My micro-rant against Libertarianism

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Okay.

Start by reading Rand's works (particularly the non-fiction). You'll find that she most certainly DID NOT think that humans behave rationally. What you'll find is that she believed humans SHOULD behave rationally, and they DO behave based on the dominant philosophies of their culture, rational or irrational.

Once you actually understand what O'ism states, we can move forward to address specific concerns you have with the philosophy. Given how you described it, however, I believe you need to do more background research before you can claim to understand it.

Yes, read Ayn Rand's work. Particularly "The Fountainhead" where her protaganist rapes a girl, but it's all good, because after all, working in one's own self interest with no regard for other people is the way to go through life!

Also, read about Ayn Rand's life, and how she actually only supported her philosophy when she was on the giving end, not the receiving. When she had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, that was all fine and well. She was just pursuing her rational self interest, so cheating on her husband was okay. But when Branden started having an affair with another woman, well that was just no good at all and completely unforgivable.

To give her credit though, I did like "Anthem" a lot. Hated "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" though. And especially hated "The Virtue of Selfishness."

 

[Dinwar]

I've read Ayn Rand.

and the fatal flaw of it's cousin, objectivism, is the assumption that humans generally behave rationally.

You seem to have missed a few pages...

Rigid ideologies bother me, because they are maintained not by evidence or rational discourse, but by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. It should be easy to observe various types of societies and discern which has the best results for measures like general well being.

That's one reason you'll never hear me argue that an Objectivist society would be a utopia. It wouldn't. That said, it's the only society I know of that treats adults like adults--ie, that respects their rights to make their own decisions with their own property, and not to be interfeared with unless they violate the rights of others. I'm not exactly clear as to how that's a bad thing, except that people who make stupid choices will suffer the consequences.

Where's the evidence that either libertarianism or objectivism result in better societies?

There's a great deal of evidence that collectivism doesn't.

You can't have freedom without a measure of security. It isn't about one being more important than the other, it is about finding a balance between the two.

No. It's a question of identifying what freedoms are proper for people to have, and what they need security from. I do not believe that people need to be protected from the consequences of their bad choices, for example, and I DO think they need protected from theft.

Everyone benefits from planned cities and building codes.

Except those who want to do things that the planners disagree with, like start a home business out of their garage. Or those who can't build on property because it was re-zoned. Or those who can't paint their window frames without submitting reams of paperwork.

It's simple: Once you start paying a portion of my mortgage, you get to have a say in what goes on on that land. Until then, you have no say, just as I have no say ini what goes on on your property. Remember, I apply these standards universally. And before you say it, yes, I would live downwind from a paper mill. In fact, I used to.

If the community does not set aside wilderness and wetlands all of our standards of living can be degraded.

I see no reason why it has to be the community. I know a number of individuals who have done this (without any subsidies, I should add--they just said "Hey, see that woods? It's mine. No one's allowed to hunt there", and then carried it out).

If not, we all suffer and I consider that you causing me to suffer if your idea is your rights include anything you want on property you own.

This is where objective laws come in. An argument like "But I don't like it" or "But I can't sell it for what I wanted to sell it for" (what the property value boils down to--the value of a property is what you can sell it for) aren't valid objections--you have no say in what goes on in someone else's land, and investments can in fact lose money, even real estate investments. That said, an objection like "He's put methel-ethal-chloride into the drinking water" is a serious and objective complaint--it's the equivalent of manslaughter, really, with that particular chemical. Rights ARE relative, but they're relative to the RIGHTS of others, not to their wishes.

 

[geni]

.
Crossing a street without a "walk" signal.
Dodging traffic, IOW.

Oh the whole US jaywalking thing. Legal in the UK (with the exception of motorways).

 

[geni]

.
With no presence on Facebook, there's nothing to track.

There is. If you have friends on facebook the site can build up quite a profile.

