Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.--I must be an anarcho-libertario-Vulgarian---
"Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism"
That might be true of communism,but, in fact, marxism is even more ludicrous. It posits a crazy pseudo-hegelian philosophy that leads to iron-cast historical "laws" that societies follow neatly and allows itself the conceit that it is scientific. Amusingly Marx and his followers never had anything much to say about how a socialist society would orshould be run. It is truely a worthless ideology.
While I'm much more of a Conservative than a Libertarian I do exalt the rights AND responsibilities of the Individual. As such, I find this writer's thesis Hogwash.
Robert Locke is the Bea Arthur of the Right.
Some of the Libertarians I've run across seem fairly sensible;others chant slogans that would make a Marxist feel at home.One even sings the praises of "the valiant resistance fighters in Iraq",and complains about the needless cruelty of American troops.
I wonder,at times,how many of those self-proclaimed Libertarians are really Maoists in drag ???
But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.
In fact, quasi-socialist "liberals" of the vulgar modern American type (ranging from Barbara Streisand to John Kerry) try to pull this maneuver. When they are pushing for freedom for perversion (or slaughtering the unborn), they invoke all of the personal freedom/"privacy of the bedroom" pieties as if they were written somewhere on stone tablets and brought down from Mt. Sinai by the Archangel Thomas Jefferson.
"It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis"
Got that right, they are about the most dogmatic people in the world. A set formula for everything.
Paloes are pretty dogmatic too.
Brad
And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.
This is incorrect. There are some libertarians who believe that. However, most hold that children, the insane, and senile are not capable of exercising their rights. Therefore, legal protection and limits on them are appropriate.
Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom.
This is incorrect. I do not believe that all free choices are equal. What I believe is that the cost of restricting free choice is, more often than not, greater than the cost of allowing an individual to freely make a poor choice.
Considering the author gets the "root dogma" of libertarianism wrong, that calls into question the rest of the piece.
I'm a Conservative with and I consider myself a 'small l' libertarian....
The Islamo-fascists attacked our country and it is my prime duty to help in any way I can to destroy the evil menace.
If that goes against some folks who say that is not libertarian, thats too friggin bad. I just wish our government would be as eager to destroy the enemy as I am.....we are way to easy on them and the stuff that goes on in abu grabe and Gitmo is just childs play compared to what we should be doing to get the scum to fess up and to 'name names'.
Why don't we wait until liberalism has been officially swept into the dustbins of history before we have this debate?
Just let Karl Hess, Ayn Rand and me be..
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here. then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.
---
The fallacies in this person's thinking is exposed in this sentence. People are most generous when they get to keep and spend their own money on what they choose. Governmental theft most often results in the money being spent in the wrong places, inefficiently and, on top of all of this, severely inhibits economic growth. A voluntary society not government tyrannically is exponentially more efficient at charity.
From 'Tsunami Tyranny'
http://www.neoperspectives.com/tsunami_tyranny.htm
Do you now see the reason for the disparity between the US public and private giving and that of the other countries of the world? The US has the highest per capita GDP of all those countries listed because we still respect the property of our citizens the most, which is reflective in our 'low' public Tsunami aid. However, the most interesting part of this entire analysis, and the key point of this paper, is that by respecting the property of our citizens the most we also assure that the largest and most important aid contributor in the Tsunami relief effort are the private citizens of the United States of America and their military.
Yes, freedom can be a radical idea.
So do serious philosophers.
This clown's package deal amounts to a variant of argumentum ad hominem: Since I really, really, CAN find some REALLY DESPICABLE people who are attracted to certain variations of this philosophy, therefore I can go about sloppily smearing all decent people who are attracted to other variations of this philosophy.
If libertarianism is ever to get a foothold in politics, concerned libertarians are going to have to create a new Libertarian party to chase the old one away. This means volunteering for party work with the 'pubbies or Dems to learn about the nuts and bolts of political organization, building a membership base and running candidates - successfully! - for state and local offices. Only after building up an infrastructure like the other parties have will the LP be able to take on the big boys.
Libertarianism is the same Benthamite nonsense Kirk spoke against in the 50s. The fact that Libertarians have yet to address the question of ordered liberty or the importance of ends shows, I think, how unserious it is as a political "philosophy."
Mr. Robert Locke mixes some half truths with a lot of verbage about that which he does not comprehend. For example, he is quite right in pointing out that "free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism. But not because it offers them a "clear conscience" as he proclaims, but rather because it offers them freedom. Libertarianism offers no approval to any honest, nonviolent, human action, be it beneficial or not beneficial. If a "clear conscience" is what is sought, libertarians (including atheists), would tell such a seeker to go see a minister, and not the local LP organizer.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most)...
It is true there are many varieties, but his above example demonstrates a complete ignorance of who and what they are. First off, his "from... to..." range is completely wrong. Had he understood what he was writing about he would have said '...from natural-law libertarianism to utilitarian libertarianism...' As far a "crazy" goes, he has got that completely wrong. It is "natural-law libertarianism" that is fanatical, uncompromising, and often way out in the extremes of left and right field. Where as utiltiarianism, is for the most part grounded in the theory and practice, as to what will work and not work, regardless of Libertarian principle. Many Libertarians, myself included, view both as having advantages as well as disadvantages.
In as far as Anarcho-capitalism goes, it is not at the opposite end from natural-law libertarianism as he pontificates. It in reality is found under the natural law umbrella, as it is pretty much monopolized by the natural-law libertarians, and thereby may be seen as more crazy than some other varieties. There are however utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, who present very good utilitarian arguments (ie International Society for Individual Liberty, formerly known as the Society for Individual Liberty).
At any rate, his entire article is full of specific errors that point to a broad ignorance of the topic on which he has written.
Editorializing thread titles is against FR guidelines.