion is to show ignorance of legal conventions.
By this, err, logic,
if I do not believe that the moon is made of green cheese, then I belong to groups who believe the moon is composed of (various other) food;
and if non-religion is a religion, then death is a type of life, Christianity is part of Islam, apostates retain religion ..
The call for proof- if you cannot prove it then ..
This is a rhetorical device, certain descriptions are not propositions but statements about thinking, to attack that is telling others what they think. Saying atheism is unproven belief is up-side-down, atheism is the state of not having unproven belief.
I am diverting too much from the theme of the thread, but I was under attack for not being able to plan as not having religion, and then for having religion, so will not continue here thus leaving the last word open.
"Their actions have worth in the future, better explanations are found in training, genetics, and natural selection, rather than a sacrifice to avoid hell."
Animals are ruled by instinct and have no rational capacity. They can not comprehend an afterlife let alone worry about it. Only humans have the necessary thought capacity to consider their own mortality and what they are going to do with it. Shakespeare's immortal soliloquy - as voiced by Hamlet - is a tribute to man's consciousness and the struggle of what to do with one's self. To me, it is one of the most beautiful and profound pieces of poetry ever written.
As to what actually constitutes "hell", I could go into great detail about why the common perception of many Christians regarding hell is not only ignorant, but ridiculous (Dante's Inferno). If you are interested, we can move that topic to a private thread.
"The word courtesy is used, courtesy is important, so is liberty."
Liberty and courtesy are intertwined. Tyranny starts when you seek to deny others a chance to voice their opinions. It is also tyranny to attempt to define for someone else what they believe. (That goes both ways of course.) Liberty does not exist without courtesy and courtesy begins with the recognition of the inherent worth of the individual.
"No. An absence of something is not a type of that something."
You stated that religions were based on an unproven belief. According to your own definition, therefore, atheism is a religion - as no one has proven it. There's a slight problem there, however: the only way one could prove atheism would be to become the very thing of which is denied an existence. Hmmmm....
"A logic that allows worthless statements that are not falsifiable is not logic."
I totally agree with you. See above.
A better argument is to postulate what kind of supernatural could exist and then go look for it. Confirmation then supports your argument while absence tells you that you have a faulty hypothesis. Simple. Logical. Actionable.
BTW, I don't define religion the way you do. Religion is merely the set of principles by which one lives their life. This is congruent with the Supreme Court's rulings which defined atheism as a religion in order that their rights might be protected under the First Amendment.
Agreed. (But, I cannot resist temptation, Oscar Wilde)
if you really want to get into theological questions
When I think of a bird's nest, a beaver building a dam, or a dog burying a bone, I do not bother to name the religion of the animal concerned. Their actions have worth in the future, better explanations are found in training, genetics, and natural selection, rather than a sacrifice to avoid hell.
abortion, prostitution, and drug use
Attitudes to these can be classed as
-Conservatism- the leadership knows what is good for all.
-Old religion- conservatism and as prescribed by the sacred texts.
-Libertarianism- I don't know and I don't care.
-Environmentalism- whatever wipes out humanity soonest to preserve Gaia.
-Objectivism- as libertarianism but while you may care you are not your brother's keeper, you act from knowledge to protect yourself.
The word courtesy is used, courtesy is important, so is liberty. Those of 'faith' shall not interfere with me nor tell me what to do or believe. I do not want or need to ask them what they believe, I have been subjected to that stuff from toddler age. I do not seek a 'turn' at them.
Atheism is also a religion
No. An absence of something is not a type of that something.
logical thought will tell you, you can not assert a negative
That allows belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster which can be seen only by believers. A logic that allows worthless statements that are not falsifiable is not logic.
(Aside: people on this forum question why Objectivism hasn't become the force to rule the world. This is a great example of it. It isn't effective to attempt to convert people to your way of thinking by assaulting their beliefs. Though you may not recognize it, this is the very coercion that Objectivists claim to abhor. Secondly, people don't change their minds simply because you tell them to. They have to be persuaded. Persuasion takes patience and building upon common ground - not scorched earth tactics.
