Which Truely Has More Influence Over Libertarian Thought?

[David S]

Wallet content?

Forget that comment. It's even sillier than the topic at hand.

Not really.. the odd thing is lots of libertarians are workers - they just have no sense or are frightfully masochistic. 

But it is certainly true that those who have money (aka power), which is a privilege provided by State force, tend to midunderstand its source, and believe in silly fictions like individual bootstrapping and private enterprise, etc.

...after realizing that if a socialism would be enacted, he would become part of the state's elite.

How would that come about?

My assumption was that Mr. O's objective was to be the recipient of the "generous welfare benefits for those who choose not to work."

[Citizen James]

Just as the terms "Liberal" and "conservative" are somewhat vague, not clearly defined terms - I would consider "libertarian" to be the same.

In terms of what I would consider libertarian, social darwinism would be almost an anthtisis to it.   Granted, just as "neoconservatives" have a very limited connection to conservatism (and in many ways are closer to maoism), some people who refer to themselves as "libertarian" really focus more on what they should  be allowed to do rather than the orginization of a well run society.

In college many years ago (back in the 80's) I knew a number of people I tended to think of a 'cookie socialists'.  They came from rich families, they were rebelling against their parents and smoking a few too many funny cigarettes.  They would talk about the needs of "the workers" but had never worked a day in their lives, much less ever experienced lack.   They used to fantisize that when the revolution came the people would automaticaly recognize their great wisdom and place them on pedastools as their appointed leaders for life - rather than the usual throw them agaisnt the wall and shoot them.   There are perhaps few things more pathetic/amusing than seeing a rich person scrawl graffitti encouraging people to "eat the rich".

I think many of these psudo-libertarians are in a similar boat.  They fancy themselves as being superior - and that they should be able to do whatever they want and exploit whomever they want and due to the 'natural superiority' they give themselves in their pipe dreams they believe they would quickly rise to the top in such a jungle to bask in their wealth and inherently superior cleverness.

Contrast that with what I would consider 'real' libertarians, who believe that most individuals are sensible enough to make good decisions.  One of the key concepts of healthy capitalism is that exchange is a win/win proposition.  Social darwinists tend to focus on life as a zero sum game, and are more likely to live by the brass rule (do unto others before they do unto you). 

In an ideal libertarian world (or what I would consider to be one), laws would be minimal and placed to deal with the individuals who did not respect the rights of others - which would be considered the exception rather than the rule - the opposite of social darwinism.  People with illnesses would be allowed to shop in a marketplace of various treatments with information available as to the relative effectiveness, and some those who were highly successful would see the benefit of "giving back" to society thus continuing the stablity which contributes to their great success.  An open flow of information would help people have access to a marketplace of ideas in order to choose the decisions which are best for them.   The efficiency of win/win trade and the general goodness of people would assure that nobody was left in destitute poverty so much as to turn to desperate measures.

Of course, this could all be as unpractical as Marx's worker's paradise - but certain elements (in particualar some of the social elements) have some appeal to me.  I believe strongly that an open marketplace of ideas is generally benficial, that government should be as transperent as possible, and that most people are basicly good (though far from saints).

[12th Doctor]

I would have to disagree with you on one major point.  The main reason liberal and conservative tend to not be very well defined terms is because libertarians and populists tend to get thrown under the same tent for having "similar" ideas.  When one declares themselves to be a libertarian, they are saying something very sepcific about their political ideology.

[bullmoose88]

I would have to disagree with you on one major point.  The main reason liberal and conservative tend to not be very well defined terms is because libertarians and populists tend to get thrown under the same tent for having "similar" ideas.  When one declares themselves to be a libertarian, they are saying something very sepcific about their political ideology.

Err...what about liberal leaning libertarians and conservative leaning libertarians...aren't they thrown under the same tent?

[AkSaber]

option 2, obviously.

libertarians want their 'personal freedom' at the expense of those at the bottom of the ladder.

Uh.... Aren't you the one who wants to make everyone pay more taxes so you can have healthcare, paid work days off and paid vacation days?

yes, i want a health care system that *everyone* has access to.

radical idea eh?

It's the whole "forcing everyone to pay for it" part that I'm not crazy about.

[MaC]

Wallet content?

Forget that comment. It's even sillier than the topic at hand.

Not really.. the odd thing is lots of libertarians are workers - they just have no sense or are frightfully masochistic. 

But it is certainly true that those who have money (aka power), which is a privilege provided by State force, tend to midunderstand its source, and believe in silly fictions like individual bootstrapping and private enterprise, etc.

...after realizing that if a socialism would be enacted, he would become part of the state's elite.

How would that come about?

My assumption was that Mr. O's objective was to be the recipient of the "generous welfare benefits for those who choose not to work."

David S, you have to think about this like a socialist leader would.  I'm sure Stalin and others promised similar things and then when they became the new top of the hierarchy-they didn't have to do anything (ex. Mao who didn't allow a market or government to provide for people)

opebo was capitalist because his parents are on the upper rung.  He believes that if a coup or revolution would happen in the US-that his status as an elite would be maintained.  That's why he believes what he does.  "Generous welfare state" is just a nice sound bite that appeal to others.

Yeah, it took me a while to figure this out, but I hope I've enlightened you too

[David S]

Wallet content?

Forget that comment. It's even sillier than the topic at hand.

Not really.. the odd thing is lots of libertarians are workers - they just have no sense or are frightfully masochistic. 

But it is certainly true that those who have money (aka power), which is a privilege provided by State force, tend to midunderstand its source, and believe in silly fictions like individual bootstrapping and private enterprise, etc.

...after realizing that if a socialism would be enacted, he would become part of the state's elite.

How would that come about?

My assumption was that Mr. O's objective was to be the recipient of the "generous welfare benefits for those who choose not to work."

David S, you have to think about this like a socialist leader would.  I'm sure Stalin and others promised similar things and then when they became the new top of the hierarchy-they didn't have to do anything (ex. Mao who didn't allow a market or government to provide for people)

opebo was capitalist because his parents are on the upper rung.  He believes that if a coup or revolution would happen in the US-that his status as an elite would be maintained.  That's why he believes what he does.  "Generous welfare state" is just a nice sound bite that appeal to others.

Yeah, it took me a while to figure this out, but I hope I've enlightened you too

Well I've gained a few pounds over the winter so I suppose I could use a little enlightening. 

Anyway, under a communist regime I think the most likely destination for the previously wealthy would be at the end of a rope.

I'm not sure how much time I want to spend trying to psychoanalyze Mr. O.
Seems like a pointless exercise.

[SPC]

I'd say my main motivation is liberty, but social darwinism is a pleasant side effect. I would not accept social darwinism if it intruded in my liberty, but since it doesn't, I'd say it's like having your cake and eating it too.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Social Darwinism, sadly. But it ought not.

Gustaf, you really should do a little more research before you post.

Well, I suppose there aren't many libertarians in Sweden so you haven't had a chance to meet very many libertarians.

If you peruse the literature, you will see that the key base literature predates Darwin.

Further, if you talk with libertarians, you will see that most either come from the right (they emphazie free enterprise) or the left (they emphazie civil liberties).

[Gabu]

Gustaf, you really should do a little more research before you post.

Well, I suppose there aren't many libertarians in Sweden so you haven't had a chance to meet very many libertarians.

If you peruse the literature, you will see that the key base literature predates Darwin.

The idea of "Social Darwinism" (that the less fortunate should simply die off and make room for the more fortunate) existed long before Darwin did; it simply wouldn't have had that name.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Define "Libertarian" for a start.

If you mean the US defintion of the word, then Ayn Rand's warped concept of Liberty would be the winner, which of course in itself was influenced by Social darwinism.

[John Dibble]

Define "Libertarian" for a start.

