Author Topic: Libertarianism defined  (Read 2147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Libertarianism defined
« on: May 28, 2003, 03:14:00 PM »
This is a letter written by a local (to PA) guy in response to a NYT article that grossly mischaracterized Libertarianism. I think it hits pretty close to the mark on what most Libertarians seem to think.

Quote
Libertarians agree that citizenship is a cooperative endeavor.  But government fosters, not cooperation, but regimentation.  To libertarians, including the statesmen who founded this country, government's proper role is to protect us from those who would initiate force.  Mr. Dionne and the communitarians want the government to force us all to work for what someone decides is "the common good", and then call the result "cooperation".


When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.
-- Gary Lloyd

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline JDavid

  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/moondiggum
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2003, 03:27:00 PM »
Libertarian is a term with a really whacked history of its definitions.  At some point, it was basic anarchism.  The idea I get is that it later became Libertarian Communism when the basic anarchists couldn't come up with any productive solutions or something.  Now it's "The Libertarian Party" in the US whose government model is much larger than both of the original libertarian groups that I have heard of.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2003, 04:06:00 PM »
Well, I don't know all that much about the history of Libertarianism outside of ppl like Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. I do know that terms of distinction like liberal, conservative and others have been so grossly distorted and misused over the years as to be completely meaningless.

tompaine.com seems to be an entirely socialist site. Ol'e Tom must be turning in his grave. The Founders were refered to as 'liberals' in their day, and proudly so, because they advocated dismantling the status quo for something different and the 'liberal' ideal they wanted as a replacement was individual liberty from government, except a certain, narrowly defined role.

If you want to know the official Libertarian position, go to http://lp.org/ and/or all the various state and local chapters. libertarianism is much more broadly defined, as it's used by a lot of people who don't necessarily agree with everything the party stands for; hence the charge that "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron.

Personally, I like the definition I posted.

return (undef()) if /coercion/is;

Bigot: One fanatically devoted to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary' target='_new'>Webster's

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline JDavid

  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/moondiggum
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2003, 11:27:00 PM »
Nozick's Theory of Justice and the Locke Proviso are Libertarian fundamentals.  They seem like excellent principles for justice, but they are missing a few important details.  If you look into those, imagine the difference of practicing those with a state and without one.


[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-06-05 20:43 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Froderik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7547
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2003, 01:42:00 PM »
Earth's a padded cell
Defanged and declawed
I'm living in hell it's a paradise fraud
Straight jacket minds in line to be old
Telling me to want,
Let time slip through my teeth
Well i'm not the fool,
I'm going to town
Manic reactions are always a buzz
I'm suspect, the stranger in disguise
It's forced itself upon me,
Something i can't hide

Looking at you inside of you
Behind your eyes, through your mind
Looking at you, inside of you
I'm invisible, nowhere to hide
I'm obscene the living dead
See the flys feed off your head
Looking at you i'm inside of you
It's walden two but the flower's dead
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline JDavid

  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/moondiggum
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2003, 04:30:00 PM »
Someone brought up Ayn Rand's Objectivism as an opposition to Anarchism today.  I thought I'd bring it on over here & paste it to show what became of it.  Below this paragraph is stuff which went on over there.  Objectivism stuff is in italics:

I just read your comparisons of Objectivism to Anarchism. The main point to look for in all those comparisons is the difference between the individual and the community. Objectivism separates the individual from the community. Anarchism submerges the individual into the community.

Under Objectivism, you only are to receive only when you can coerce, which can be a good trade or a threatening trade. Either way, it is limiting and unnecessary.

In Anarchism, everyone wants/needs it, so everyone creates it. Rather than put a price on it, everyone gets access to it (all of it). Beyond that, you can trade all you want as long as you aren't backing your trade with a threat. That's what submergence into the community is basically all about.

I can spend a little time taking a stance against Rand. Rand is capitalist or capitalist apologist, by the way. Here we go with some Objectivism...

Regarding Rand being a capitalist apologist, just look what she says here: Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.?

She is attaching individual rights to property rights which in effect applies a barrier between you and your community. Notice that such capitalist apologies do not ever give you a reason to separate yourself from your community in this fashion. Please don't tell me you want privacy and autonomy because my response will be "your community also wants you to have privacy and autonomy, lots of it".

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom.

Consider that a capitalist's claim that your freedom does not extend beyond your freedom to think. Everything else can be considered freedom by permission, and trading = permission. Anarchists reject this limitation. Anarchists believe human freedom is unlimited in all aspects, materially, spiritually or otherwise with the one limit being: we are not free to impose or covertly coerce others, which capitalism DOES allow.

Man ? every man ? is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.? Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism ? the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

This is a justification for greed. You work for your own self interests, but how are your self interests going to be satisfied if you reject altruism? This leaves you with two choices: Either be a self-sufficient primitivist or practice coercion of other people, your employees for example.

