Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Libertarianism is based upon hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure. Hedonism by it’s very nature is Godlessness.


2 posted on 09/22/2012 2:55:47 AM PDT by Bullish (Barry's not fit to shine the shoes of a REAL President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Bullish

Is all pleasure hedonism? What is, and what isn’t?


3 posted on 09/22/2012 3:25:16 AM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Bullish

God Himself is libertarian in His behavior toward us. He has the power to forcibly stop us from doing evil, or to make us do good, but instead leaves us free to act as we will & to suffer the earthly consequences of poor decisions.


4 posted on 09/22/2012 3:42:29 AM PDT by Sloth (If a tax break counts as "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should be a "deposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Bullish

“Libertinism” and “libertarianism” are not the same thing. You have them confused. The corollary of what you just said can be taken to mean that the government is God, or should be. I doubt that’s what you meant.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george4.html for a good discussion on libertine vs. libertarian.


8 posted on 09/22/2012 3:56:32 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Bullish; Cincinatus' Wife

Thanks for taking the time to post an excerpt which I trust summarizes an article that I don’t have time to read now but want to which analyzes a book that I want to read later and probably won’t have time to for at least another 15 years (our fifth is due in 8 days and my wife is still in her early 30s). [I probably could have skimmed the article rather than writing this post—but oh well and the writing is educational for me as well].

In practice, many libertarieans may be hedonists. That said, I am sure that both Mises and the author of the article are well enough read to know that in western philosophical circles the observation that all men desire happiness runs strong in the tradition from Socrates to Aquinas (and after in those who do not want to break with the tradition, which probably include Mieses and the author of the article). From Socrates on those in the tradition are careful to distinguish themselves from and deal with the arguments of the hedonists—who after all were Socrates’ contemporaries.

It seems to me that the flaw in Mises is that he neglects a theological fact called by Catholics “disordered appetites—one of the effects of original sin.” Everything we desire, at least in some very remote sense, is of itself appropriate to us, but the degree to which we desire it and the way in which we desire it in comparison to other things is usually not appropriate (having a family is part of natural happiness—therefor I desire women, which is good, but maybe more than is actually appropriate—if my desire for women becomes unclear enough so that it is a general desire for people the desire has been perverted). Chesterton called Original Sin the only revealed supernatural truth that is demonstrable in such a way that it should be universally admitted (I am paraphrasing).


9 posted on 09/22/2012 3:57:31 AM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson