Libetarianism (In Brief)

[lostclause]

But if the leader creates a form of public healthcare, it is no longer libertarianism.

I'm going on what the video says here so if your libertarianism is slightly different you may not believe this. You have the right to choose a leader and you choose a leader if you agree with his policies, that is natural. If you want healthcare you choose a leader that claims he/she will establish healthcare.
Maybe 'public' is where I've gone wrong. 'Community' may be a better word for it. After all groups of like minded people tend to congregate.
Of course this does raise the issue of what to do with the people who didn't vote for that leader. Do they get to partake in the benefits? Should it only be if their leader promises to establish healthcare too? I'm not sure for this bit.

 

[Alex_P]

Now the thread is beginning to suffer because libertarianism is being conflated with Rand's Objectivist movement, partly because most of the libertarian posters seem to also look favorably upon Rand's ideas. Objectivism is generally a "libertarian" ideology but its underpinnings are rather distinct from those of other "libertarian" movements.

For example:

I just have one question:

In this perfect libertarian world, who determines the value of work, the worker or the employer?

And if no concensus is reached, not because coercion, but because there is a dissagreement of the work's value, what then?

In a perfect Objectivist world, your goods or your work or your ideas have a specific objective value that all truly rational people would agree is the correct value.

In contrast, in a perfect, say, anarcho-capitalist libertarian world, we would all realize that value is subjective and engage in transactions whenever we thought they would benefit us, and because it's a perfect world these transactions would generally benefit both parties and we would all eventually be better off based on their own personal standards of happiness and value.

-- Alex

 

[lostclause]

Now the thread is beginning to suffer because libertarianism is being conflated with Rand's Objectivist movement, partly because most of the libertarian posters seem to also look favorably upon Rand's ideas. Objectivism is generally a "libertarian" ideology but its underpinnings are rather distinct from those of other "libertarian" movements.

I don't see the connection. I've just looked up Rand's philosophy and it doesn't seem to link in with this topic. Rand's philosophy (from my brief look) is about sensory perception and mutualism. Can you explain how that fits in to libertarianism.

 

[Alex_P]

By the way, I do not derive my philosophy from Atlas, It just is a brilliant book, with some good points and ideas, and as well, Rand said herself it's crucial NOT TO BE A SHEEP!

Unfortunately, Rand's entire movement was based on following her every little definition of just how to be a self-actualizing rational non-sheep with unflinchingly sheeply devotion.

Libertarian founder-figure Murray Rothbard had a brief flirtation with Objectivism. When he met Rand's circle, they asked him who his favorite Atlas Shrugged character was. He said he liked Eddie Willers.

Now, Eddie Willers is the guy who represents the righteous common man. He recognizes the rightness of the heroes but lacks the natural talents of Rand's philosopher-king overmen. So he helps them devotedly and courageously and ends up (probably) dying out in the desert, (probably) alone and forgotten.

The Randists then proceeded to tell him he was a irrational for choosing Eddie Willers over, say, John Galt. This was a deep moral failing on his part, apparently. They -- a bunch of people who mostly hung around writing little essays -- lectured him about why it was flat-out wrong for him to identify or sympathize with anyone who wasn't a mythically-supreme captain of industry driving the very motor of the world.

Needless to say, Rothbard didn't remain an Objectivist.

(This is just an oral history; I can't cite any authoritative sources. But look into your heart -- you know it to be true, you can feel the truth of the story on every damn self-congratulatory page of Atlas Shrugged. Also, Rothbard wrote a play about it [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html].)

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

I don't see the connection. I've just looked up Rand's philosophy and it doesn't seem to link in with this topic. Rand's philosophy (from my brief look) is about sensory perception and mutualism. Can you explain how that fits in to libertarianism.

Objectivists believe that their ethics are the natural consequence of their metaphysics and epistemology and that their political and economic ideology (laissez-faire capitalism) follows directly from their moral system. I'm not sure where you'd go to look it up, but probably any of Rand's works (or those of her proteges) will contain at least a paragraph about why laissez-faire capitalism is the only truly moral economic system.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

So, in other words, how is this "better" than having a regulatory body determining a price for the product that isn't too high for the buyer but not too low for the seller?

You're right with your general stab at the idea that truly anarchic "free markets" allow for exploitation through cabals, trust, monopolies, insider trading, and all that jazz.

The little bit I specifically quoted here is kind of taking the wrong tact, thought.