Anarchists realize altruism is much more beneficial to all than coercion. We treat trade as a secondary method, and we do not "coerce" in the form of a threat. We "coerce" only in the form of offering a trade which can be declined without the other party suffering a loss. All coercion in capitalism IS backed by a threat or a loss except for the party who "came out on top" in the deal. Altruism is the first priority for anarchism, trading is the secondary measure. Objectivism requires trade as the only method. Why limit yourself to trade/coercion? Just for the sake of greed? Just so you can needlessly separate your "property" from your community when your community would respect your "possessions" to begin with? Respect for possessions can be found even in Objectivism: "no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others".

Ok so Objectivism says "no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others" and it says "Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights"

Think of this as a capitalist selling you rights protection in the form of government when it is not necessary if you'd just recognize altruism and extend your personal freedom beyond your capitalist-permitted (limited) freedom to think and trade.

Once they sell you "government rights protection", you open up a whole new can of worms which actually contradicts another Libertarian, Nozick and his Theory of Justice. It requires "Moral and justified appropriation through the mixing of labor and time with the Earth's resources." If you practice this WITH government rights protection, you are enabling artificial appropriation, which is neither justified nor moral!

More of Objectivism's capitalist advocation: Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current ?mixed economy? notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

So Objectivism wants a government for the sole purpose of enabling you to trade your way into artificial appropriation of Earth's resources, which intrudes upon the survival of others. See what is happening in Objectivism? They do not want government to redistribute wealth, but they also do not want to permit a natural form of wealth distribution.

Objectivism outlaws (laws=force) almost all of what can be accomplished in anarchism.

Anarchism does not outlaw all which can be done in Objectivism; however, anarchism does disable offensive appropriation.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2003, 06:01:00 AM »
Quote
On 2003-06-07 13:30:00, JDavid wrote:

"Someone brought up Ayn Rand's Objectivism as an opposition to Anarchism today.  I thought I'd bring it on over here & paste it to show what became of it.  Below this paragraph is stuff which went on over there.  Objectivism stuff is in italics:


I disagree with a lot o f the poinst made here.  I will share my perspective ofr the sake of constructive discussion.  I ll put my stuff in bold



I just read your comparisons of Objectivism to Anarchism. The main point to look for in all those comparisons is the difference between the individual and the community. Objectivism separates the individual from the community. Anarchism submerges the individual into the community.



Under Objectivism, you only are to receive only when you can coerce, which can be a good trade or a threatening trade. Either way, it is limiting and unnecessary.



In Anarchism, everyone wants/needs it, so everyone creates it. Rather than put a price on it, everyone gets access to it (all of it). Beyond that, you can trade all you want as long as you aren't backing your trade with a threat. That's what submergence into the community is basically all about.


That is actually an extremely interesting perspective.  it took me a minute to see what you meant by that.  DEFINATELY food for thought!



I can spend a little time taking a stance against Rand. Rand is capitalist or capitalist apologist, by the way. Here we go with some Objectivism...



Regarding Rand being a capitalist apologist, just look what she says here: Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.?



She is attaching individual rights to property rights which in effect applies a barrier between you and your community. Notice that such capitalist apologies do not ever give you a reason to separate yourself from your community in this fashion. Please don't tell me you want privacy and autonomy because my response will be "your community also wants you to have privacy and autonomy, lots of it".


Of course propery rights are certainly, a sub-category under individual rights.  I cannot imagine an argument against that.



That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom.



Consider that a capitalist's claim that your freedom does not extend beyond your freedom to think. Everything else can be considered freedom by permission, and trading = permission. Anarchists reject this limitation. Anarchists believe human freedom is unlimited in all aspects, materially, spiritually or otherwise with the one limit being:




I think that what Ayn Rand was pointing out is that all freedom begins in the mind.  All that you voluntarily do, has to first begin within your mind





 we are not free to impose or covertly coerce others, which capitalism DOES allow.



Capatitalism explicity rejects coercion and imposition of all types.  Perhaps, you can elaborate on how capitalists carry these activities out, covertly.








Man ? every man ? is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.? Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism ? the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.



This is a justification for greed. You work for your own self interests, but how are your self interests going to be satisfied if you reject altruism?




Can you state your reason that a person cannot carry out your their own self interest, while rejecting altruisms?





This leaves you with two choices: Either be a self-sufficient primitivist or practice coercion of other people, your employees for example.




There is a third option.  You can engage in mutual exchanges of values, voluntarily.  You trade your value for the value of another.



Anarchists realize altruism is much more beneficial to all than coercion. We treat trade as a secondary method, and we do not "coerce" in the form of a threat.