Then of course there is the facebook "like" button. Unless you don't accept cookies facebook can build up a nice profile through that (in fact even if you accept cookies unless you are careful to use a common ISP/OS/browser/Browser extension/brower language settings combination you can still be traced).

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, read Ayn Rand's work. Particularly "The Fountainhead" where her protaganist rapes a girl, but it's all good, because after all, working in one's own self interest with no regard for other people is the way to go through life!

How about her nonfiction works? You know, where she actually deals with her philosophy? Rather than a fiction work she wrote before she had fully fleshed it out (read "Romantic Manifesto" to see her view of fiction--the character wasn't necessarily acting fully according to her philosophy).

Also, read about Ayn Rand's life, and how she actually only supported her philosophy when she was on the giving end, not the receiving. When she had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, that was all fine and well. She was just pursuing her rational self interest, so cheating on her husband was okay. But when Branden started having an affair with another woman, well that was just no good at all and completely unforgivable.

You really need to look more into this issue before you draw your conclusions. Branden isn't some heroic figure, and Rand made a serious error with him. She also discussed the affair with her husband, so it's not cheating by any rational definition (Rand didn't have the mystic view that marriage is a union between a man, a woman, and God, for example--she believed that the couple involved makes the rules).

Besides, this is nothing more than poisoning the well (and not a very good attempt at that). Nothing in this quote deals with Objectivism. The argument is "This person's evil, therefore this philosophy is wrong." Sure, you can take instances in someone's life to ILLUSTRATE concepts in a philosophy (really, that's what Altas Shrugged was intended to do), but it's never an argument, only an illustration. Rand could have been pure evil, but her philosophy must be judged on its own merit. Even Rand agreed with that--on numerous occasions she quoted people she detested, because they had a valid point.

 

[citizenzen]

Why are some people so into Ayn Rand?

It borders on a religious following.

I can't and don't point to any single person to validate my liberal philosophy.

If you're leaning on just one person to rationalize your politics, you're on pretty shaky ground.

 

[Tony]

No. It's a question of identifying what freedoms are proper for people to have, and what they need security from.

This is another way of saying balance.

I do not believe that people need to be protected from the consequences of their bad choices...

Depends on the consequences and depends on the choices.

...and I DO think they need protected from theft.

Of course.

 

[I Ratant]

Oh the whole US jaywalking thing. Legal in the UK (with the exception of motorways).

.
I presume there are no licensed women drivers in the UK?
Just thinking about stepping off the curb in front of a car aimed by one of these gives me chills!
Even when I have the "walk" light.
Many of the lights are changing to countdowns, with audible beeps, for the permissible period to be in the cross walk here.

 

[I Ratant]

There is. If you have friends on facebook the site can build up quite a profile.

Then of course there is the facebook "like" button. Unless you don't accept cookies facebook can build up a nice profile through that (in fact even if you accept cookies unless you are careful to use a common ISP/OS/browser/Browser extension/brower language settings combination you can still be traced).

.
I canceled my Facebook account.

 

[I Ratant]

Why are some people so into Ayn Rand?

It borders on a religious following.

I can't and don't point to any single person to validate my liberal philosophy.

If you're leaning on just one person to rationalize your politics, you're on pretty shaky ground.

.
Yes.
Your thinking has been done for you, in this instance!

 

[Dinwar]

This is another way of saying balance.

No. Ballance implies tension. I'm saying that a proper view is that there is no tension.

Depends on the consequences and depends on the choices.

Not really. If they do something stupid, and bad things happen to them, it's their fault and they get to deal with it. I may help or not, but it's my choice to help or not--they have no right to my property and cannot demand it.

That's what Rand meant when she said "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped."

Why are some people so into Ayn Rand?

It borders on a religious following.

I'd be more concerned with the people who disagree with her without understanding her. There are actual aspects of the philosophy that can be rationally considered objectionable--but no one here has presented one, and very few people who object to Rand (and no one who gets their information from Branden) presents any of them.

