I heard from an objectivist the other day that libertarianism is a collectivist ideology.
Libertarians value principles (non aggression) more than the individual. Principles are based on collectivism. They are not derived from reality to be useful to the individual, but are chosen arbitrarily based on emotions. After choosing such a principle, they use this axiom to derive conclusions using logic, and then they stick to the conclusions no matter how silly they are, and even if it leads to death and catastrophe.
This fom of logical thinking with vague abstractions without foundattion in reality is called rationalism, and most libertariians today base their views directly or indirectly on Kant.
Libertarians say "Initiating force is always wrong. End of discussion." Objectivists also value non-aggression, but only when it benefits the individual. It does in 99% of all cases, but there are important exceptions.
This is why so many libertarians are anarchists; they think the state is a self-contradiction. Since a little violence is needed to maintain the state. Objectivists on the other hand, believe tat the state is necessary to protect individual self-interest. Therefore objectivists are minarchists.
Why do we need the state? Why can't we voluntarily form or hire an organization that will protect our rights?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
alimentarius:Therefore objectivists are minarchists.
And how does the objectivist propose to keep the minimal state "minimal"?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
Socialists and libertarians have something in common: rationalism. They insist to make use of concepts without foundation in reality, but in fantasises. The father of rationalism is Platon. He was the first person to value the ideas more than those who invented the ideas. As a consequence of thes, both libertarians and socialists insist to base their arguments on abstractions that are in conflict with individual self interest.
For example, some libertarians believe they ought to refuse to receive welfare services, social security and retirement pensions. Objectivists take exception to this, because they value self interest more than principles.
No but most Objectivists are. Oh burn!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: No but most Objectivists are. Oh burn!
Yep.
chloe732:And how does the objectivist propose to keep the minimal state "minimal"?
Of course, it's as impossible, just like it is impossible for anarchists to promise to keep the state absent?
Nice.
Intellectual property rights are property rights over physical implementations of abstractions. Humans are abstract creatures living abstract lives. Even the idea of property is abstract. It is an abstract idea that prevents you from stealing my car, and it is an abstract idea that prevents objectivists from copying my music.
Every wrong idea is always based on a mysterious exception to normal reason that is never explained.
In this case, which exception?
alimentarius: Socialists and libertarians have something in common: rationalism. They insist to make use of concepts without foundation in reality, but in fantasises. The father of rationalism is Platon. He was the first person to value the ideas more than those who invented the ideas. As a consequence of thes, both libertarians and socialists insist to base their arguments on abstractions that are in conflict with individual self interest. For example, some libertarians believe they ought to refuse to receive welfare services, social security and retirement pensions. Objectivists take exception to this, because they value self interest more than principles.
Was that his/her reply to me?
alimentarius: Intellectual property rights are property rights over physical implementations of abstractions. Humans are abstract creatures living abstract lives. Even the idea of property is abstract. It is an abstract idea that prevents you from stealing my car, and it is an abstract idea that prevents objectivists from copying my music.
Maybe your car is just the physical implementation of the abstract idea of crappy.
Libertarians recognize the self evident truth society already contains all of the tools needed to solve mans problems. Miniarchists believe society is not safe, can not be trusted to solve mans problems, and requires wise overlords. Objectivists are absolutists because they believe wise overlords must have a monopoly on justice. Absolutism is utopian and not based in reality.
Daniel Muffinburg: Why do we need the state? Why can't we voluntarily form or hire an organization that will protect our rights?
Who will protect from that organization?
scineram: Daniel Muffinburg: Why do we need the state? Why can't we voluntarily form or hire an organization that will protect our rights? Who will protect from that organization?
No one, perhaps. Why do you ask?
Anyway, at that point, it becomes a state, which is what objectivists want. So why can't they form a PDA, then have turn against them so it becomes a state, as they desire?
Live_Free_Or_Die:Miniarchists believe society is not safe, can not be trusted to solve mans problems, and requires wise overlords.
How about those who want a government but not governors. They simply recognize that standard procedures is necessary when it comes to legal processes.
Because they don't want it turn against them, I guess.
We need the state for one reason; to prevent evil people from gaining power.
alimentarius:We need the state for one reason; to prevent evil people from gaining power.
they need a state to institutionalise evil people into government, and to give a sheen of legitimacy to their evil.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
alimentarius: We need the state for one reason; to prevent evil people from gaining power.