I don t understand the reason that you are attributing threats and cohersion to objectivism.  Objectism does not advocate these things, but again, explicitly rejects them





 We "coerce" only in the form of offering a trade which can be declined without the other party suffering a loss. All coercion in capitalism IS backed by a threat or a loss except for the party who "came out on top" in the deal.



 I am looking at a PC monitor right now.  I bought it with my money.  The people who sold it to me wanted my money and I wanted the monitor. Everybody came out on top, and nobody sufferred any losses.  This is the capatalistic model






 Altruism is the first priority for anarchism, trading is the secondary measure. Objectivism requires trade as the only method. Why limit yourself to trade/coercion? Just for the sake of greed?


Just so you can needlessly separate your "property" from your community when your community would respect your "possessions" to begin with?



More often then not, you re community will only respect your propery if you respect it.  The world is not a perfect place







 Respect for possessions can be found even in Objectivism: "no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others".



Ok so Objectivism says "no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others" and it says "Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights"



Think of this as a capitalist selling you rights protection in the form of government when it is not necessary if you'd just recognize altruism and extend your personal freedom beyond your capitalist-permitted (limited) freedom to think and trade.



Once they sell you "government rights protection", you open up a whole new can of worms which actually contradicts another Libertarian, Nozick and his Theory of Justice. It requires "Moral and justified appropriation through the mixing of labor and time with the Earth's resources." If you practice this WITH government rights protection, you are enabling artificial appropriation, which is neither justified nor moral!




I m not in complete agreement with Objectivism ideas on government either.  Most philosophies, I od think have theit limitations.







More of Objectivism's capitalist advocation: Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current ?mixed economy? notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.



So Objectivism wants a government for the sole purpose of enabling you to trade your way into artificial appropriation of Earth's resources, which intrudes upon the survival of others. See what is happening in Objectivism? They do not want government to redistribute wealth, but they also do not want to permit a natural form of wealth distribution.



Objectivism outlaws (laws=force) almost all of what can be accomplished in anarchism.



Anarchism does not outlaw all which can be done in Objectivism; however, anarchism does disable offensive appropriation.

"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline JDavid

  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/moondiggum
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2003, 07:14:00 AM »
Hello Paul St John.  I recently had a similar reply to yours on the original site where this is taking place.  The message I am importing is enormous.  It covers what you're talking about plus a few other things.

The other guy's stuff along with the things he was replying to (written by me) are in italics.  Here it is:

(rand) is attaching individual rights to property rights.

That is a totally and completly justified statement.


Are you familiar with the difference between possessions and property in political ideology? Property means one thing: you can horde it or abandon it while a government guards it. Property requires government protection in order to exist. Possessions are in fact owned with or without a government's validation.

This is good that we're starting out with property vs. possessions because this is the difference between fake and real. Property is fake because it requires force (government) to be recognized. Anything which requires an artifical structure (government) to back "ideas" with force is not "real". Possessions are real...

Your goods and property are an extension of you. The labors of your mind and of your hands become, by extension your property.

Those are possessions. You own anything you build, anything you buy, anything you barter for as long as it is in your possession. The house you live in is not truly property. It is a possession.

The problem with property (enforced by government) is that it is offensive. A builder can horde land and guard it with the state's force until he builds tons of houses on it to sell rather than leave it free to the community to decide what to do with it. An investor can buy empty apartment complexes and charge people rent rather than people owning them and having to sell them (one by one) before they leave.

I'm not really illustrating its entire offensiveness well at this time, but the idea is that "property" leads to far too much wealth centralization. Property causes people to spend too much of their lives finding a way to pay rent or a mortgage all because someone else had more money first. Property coupled with inheritence basically turns families into rulers over populations who are not wealthy -- the working class people who have to rent from the family of heirs. The whole point is: Property is artificial. It requires a state to enforce property ownership; therefore property is part myth, part scam.

Property is an enabler of enslavement -- what anarchists call wage slavery. That's what we mean by "Property is Theft". The only people who NEED property are the people who need you to serve them by giving them money for it through rent or a mortgage, as my usual example. Plus, if everyone had "property", no one would be working 40+ hour weeks for executive capitalists in order to survive.

The novelist's book that he has spent years slaving over, is a extension of his very mind which he has put into paper. Granting rights to that book, is akin to protecting his thoughts. By the same token, the ironworker who has welded a beautiful cast iron fence, has put his sweat and blood into the creation of that object. According to Rand it as much a part of him as his arm. In our world it is impossible to take a person's arm and make it work, or peer inside someone's head and read their thoughts. Objects and property are the result of that fact. To the outside world your property becomes you.

