Political Theory

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

ricarpe — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:01:30 GMT

Ansury:
It doesn't matter to most Libertarians that this kind of hyper individualized economics is objectively at odds with the natural laws that underlie the biosphere and sponsor human life on earth.

I would counter that this person is using some sort of extreme definition of Libertarianism and the individualism that goes along with it. Libertarianism is not based on some sort of xenophobic fear of interacting with others--which appears to be that writer's interpretation.

I would argue that Libertarianism helps to prove how efficient human interaction can be without State intervention: one individual is free to interact with any other individual, or group, as he or she pleases; likewise, that individual is also free to not interact with anyone they please, as well.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:12:30 GMT

Ansury:
It appears to me that you are a Libertarian (or a Ferengi, a la Star Trek),

I lol'ed at work.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Alice — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:22:12 GMT

Avram:

I don't think strawman is the right word. Strawman implies they are familiar with the theory and only choose to highlight certain parts of it in a misleading manner.

I what we see here and else where is instead better described as a primitive understanding.

yeah, i agree, though sometimes it is a strawman, most people are just describing an accidental caricature

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Avram — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:15:42 GMT

I don't think strawman is the right word. Strawman implies they are familiar with the theory and only choose to highlight certain parts of it in a misleading manner.

I what we see here and else where is instead better described as a primitive understanding.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Alice — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:45:34 GMT

It doesn't matter to most Libertarians that this kind of hyper individualized economics is objectively at odds with the natural laws that underlie the biosphere and sponsor human life on earth.

like most of the criticisms ive heard of libertarianism this suffers from two fundamental flaws, a strawman version of libertarianism and a total unawareness of the methodological arguments of the austrian school.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Avram — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:36:58 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related

This is why she is considered a Libertarian. Most things she says here are great. I think if you interpert her correctly and ignore the girly "omg strong ambitious energetic men tee hee" you get a lot of nice ideas coming from her

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:49:02 GMT

Don't let it put you off reading her, though.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:03:47 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

A rather humorous playwright by Murray Rothbard on the subject in question. Just google "Mozart was a red" for the written version.

A side question: Is that Jeffrey Tucker there?

Edit: Hahah that IS Jeffrey Tucker!

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Ansury — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:27:48 GMT

Ayn Rand:
Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

I try to avoid wiki itself, but that's from the original source. I was particularly struck by the arrogance and especially the vitriol here. Maybe it was just a matter of the state of the party at the time since the comments were made long ago, but based on the text here it doesn't sound like it at all.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:44:54 GMT

Absolutely, Rand practically ostracized herself from libertarianism accussing it of "stealing" her ideas (how`s that for intellectual property rights). Granted, she did advance individualism in the general populace, but, quite frankly I don`t think she was particularly that important or original as a thinker. So much for "purity" of Randian doctrine, whatever that means. In my case in particular, I got started with Rothbard, as I know many others have. As for the use of "absolutist" and "extremist" , I`d much prefer to be called "radical" which obviously poses a problem for these people since it deals with perspectives that are not their own. "Mentally ill"? I`d much rather be "mentally ill", than "brain dead".

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Praetyre — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:44:17 GMT

Ansury:

You know, that is a good point that is rather sobering. If a major libertarian movement was to start picking up steam and it was causing the government serious problems, I wouldn't put it past them to start arresting the "extremist" leaders of the movement for the sake of national security and peace...

Question about a comment above-- why do you think Rand dispised Libertarians? (Not saying that's wrong, just asking what the reasoning is as I'm not very familiar with Rand..)

From Wiki's page on libertarians and Objectivists.

Ayn Rand:
They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.

Rand was a fairly rabid advocate of "intellectual" property and effectively raised inventors to the level of ubermenschen. As such, she viewed the fact some in the emerging American libertarian movement used some of her ideas in a different context as a grave insult.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:12:48 GMT

And yet you'll still be accused of being a heartless objectivist.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

McDuffie — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:07:12 GMT

Somehow, I managed to go from liberal democrat, to paleo-conservative, to libertarian, to an-cap without reading a single sentence composed by Rand.

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Ansury — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:47:57 GMT

You know, that is a good point that is rather sobering. If a major libertarian movement was to start picking up steam and it was causing the government serious problems, I wouldn't put it past them to start arresting the "extremist" leaders of the movement for the sake of national security and peace...

Question about a comment above-- why do you think Rand dispised Libertarians? (Not saying that's wrong, just asking what the reasoning is as I'm not very familiar with Rand..)

Re: A devastating attack on Libertarianism

Kakugo — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:34:39 GMT

Mmmh... please note the scary part about "clinical hysteria". if I remember correctly many of the XX century favorite tyrants had a penchant for sending political/economic dissenters to mental institutions. Dissenting with them was obviously a sign of "mental illness".