If you're leaning on just one person to rationalize your politics, you're on pretty shaky ground.

Well, I do rely on one person--myself. Rand simply put things better than I did, and carried them further (not a surprise, as she had longer to think about it). Besides, 1) the number of people supporting any argument isn't a commentary on the validity of the argument (ie, the Bandwagon Fallacy is still a fallacy), and 2) most of the liberal arguments can be traced to a handful of people--Kant, Plato, Marx, Hume, etc. And if you say "I don't rely on them, I just agree with them!", well, you just described why most O'ists agree with Rand.

 

[Tony]

No. Ballance implies tension. I'm saying that a proper view is that there is no tension.

I see what you mean but appealing to a "proper view" is one of those rigid things about Libertarianism that lead me to abandon it. In the real world, there sometimes is tension between freedom and security.

Not really. If they do something stupid, and bad things happen to them, it's their fault and they get to deal with it.

But if the bad that happens to them is disproportionate to the stupid, then the person shouldn't be left to suffer. Furthermore, if the consequence is death or severe injury, others have a responsibility to help. Walking on the side of the road at night may be stupid, but that doesn't excuse me or the state from letting a person who has been hit by a car to die from his injuries.

I may help or not, but it's my choice to help or not--they have no right to my property and cannot demand it.

No one is asking for your property.

 

[The Norseman]

I was once a libertarian, but I was turned off at the rigid idealism and lack of clear evidence supporting their case. Don't get me wrong, Libertarianism does have some good stuff. We can keep the personal freedoms for individuals and discard the rigid ideals that put business interests over the the needs of individuals.

I pretty much feel the same way about your first sentence. I don't quite see the 'put business needs over... individuals' part, though. Businesses are now complicated, but at their essence, just shields to protect from personal liability. Libertarianism, in my understanding, relies much on holding individuals responsible for their actions and by extension, the actions performed while owning a company (or the 'actions' of the company).

These days, the amorality of corporations encourages the flourishing of immorality by the owners because of these shields. Libertarianism would be dismantling these shields which would then place them back into the checks and balances (so to speak) of being liable like everyone else.

 

[Dinwar]

I see what you mean but appealing to a "proper view" is one of those rigid things about Libertarianism that lead me to abandon it. In the real world, there sometimes is tension between freedom and security.

Fair enough. I tend to err on the side of freedom. But I can see a justification for the opposite conclusion.

But if the bad that happens to them is disproportionate to the stupid, then the person shouldn't be left to suffer. Furthermore, if the consequence is death or severe injury, others have a responsibility to help.

Not really. They don't have a responsibility to help--after all, they may be unable to do so or may make the situation worse. To be clear, if I saw a guy that walked by someone who was bleeding to death because something random fell on them, I'd never associate with the guy who walked by again--that kind of callose disregard for human life says pretty nasty things about the person (Sherell Taggart is where Rand makes that clear, and in particular her conversation with Dagney before she died, if anyone's curious; Dr. Hsieh delves deeper into this issue in one of her podcasts). But there's a difference between something that's indicative of a horrible value structure, and something that's required. I don't own that man, so cannot dictate how he should act--I can only act according to my knowledge of him.

No one is asking for your property.

Actually, yeah, they are. Not in this thread, but any wealth redistribution plan boils down to taking property from some (and I'm just barely in that "some" at this point) and giving it to others. And if you're saying they have a right to demand I act a certain way (the inverse of your formulation that I have an obligation to act a certain way), they're saying they own ME.

The underlying assumption of your side of the argument is that need creates an obligation on the part of others--my need creates an obligation in you, and vise versa. Rand's view was that a better way to act is to trade value for value.

 

[geni]

You seem to have missed a few pages...