Keep evil people from gaining power by giving evil people power?
alimentarius:Libertarians value principles (non aggression) more than the individual. Principles are based on collectivism. They are not derived from reality to be useful to the individual, but are chosen arbitrarily based on emotions. After choosing such a principle, they use this axiom to derive conclusions using logic, and then they stick to the conclusions no matter how silly they are, and even if it leads to death and catastrophe.
This is true of some libertarians, and continues to be the weak point allowing criticisms such as these, which nevertheless ironically collectivize libertarians as a homogeneous group. Logical reasoning from ambiguous starting points based on the theorist's own biases always leads to absurdity. The absurdities are then waved off as "lifeboat situations" in a most arbitrary manner, apparently without realizing that everyday life is full of more-or-less fringe situations.
The other hand-waving option has been to say that private courts will decide the details; but where is the cut-off point? It inevitably raises the question of why such principles are to be ordained in the first place.
alimentarius:This is why so many libertarians are anarchists; they think the state is a self-contradiction. Since a little violence is needed to maintain the state.
Maybe, but that is a rather weak argument for anarchy. A more persuasive reason is that monopolies have undesirable consequences.
This, in my opinion, is a superior defense of liberty and anarchy. It starts where the principle-based theories leave off, and ends up making a far more convincing and broadly-appealing case against the State.
Why anarchy fails
And how does granting a monopoly to wise overlords to determine standard procedures yield me more liberty? Did the market somehow become incapable of delivering voluntary standardized solutions? Are cd's or dvd's bad for the individual? Would I have missed out on high definition because the wise overlords did not like the standard?
You mean evil people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, the guy from Cambodia, Nero, Caligula, Bush, FDR, Wilson, the guy from Iran, et al?
Live_Free_Or_Die: And how does granting a monopoly to wise overlords to determine standard procedures yield me more liberty? Did the market somehow become incapable of delivering voluntary standardized solutions? Are cd's or dvd's bad for the individual? Would I have missed out on high definition because the wise overlords did not like the standard?
Absent the state there will be not many markets.
scineram:Absent the state there will be not many markets.
Explain please.
Markets require legal order.
also legal order requires markets.
they are co-emergent. state is a wrench in the works.
scineram:Markets require legal order.
Is that not a market good?
Ethical egoism is also a principle. Does that make it collectivist?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
filc: alimentarius: We need the state for one reason; to prevent evil people from gaining power. Keep evil people from gaining power by giving evil people power?
Libertarians say "Initiating force is always wrong. End of discussion." Objectivists also value non-aggression, but only when it benefits the individual.
Libertarians believe that initiating force is always wrong because it benefits one individual at the expense of another. In other words, it is not good for the individual, unless you believe that sacrificing others to yourself is good for the individual--which Rand certainly did not.
PorpoiseMuffins:Better to give it to a lesser evil and to constrain it through democracy and constitutional law, then to let it be usurped by Hitlers and the like.
nirgrahamUK: PorpoiseMuffins:Better to give it to a lesser evil and to constrain it through democracy and constitutional law, then to let it be usurped by Hitlers and the like. Did you parse this sentance for logic and history?
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Eh, forget I said it. It was a really poor way of expressing what I'm thinking anyway.
filc: scineram:Markets require legal order. Is that not a market good?
No, not very much.
A million thanks for clearing that up so perspicuously. Unfortunately, that's a rather hollow assertion.
I think he means that since markets are based on legal order you have to have legal order before you can have a market.
Ah yes that magical argument, which says what is essentially an economic good must be provided by an economic institution that is a monopoly by law, because it's a precondition of exchange... yeah, makes so much sense. Guess what, food, transport, water &c. are also preconditions of exchange. Socialism ftw?
If you already had a market (defined as the absence of aggression) before you had legal order, you wouldn't need legal order, since the whole purpose of (good) legal order is to prevent aggression.
Right?
Absence of aggression =/= services to ensure that absence. The provision of those can be carried out by the market, since any monopoly on them in the end will itself be a service provider exempting itself from market forces as best it can, i.e. rather than being outside the market it will be a part of it that tries to isolate itself from competitors. BTW with no living beings to carry out exchanges there can be none, so how on earth can the market provide food, as it is a precondition of its existence?
lolwut
PorpoiseMuffins: I think he means that since markets are based on legal order you have to have legal order before you can have a market.
Oh really? And how do you propose to finance your "legal order" before you have a market in the first place?