My micro-rant against Libertarianism

[Mr. Scott]

I'm convinced Libertarians have no respect for the social contract, that outlaws are the purest libertarians, and the fatal flaw of it's cousin, objectivism, is the assumption that humans generally behave rationally. Somebody try and change my mind. I'm listening.

 

[ThorGoLucky]

Libertarian: (n.) one who advocates basing society on the ignorant, selfish, irrational desires of short-lived individuals over the common good, future generations, and the ecosystems upon which they stand.

 

[C_Felix]

I'm convinced Libertarians have no respect for the social contract, that outlaws are the purest libertarians, and the fatal flaw of it's cousin, objectivism, is the assumption that humans generally behave rationally. Somebody try and change my mind. I'm listening.

Without the social contract people will not behave rationally?

How close is that to anarchy?

 

[Dinwar]

Somebody try and change my mind. I'm listening.

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.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Libertarianism is prioritizing individual rights over collective rights. When in doubt, make the decision that preserves individual rights. It's that simple.

If you believe freedom is more important than security then you are likely a libertarian.

 

[Twiler]

Libertarianism is prioritizing individual rights over collective rights. When in doubt, make the decision that preserves individual rights. It's that simple.

If you believe freedom is more important than security then you are likely a libertarian.

Does thinking freedom is more important necessitate always choosing freedom over security?

 

[C_Felix]

Libertarianism is prioritizing individual rights over collective rights. When in doubt, make the decision that preserves individual rights. It's that simple.

If you believe freedom is more important than security then you are likely a libertarian.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, one has to ask "Secure against what?" If it's security against natural consequences of one's actions, than yes, security comes at the price of freedom. If it's security against interfearence from others, than no, ensuring freedom ensures security.

 

[Modified]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That quote highly qualifies both liberty (essential) and safety (little, temporary), but I usually see it used when discussing non-essential liberties that are given up to purchase (or at least in an effort to purchase) moderate, lasting safety.

 

[Dinwar]

What IS a non-essential liberty?

And how is it a good idea to give up even a non-essential liberty if one doesn't even make one's self safer?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Alan Greenspan, an avid follower of Rand's self centered belief system, admitted publicly that the philosophy failed in the end. He was certain the markets would not let the last economic collapse occur and he was wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Libertarianism is prioritizing individual rights over collective rights. When in doubt, make the decision that preserves individual rights. It's that simple.

If you believe freedom is more important than security then you are likely a libertarian.

If you believe the false dichotomy that freedom means you have to screw the community, you are likely a Libertarian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The point of that was related to excessive loss of freedom, not any kind of absolute loss.

I don't want my government spying on everyone to keep me safe. That doesn't mean I don't want them spying on potential criminals when there is cause.

 

[Dinwar]

Alan Greenspan, an avid follower of Rand's self centered belief system

Yeah....you can stop there. Anyone who believes this hasn't done their research.

Greenspan demonstrably turned away from Rand's philosophy, and when I say "demonstrably" I mean in specific ways, which have been pointed out by pretty much every O'ist out there. He's as much an Objectivist as Rand was a Marxist.

If you believe the false dichotomy that freedom means you have to screw the community,

And if you believe that "the community" is a nothing more than a number of individuals, and that those individuals are the important thing, not the "community", you're likely an Objectivist.

 

[I Ratant]

The point of that was related to excessive loss of freedom, not any kind of absolute loss.

I don't want my government spying on everyone to keep me safe. That doesn't mean I don't want them spying on potential criminals when there is cause.

.
Just what identifies a "potential criminal"?
Pants buckled below the ass?
Speeding through school zones?
Casing the joint before a possible robbery?
Living on the wrong side of the tracks?
Crossing against the red light?
There's a universe of possible "criminal activities" a controlling society might identify.

 

[AlBell]

.... if you believe that "the community" is a nothing more than a number of individuals, and that those individuals are the important thing, not the "community", you're likely an Objectivist.

Most likely a progressive lefty-lib nutcase democrat....

ps. No, I'm not a libertarian either, just a conservative Republican.

 

[Dinwar]

Most likely a progressive lefty-lib nutcase democrat....

Not really. Lefty-lib nutcase democrats are always concerned for "the poor", or "the sick", or "the underprivelaged". They never concern themselves with Bob down the street. This was dramatically illustrated by OWS's refusal to provide food for the homeless--they were preaching concern for the poor, but refused to provide the poor with aid when they were given the chance. Sure, it was a small issue and only a minor sub-set of the Left, but it's an illustration of the attitude I'm talking about.

And to clarify, by "and that those individuals are the important thing" I don't mean that we have to care for each individual. I mean we have to EVALUATE each individual, AS an individual. Some will deserve help, in every income bracket. Some will deserve none. Some have done things so wrong that any aid would be immoral.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah....you can stop there. Anyone who believes this hasn't done their research. ...

I heard him myself say the thing I said he said. He said it publicly. Objectivists are close enough to Libertarians for drill.

And if you believe that "the community" is a nothing more than a number of individuals, and that those individuals are the important thing, not the "community", you're likely an Objectivist.

No Din, that is not what I believe. I believe we live within a group. Everyone cannot have everything they want. Sometimes what I want interferes with what you want and vice versa. There is both the individual and the individual is also part of the community.

Deal with it.

 

[The Norseman]

[snipped bizarre claim Greenspan is a Marxist].

It's bizarre because Dinwar didn't say anything approaching that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.
Just what identifies a "potential criminal"?
Pants buckled below the ass?
Speeding through school zones?
Casing the joint before a possible robbery?
Living on the wrong side of the tracks?
Crossing against the red light?
There's a universe of possible "criminal activities" a controlling society might identify.

There is no doubt the line on the continuum is difficult to find. But I'm pretty sure there's no reason to spy on every war protestor and there is reason to spy on people wanting to learn to fly without caring about taking off and landing.