That's one reason you'll never hear me argue that an Objectivist society would be a utopia. It wouldn't. That said, it's the only society I know of that treats adults like adults--ie, that respects their rights to make their own decisions with their own property, and not to be interfeared with unless they violate the rights of others. I'm not exactly clear as to how that's a bad thing, except that people who make stupid choices will suffer the consequences.

"adult" is a social construct. It has no place in rational theory.

There's a great deal of evidence that collectivism doesn't.

Not so. Britian hasn't committed genicide in decades a trend which strangely collides with increased collectivism.

No. It's a question of identifying what freedoms are proper for people to have, and what they need security from.

Not really.

I do not believe that people need to be protected from the consequences of their bad choices, for example, and I DO think they need protected from theft.

Why? Why should I have to pay because you chose to live in a bad neighbourhood with inadequate security?

Except those who want to do things that the planners disagree with, like start a home business out of their garage.

You can't anyway. Damage to value of neighbouring property values resulting in massive legal fees to fight off the claims.

Or those who can't paint their window frames without submitting reams of paperwork.

That's usually resident's associations. Since they are entered into freely via contract it's hard to object to them from a libertarian POV.

It's simple: Once you start paying a portion of my mortgage, you get to have a say in what goes on on that land. Until then, you have no say, just as I have no say ini what goes on on your property. Remember, I apply these standards universally.

Err you realise that by that logic you can't build anything on your land above the hight of about 400nm since you disrupt the light on neighbouring property?

And before you say it, yes, I would live downwind from a paper mill. In fact, I used to.

There are worse things than paper mills.

I see no reason why it has to be the community. I know a number of individuals who have done this (without any subsidies, I should add--they just said "Hey, see that woods? It's mine. No one's allowed to hunt there", and then carried it out).

Because thats only stable at best for a single generation. Heh you can actualy trace the expansion of some english cities by the dates of death of landowners.

This is where objective laws come in. An argument like "But I don't like it" or "But I can't sell it for what I wanted to sell it for" (what the property value boils down to--the value of a property is what you can sell it for) aren't valid objections--you have no say in what goes on in someone else's land, and investments can in fact lose money, even real estate investments.

Damage to properly doesn't require dirrect contact with that property. I could destroy your computer for example without stepping onto your land.

That said, an objection like "He's put methel-ethal-chloride into the drinking water" is a serious and objective complaint--it's the equivalent of manslaughter, really, with that particular chemical.

No it isn't. All known chemicals have a non-zero LD50. So for example I can dump 9ppb arsnic into your drinking water and it won't cause problems. The fact that someone else is doing the same thing is where the problem starts but since neither of us are dumping enough arsnic to cause problems on our own you can't take action against us right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where's the evidence that either libertarianism or objectivism result in better societies?

There's a great deal of evidence that collectivism doesn't.

You've just confirmed why neither extreme economic system is ideal, while a combination is.

Health care, public health, police, fire, military, infrastructure, courts and so on are better run by the community as a whole. Capitalism and free markets with adequate regulations and enforcement works quite well for the rest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do not believe that people need to be protected from the consequences of their bad choices, for example, and I DO think they need protected from theft.

Who gets to decide?

Everyone benefits from planned cities and building codes.

Except those who want to do things that the planners disagree with, like start a home business out of their garage. Or those who can't build on property because it was re-zoned. Or those who can't paint their window frames without submitting reams of paperwork.

Yes, some people would like to ignore the effects of their choices on others in this case. You don't think that is theft. Some people might feel like it is theft when a neighbor's actions robs the person of their property value.

It's simple: Once you start paying a portion of my mortgage, you get to have a say in what goes on on that land. Until then, you have no say, just as I have no say ini what goes on on your property. Remember, I apply these standards universally. And before you say it, yes, I would live downwind from a paper mill. In fact, I used to.

I could not care less that your property value was affected and you still chose your same philosophy.

The bottom line is you, like the rest of us, live in a community. You don't get your way just because you want it. It's an unrealistic philosophy. The reason is other people feel differently.