Why does a market economy work better than a planned economy? Because a controlling body simply can't collect and analyze the colossal quantity of information needed to make optimal pricing decisions. In the USSR, the government really did just go out and set prices. Like, someone would publish a report that would say "Okay, now you're supposed to sell bread for $1.35 exactly". This worked out terribly -- and I'm saying that as someone who knows a bit about the country's history, not some "communism bad!" knee-jerker. Imagine the price of bread fluctuating as wildly as the price of oil did a while ago -- the central planners were so far behind the actual shortages and surpluses that they couldn't help but force everything wildly up and down. Centrally-planning the production and distribution of goods was even worse. Imagine the kinds of behaviors you see for luxury goods like "summer blockbuster" opening day or a new video game console for basic necessities. When glasnost' made it okay to finally talk about this stuff, the country was doomed: there was no way that this kind of system could survive open political scrutiny. China, in contrast, managed to create economic growth and political stability by "opening up" its economy while keeping a lid on political expression (at the cost of, y'know, everything you lose when you keep a lid on political expression).

In a market economy, every single agent is participating in figuring out the "correct" price for something just by acting on whatever information it has to work with locally. In the absence of abuse and manipulation (monopolies, insider trading, fraud, &c. -- sometimes you definitely do need regulation to make that absence a reality), the emergent decision-making power of the whole system is much better able to synthesize data and react to changing economic conditions than a central planning body can.

-- Alex

 

[lostclause]

Objectivists believe that their ethics are the natural consequence of their metaphysics and epistemology and that their political and economic ideology (laissez-faire capitalism) follows directly from their moral system. I'm not sure where you'd go to look it up, but probably any of Rand's works (or those of her proteges) will contain at least a paragraph about why laissez-faire capitalism is the only truly moral economic system.

-- Alex

Surely there is no true moral economic system because firstly morality differs between individuals and cultures and secondly that human nature means that they will compromise their morals for profit, to a greater or lesser degree. This would be especially true in this 'laissez-faire' system because there is little or no regulation to prevent it (not sure about this, reading more).

 

[PurpleRain]

*snip*

This makes no sense. I'm going with the other guy when I can vote because of you.

Congratulations.

And no, we should not all own our lives fully - that implies complete freedom, and think of all the things people could do with that. No laws, no respect, nothing.

Not everyone is a nice person.

Remember that when you're voting.

Really? Did you watch the thing? It suggests leadership and government. Libetarianism is a form of society thus implying a government.

You're thinking chaosism(sp?) which is a scary thought. Even Anarchy has a system of control.

 

[Pocket Apocalypse]

1) Dumping, causing damage to the property on which they dump, is distinctly covered in the right to property. Air pollution is perhaps the only claim government has on business before men begin to feasible own cubic acres of atmosphere for development. Industrial disabilities are easily avoided by not working for that employer. Cartels are dissolved by people providing service for less. New resources and technology almost make the notion laughable, as the only reason for all industry to set high prices for everyone would be to take away the production capacity of the consumers, reducing the ability to create products and therefore decrease everyone's quality of life, including their own.

I'm sorry, Xblade, but history is flat-out against you on this one. Read up on (as one example) the power cartels in America in the 30s, and how they responded to the New Deal's Rural Electrification Authority (agency?). These guys charged exorbitant prices, so no-one in rural America could afford electrification. The REA did some very extensive investigation, and came to the view that if the cartels lowered prices and got the prices of appliances (which they often controlled) down, their profits would increase by a small but substantial amount. Those companies which cooperated with or were coerced by the REA did substantially better than their competitors, and yet some companies still refused to lower prices.

EDIT: This point also replies to Alex_P's post #90

Imagine the doctor did not exist in your example. Where's the issue? There is no moral issue, just the physical one of a man dying. Now imagine there is a doctor. He can help the man. Why does he have to? Simply because he can? Such a rationalization is no more than an extention of original sin; that if I can help others, I must. There is no reason, neither personal or ethical, just that I can.

It's a bit presumptive to say there's no moral issue just because there's no-one who could help. You could (and I would, though more on moral instinct than on the basis of argument) equally say that the society as a whole is responsible for failing to provide a doctor to save a man; we horrible oppressive socialists are always talking about how society fails some people

 

[lostclause]

Imagine the doctor did not exist in your example. Where's the issue? There is no moral issue, just the physical one of a man dying. Now imagine there is a doctor. He can help the man. Why does he have to? Simply because he can? Such a rationalization is no more than an extention of original sin; that if I can help others, I must. There is no reason, neither personal or ethical, just that I can.

It's a bit presumptive to say there's no moral issue just because there's no-one who could help. You could (and I would, though more on moral instinct than on the basis of argument) equally say that the society as a whole is responsible for failing to provide a doctor to save a man; we horrible oppressive socialists are always talking about how society fails some people

How can there be a moral issue if it's impossible to have a choice? I think that's what he's saying at any rate.

Yes but a dying man is comparatively simple, he can be saved and it is mission accomplished. Ridding society of her ills is more difficult and more drawn out therefore few people try to tackle the problem. Are they any less ethical? No, just realistic to realise that it is beyond their own means (and possibly a little bit selfish but that's natural).
EDIT: Sorry, I've screwed up the quotes. Fixed now.