If you mean the US defintion of the word, then Ayn Rand's warped concept of Liberty would be the winner, which of course in itself was influenced by Social darwinism.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was objectivism, which many consider to be a subset of libertarian philosophies. Apparently Rand wasn't too fond of libertarianism, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Define "Libertarian" for a start.

If you mean the US defintion of the word, then Ayn Rand's warped concept of Liberty would be the winner, which of course in itself was influenced by Social darwinism.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was objectivism, which many consider to be a subset of libertarian philosophies. Apparently Rand wasn't too fond of libertarianism, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rand's problems with political libertarianism seem to spring by that some libertarians are actually realists.. with morals ... (as shocking as that seems..)

Are you denying that Ayn Rand was a huge influence on the libertarian movement, despite her distancing herself from it?

[John Dibble]

Are you denying that Ayn Rand was a huge influence on the libertarian movement, despite her distancing herself from it?

No, I'm not. Many libertarians at least partially borrow from Rand's ideas, or have similar ideas with alterations, but by and large I don't feel that most libertarians are hardcore Randians. Rand is far from the only influence on the libertarian movement.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Are you denying that Ayn Rand was a huge influence on the libertarian movement, despite her distancing herself from it?

No, I'm not. Many libertarians at least partially borrow from Rand's ideas, or have similar ideas with alterations, but by and large I don't feel that most libertarians are hardcore Randians. Rand is far from the only influence on the libertarian movement.

I know that, but she's probably the most important influence on the movement in the United States. At least more than anyone else I can think of. The likes of Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, etc are perhaps more important to academics, economists, etc but Rand seems to me the most influential thinker in terms of rank-and-file libertarians, generally.

[A18]

It's probably a waste of time arguing over what the "real" influences on libertarian thought have been. Libertarianism is a political philosophy of non-aggression against the person and property of individuals. That is all; the justifications for it are another subject, and they vary from person to person, thinker to thinker, layman to layman.

But the giants of libertarianism would not seem to qualify as Social Darwinists. Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus is entitled "Economic Harmonies," which would not be a very apt name for a Social Darwinist screed. I seem to recall Mises specifically denouncing the Darwin analogy in Human Action, and Adam Smith believed firmly that the "invisible hand" of the free market would improve the general welfare of society.

Alas, it is always easier to caricature the positions of your opponents than to argue honestly against them.

[John Dibble]

Are you denying that Ayn Rand was a huge influence on the libertarian movement, despite her distancing herself from it?

No, I'm not. Many libertarians at least partially borrow from Rand's ideas, or have similar ideas with alterations, but by and large I don't feel that most libertarians are hardcore Randians. Rand is far from the only influence on the libertarian movement.

I know that, but she's probably the most important influence on the movement in the United States. At least more than anyone else I can think of. The likes of Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, etc are perhaps more important to academics, economists, etc but Rand seems to me the most influential thinker in terms of rank-and-file libertarians, generally.

I disagree. What I would agree with is that she's the most famous, but that doesn't mean she's the most influential.

[Gustaf]

Social Darwinism, sadly. But it ought not.

Gustaf, you really should do a little more research before you post.

Well, I suppose there aren't many libertarians in Sweden so you haven't had a chance to meet very many libertarians.

If you peruse the literature, you will see that the key base literature predates Darwin.

Further, if you talk with libertarians, you will see that most either come from the right (they emphazie free enterprise) or the left (they emphazie civil liberties).

I know many libertarians personally, here in Sweden. And I've read both Rand and Nozick. I've even contributed to one of the main libertarian magazines in Sweden. So I wouldn't say that I'm unfamiliar with it. You may want to do a little more research on people before you assume that they don't know anything.

I'm not sure which libertarians you would say predate Darwin. Smith and the rest did of course, if that's what you're referring to. But as Gabu points out the idea itself is much older than Darwin. It is for instance proposed by Callicles in Gorgias, one of Plato's dialouges.