That's why I said, deal with it. You have to deal with the reality you have, not the fantasy reality people like Rand imagined.

If the community does not set aside wilderness and wetlands all of our standards of living can be degraded.

I see no reason why it has to be the community. I know a number of individuals who have done this (without any subsidies, I should add--they just said "Hey, see that woods? It's mine. No one's allowed to hunt there", and then carried it out).

There is a long history of free market economies that result in some version of the Tragedy of the Commons. That's reality and that's why the community cannot rely on the individual to preserve and conserve our natural resources.

If not, we all suffer and I consider that you causing me to suffer if your idea is your rights include anything you want on property you own.

This is where objective laws come in. An argument like "But I don't like it" or "But I can't sell it for what I wanted to sell it for" (what the property value boils down to--the value of a property is what you can sell it for) aren't valid objections--you have no say in what goes on in someone else's land, and investments can in fact lose money, even real estate investments. That said, an objection like "He's put methel-ethal-chloride into the drinking water" is a serious and objective complaint--it's the equivalent of manslaughter, really, with that particular chemical. Rights ARE relative, but they're relative to the RIGHTS of others, not to their wishes.

Again you live in a community. Maybe you don't see lowered property values as ever theft, but many other people do see it as theft.

Given your philosophy and you beliefs vs the conflict with mine, now what?

 

[Mr. Scott]

There's a great deal of evidence that collectivism doesn't [result in better societies]

Great Britain was mentioned, and Sweden, Canada and France come to mind as examples of successful collectivism.

Vaccination is a flash point, so let's examine that example. I'll pick polio.

Libertarian model: "I'll get the vaccine if I want and pay for it myself."
Promise: Individual freedom maintained.
Actual result: Enlightened people who can afford the vaccine, and their children, are protected from the disease. Many of the rest get terribly sick, disabled, or die. Some individuals make money and get wealthy making iron lungs, crutches, etc. Everybody with normal feelings of empathy suffers vicariously with innocent children of unenlightened or poor parents. Darwinism will, over time, weed out some unenlightened family lines and vulnerable genetic lines, yet, the polio virus will likely mutate to keep the arms race going indefinitely.

Collectivist model (we saw it happen in the 1950s): The polio vaccination becomes mandatory.
Promise: The disease will be wiped out.
Actual result: The disease is wiped out. The developers and manufacturers of the vaccine make some money, some of it they use to support themselves and get wealthy, some of it is used to advance the science of vaccines to protect us from other diseases.

We are actually seeing terrible diseases which could have been wiped out in collectivist model, returning and spreading because of vaccine phobia and libertarian-style anti-collectivism, it's powerless children and those who care for them who will suffer. I guess Rand "let them die" Paul and his followers are fine with that. I'm not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I once asked Michael Shermer, who was on his book tour for the one less than skeptical book he's written extolling the virtues of pure Libertarianism, if he would mind a private police force like Blackwater instead of public police force. Backed into a corner he said yes. Blackwater for those of you unfamiliar with them were accused of shooting innocent people in New Orleans after Katrina as well as the shooting of unarmed civilians in Iraq.

Can you imagine if the police in this country were accountable to people paying for private armies or who worked under government contracts but were accountable to their bosses, not to the public that the private police had the right to arrest or even shoot?

 

[Dinwar]

Vaccination is a flash point, so let's examine that example. I'll pick polio.

Libertarian model:

This is a straw man, as I've never pretended to support the Libertarian possitiono, just the O'ist one.

ETA:

Can you imagine if the police in this country were accountable to people paying for private armies or who worked under government contracts but were accountable to their bosses, not to the public that the private police had the right to arrest or even shoot?

Yes. It'd be chaos.Which is why no O'ist advocate advocates such things, and most speak out against htem quite forcefully. I believe it was "Philosophy: Who Needs It" where Rand outlined the O'ist theory of politics (government in a ratoinal society).