 

[Alex_P]

Surely there is no true moral economic system because firstly morality differs between individuals and cultures and secondly that human nature means that they will compromise their morals for profit, to a greater or lesser degree. This would be especially true in this 'laissez-faire' system because there is little or no regulation to prevent it (not sure about this, reading more).

Objectivists generally hold that there is only one set of truly rational moral or ethical beliefs. Therefore, the fact that people adhere to different moral systems is merely evidence that most people aren't acting with rational self-interest.

You probably disagree with that idea. I definitely do. But that's more or less how it works. That's why it's "objectivist". (And why "subjectivist", like "collectivist", is an Objectivist attack-word.)

-- Alex

 

[lostclause]

Objectivists generally hold that there is only one set of truly rational moral or ethical beliefs. Therefore, the fact that people adhere to different moral systems is merely evidence that most people aren't acting with rational self-interest.

You probably disagree with that idea. I definitely do. But that's more or less how it works. That's why it's "objectivist". (And why "subjectivist", like "collectivist", is an Objectivist attack-word.)

-- Alex

Actually that makes sense if you're religious because there is only one perfect moral standard (god or karma or whatever) and I take it 'rational self interest' would be getting to heaven. I'm not religious so yeah, I disagree but I can see where they're coming from.

 

[Alex_P]

EDIT: This point also replies to Alex_P's post #90

It definitely is worthwhile to point out that one of the limits of markets is that big public-good type stuff generally doesn't happen spontaneously in a true "free" market. That's something that was missing from my previous post. (Also, I'm starting to get annoyed at just how ill-defined a construct "free market" can be.)

Even most of the hardcore libertarians kinda admit this when they say that you still need government to take care of things like police departments -- they just massively understate exactly what kinds of services and infrastructure a modern society needs to get anything done.

...

The real strength of modern Western "market economies" is that they are mixtures of bottom-up "freedom" and top-down regulation that have developed more-or-less organically over time(*) to meet the resource-allocation needs of their home countries fairly effectively(**). That means they're not at all ideologically pure and every single political faction or economic school has some big beef with them, but they do work most of the time.

-- Alex
__________
* - With some birth pangs and continuing hiccups. The electrification thing is a good example.
** - Let me stress that: home countries. Transplanting an economic system somewhere else is as much of a crapshoot as transplanting a political system.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Fondant and Alex_P

As I said, I juyst take extracts from Rand, like the concept of Rational selfishness, It's revolutionary! So many little things can be taken from Rand, the whole Philosophy is flawed, I admit, but the little things you take from it are fantastic!

Anyhow, this thread is about Libertarianism, not Objectivism, lets try to separate the two, for once.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to watch a video that outlines an ideology that I am already familiar with (and one that I've adopted, for the most part).

Then why post? Surely you must have more to say, even if it's just a rebuttal to some of the other views here.

As for me, I found it very interesting, although as much as I like it, it doesn't seem feasible. To work, it really needs everyone to think the same way (Screw your beliefs, I don't follow them! Now do what I say or I'll shoot you!). Which just isn't going to happen, as long as there are different tribes in the world. Unify the world, then get to work on it.

Although, you could say that to get to work on it, we'll need to share an opinion.

Maybe we need to endure a period of forced ideals in order to reach the utopia we all desire?

 

[Pocket Apocalypse]

How can there be a moral issue if it's impossible to have a choice? I think that's what he's saying at any rate.

I recognise that choice is a necessity for moral responsibility, at least in some way. However, individual affirmative choice isn't the only kind of choice; another relevant kind of choice is societal negligence, and if this results in there not being a doctor to save a man whose death could be prevented, everyone who participated in the societal negligence (by choosing for him/herself not to be a doctor, by choosing not to support others who become doctors etc.) would bear some share of the responsibility, with the society, as (at least) the sum of its people, bearing full responsibility.

 

[lostclause]

How can there be a moral issue if it's impossible to have a choice? I think that's what he's saying at any rate.

I recognise that choice is a necessity for moral responsibility, at least in some way. However, individual affirmative choice isn't the only kind of choice; another relevant kind of choice is societal negligence, and if this results in there not being a doctor to save a man whose death could be prevented, everyone who participated in the societal negligence (by choosing for him/herself not to be a doctor, by choosing not to support others who become doctors etc.) would bear some share of the responsibility, with the society, as (at least) the sum of its people, bearing full responsibility.

I think that the circumstances here are too broad. If we say the man is dying 100 miles from the nearest house should there have been a doctor there and is society failing to provide said doctor? That makes it seem ridiculous to blame it on society but if it's in a city, stabbed by some bored youths then you have a plausible case.
But yes, here the circumstances are too vague. Interesting point you raise though.

 

[Pax1]

Who reported Fondant?