That's one of the things I really appreciated about Atlas Shrugged. Galt could have simply hauled Dagny off to the Gulch. She recognized the beauty of the place while there as an interloper. But they both knew that the decision had to come from Dagny to be there. So Galt patiently waited for her to get tired of trying to save the world and then offered another solution.)
"blarman says- it is belief in life after this, there is also belief in the supernatural. Then, if you do not believe, everything is for the moment. Obviously wrong, that is just ignorance of how others think or an insult. "
Not wrong, a matter of perspective. What is the incidence of a human life on the time scale of a star? It is an eyeblink - a moment. If one believes that the soul is eternal, it changes the entirety of the way one looks at things. That does not mean that our choices here are not important. That is not the case. Simply that one begins to look at cost/benefit according to a wholly different set of scales. It is a paradox shift in thinking.
"But religion is more than that, it is any form of belief. A belief without evidence is religion."
A useless point of contention. Atheism is also a religion as there is no proof to support it. It is a difference without a distinction. As anyone schooled in logical thought will tell you, you can not assert a negative, which is what atheism does. If you want to take issue with the absurdity of a particular construct of god, that's reasonable because you are comparing what could be. It is the blanket assertion of nihilism which is a road to nowhere - literally.
Well just one aspect- what is religion?
blarman says- it is belief in life after this, there is also belief in the supernatural. Then, if you do not believe, everything is for the moment. Obviously wrong, that is just ignorance of how others think or an insult.
But religion is more than that, it is any form of belief. A belief without evidence is religion.
How do you teach those who would be slaves that enslavement is a bad idea? You can reason with them, they will deny reality and construe arguments that will convince most of the others who would be slaves. If an individual is still left free and could live free the difference would then become obvious to the slaves but they still would not like you for it and they would find irrational reasons to enslave the freeman. If violence can be used against the freeman then his only remaining choice is to surrender as little of his property as possible and continue to live as a slave or die at the hands of the enslavers.
When I have presented this offer to let me prove my arguments by letting me be free the socialists always reply; 'We couldn't do that, our system wouldn't work if we let people voluntarily leave!' Which is an admission that they do understand that their system can only 'work' if it can enslave.
A demonstration of why giving people money won't work are the people who win the lotto and become worth millions and sometimes $100 million and within a few years they are broke and working at fast food again. Instead of using the money to invest, invent, build a business they are using the money to have a good time and it runs out. People who are wealthy have an income stream, not a pile of cash they are working their way through. Giving others the money simply gives them the opportunity to get drunk until the supply they were given runs out. Then they will be looking for the next victim to plunder. This works only so long as there is someone who can be plundered, then they all die.
I agree with what you are saying. If “altruism” can only be used as a negative, then we will have (another) political problem, because supporting the underdog is an inherent trait that the media has fallen on. We (the correct) fail to employ that trait to the world’s collective benefit. However, a massive number of clowns get to be correct at the local spelling bee.
"Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness."
Opposite of being selfish is sacrifice. Rand has of course fully explained how selfishness must be interpreted. Govt. forces us to sacrifice, religion tells us the same - both in the name of altruism.
Sorry you think an attempt to properly define terms is a boring argument to you.
We're getting into a debate on theology now, which is going to be quite pointless because it all depends on a fundamental point of view regarding what follows this life. If you believe that there is no life after this, then you will interpret Christian dogma as you say - worthless. For the Christian who believes in a life following this, then the "self-sacrifice" you claim is more appropriately a deferred investment in a future to come. It all comes down to whether or not "sacrifice" means living for someone else, or living for one's self on a wholly different timeline.
To get back to the primary topic of the thread, I think this plays out very pointedly in the Libertarian social views. If one does not believe in God or an afterlife, everything becomes for the moment - thus the tendency of Libertarians to side with Progressives on things like abortion, prostitution, and drug use. Without an afterlife, the morality of those items becomes much more questionable and hard to defend intellectually because one can not argue dollars and cents.
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.
You clearly misunderstand the concept. Being selfish does not mean not caring for others; it does mean not sacrificing one's values for others, and friends...are of value.
The origin of "selfishness" is as I said: Christianity attached the "sacrifice for others" to "selfishness".
Load more comments...