Now, if we're talking about the philosophical level, then, yes, I would say libertarianism is more influenced by liberty. Nozick, one of my personal favourites among libertarian thinkers, certainly is. But I thought we were talking about actual real-life libertarians. And then it doesn't seem to be the case, especially not on this forum. There are a couple of points to be discussed there, which I'm willing to bring up if you want to go in-depth. Ayn Rand on the other hand is definitely a social darwinist.

Finally, it should be noted that traditionally many libertarian thinkers have been utilitarians, but I don't know that it's a particularly viable position and is therefore kind of obsolete.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Social Darwinism, sadly. But it ought not.

Gustaf, you really should do a little more research before you post.

Well, I suppose there aren't many libertarians in Sweden so you haven't had a chance to meet very many libertarians.

If you peruse the literature, you will see that the key base literature predates Darwin.

Further, if you talk with libertarians, you will see that most either come from the right (they emphazie free enterprise) or the left (they emphazie civil liberties).

I know many libertarians personally, here in Sweden. And I've read both Rand and Nozick. I've even contributed to one of the main libertarian magazines in Sweden. So I wouldn't say that I'm unfamiliar with it. You may want to do a little more research on people before you assume that they don't know anything.

I'm not sure which libertarians you would say predate Darwin. Smith and the rest did of course, if that's what you're referring to. But as Gabu points out the idea itself is much older than Darwin. It is for instance proposed by Callicles in Gorgias, one of Plato's dialouges.

Now, if we're talking about the philosophical level, then, yes, I would say libertarianism is more influenced by liberty. Nozick, one of my personal favourites among libertarian thinkers, certainly is. But I thought we were talking about actual real-life libertarians. And then it doesn't seem to be the case, especially not on this forum. There are a couple of points to be discussed there, which I'm willing to bring up if you want to go in-depth. Ayn Rand on the other hand is definitely a social darwinist.

Finally, it should be noted that traditionally many libertarian thinkers have been utilitarians, but I don't know that it's a particularly viable position and is therefore kind of obsolete.

First, its nice to see you say you have read Dr. Robert Nozick's works.  Which one did you find most impressive?

Second, your previous post and elements of your current one indicate a left-wing know-nothinism which makes your assertion of estensive knowledge more than a little suspect.

Third, I suggest you also review you Plato.  Plato was by no means a libertarian but rather a totalitarian who had many of the characters in his dialogues spew his theories. 

Fourth, I have had the good fortune to meet thousands of libertarians over my lifetime (running the gamut from Ludwig von Mises - I have an autographed copy of his book, Socialism, in my collection, to a former girlfried who was an agorist, and the entire range in between).

Fifth, I have contributed to Reason (obviously under another name).  What is the Swedish journal to which you contributed?

Sixth, utilitarianism is a shifty school of philosophy (abeit Bentham had some well written critiques) which is pretty universally rejected.

Seventh, in America we treasure Hayek (intellectually) and Patrick Henry (politically).

[Bono]

Sixth, utilitarianism is a shifty school of philosophy (abeit Bentham had some well written critiques) which is pretty universally rejected.

Is it? I've never noticed. I find that most people, whether they realize it or not, are consequentialists.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sixth, utilitarianism is a shifty school of philosophy (abeit Bentham had some well written critiques) which is pretty universally rejected.

Is it? I've never noticed. I find that most people, whether they realize it or not, are consequentialists.

One of the oldest examples of this is the example of scapegoating.

It might be "popular," but it is unjust.

[Bono]

Sixth, utilitarianism is a shifty school of philosophy (abeit Bentham had some well written critiques) which is pretty universally rejected.

Is it? I've never noticed. I find that most people, whether they realize it or not, are consequentialists.

One of the oldest examples of this is the example of scapegoating.

It might be "popular," but it is unjust.

I'm not an utilitarian in any sense of the word. I'm a theonomist. I was just arguing against your assertion that it is "pretty universally rejected".