Did Ayn Rand actually categorize this as "property"? Think about all of those examples you just gave. Think about how real they actually are. These are real possessions. Think about how even if a government said "these are not yours", that would be false. It is a valid possession when a government cannot change the reality of who it belongs to. It is "property" when a government can enforce, determine or change who it artificially belongs to. Property is not real, so I think Ayn Rand either has an agenda, is attempting more capitalist brainwashing upon her audience, or she's just confused. Did she really call this stuff property? She's making a severely erroneous connection if she did.

(this) in effect applies a barrier between you and your community

That does not apply the barrier, the barrier exists already.


There is no barrier between you and your community unless you built a fence or stay indoors at all times. Even if you do that, you must interact with your community at some point, at least to buy groceries. The barrier is not there in reality. The realistic barrier is only there based on how much autonomy you want in relation to how much autonomy each of your neighbors want. Capitalists want this autonomy enforced for some crazy reason. Plus, as you know, capitalism + property actually SERIOUSLY intrudes on the working class and the poverty class's autonomy. Anarchists realize this desire for autonomy exists in each one of us, so we respect others' autonomy in exchange for them respecting ours. We also protect each others' autonomy because it is a common, united interest.

Government enforcement/protection of autonomy applies too much separation between the people of a community. Rather than the community having the freedom to pursue its goals collectively, at the majority's will, government again is a centralization in which the most wealthy run the show... a vertically structured community where the lower levels know they have little or no influence, so they may as well remain separated -- separated by the lack of interest in the community, separated by lack of confidence in their peers against the upper levels, separated by court recorded land surveys, eminent domain, rent, mortgages, etc.

Each man is an end to himself. He is alone. No person has any ingrained attachment to others, aside from what the bleeding-heart doctrine has established within people. If I cut my arm, will you feel it? If I am saddened will you cry with me? No. I am as alone, hypothetically speaking, in a crowd, as I am in a prison cell. Now the possibility arises that you will try to pervert this into saying that I am an embittered and lonely person, much as people pointed fingers at Existentialists for being depressed and heartless. That is not the case.

Sounds like you're still talking about autonomy, real autonomy which exists in each person's set of desires, not government enforced artificial barriers.

Regarding autonomy, one interesting thing to note without going into much detail is the difference between egoism and utilitarianism among anarchists. Egoism and utilitarianism are basically opposing principles. Anarchists who are egoists are called "individualist anarchists", while utilitarianism is a solid set of principles to illustrate the anarcho-communists. Both of these groups respect individuals' autonomy. Both groups can coexist in the same community or apart from each other. I just thought I'd import that to sorta show why we don't need artificially enforced autonomy barriers.

Objectivists see man as standing strong over the earth. Proud and tall and alive. The theories are not hollow, lonely ones. At their root they are about the empowerment of the individual.

Empowerment of a few individuals over the masses is what it really is. Capitalists are always trying to come up with new schemes to make you feel like working for them is identical to working for yourself.

Consider that a capitalist's claim that your freedom does not extend beyond your freedom to think.

It is nothing of the sort. There is a jump in logic there that your freedom of thought and of choice is your only freedom. No. That is your basic freedom. From this all other freedoms derive.


No, she claims outright, "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom."

That's not me rewording it. That's Ayn Rand, the Antichrist herself who says that heheheh Look under the Human Nature section on this page: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html

Anarchists believe human freedom is unlimited in all aspects, materially, spiritually or otherwise with the one limit being: we are not free to impose or covertly coerce others, which capitalism DOES allow.

According to an Objectivist, that is true as well. In a pure Objectivist society no one would impose themselves on others. You seem to assume that the event of capitalism imposes on others. Not true. In a free market, one trading to another their goods and services, for another's, there needs to be no coersion at all. Any person is free to fall out of the deal at any time.


Anarchists are not against trade, bartering & all that. We're against hording, rent, wage slavery to survive and so on.

With the means of life being land, water, food, & shelter, to categorize those things as "property" as capitalism does, you are enabling the wealthy to artificially own any or all of that. When the wealthy are the only ones who own it, everyone else has to buy or rent it. In order to buy or rent the means of life, they must serve as a wage slave or die. That definitely qualifies as "imposing themselves on others". That's coercion by its worst definition: to bring about by force or threat

You work for your own self interests, but how are your self interests going to be satisfied if you reject altruism?

Easily. The idiology that altruism is an ideal to achieve has been perpetrated far more than anyother on this planet. But it is a hollow and artifical one.


It's neither hollow nor artificial when you consider the reality of just how little altruism would be needed (from each individual) in order to have a well-sustained horizontal society. It would be altruism still within the realm of the people's pleasure to cooperate. It would not be drudgery "for the benefit of others". Drudgery is extreme overkill in an anarchist society. Drudgery is having to work on-site 8 to 12 hours a day while some boss keeps 90% of what you produce (capitalism).

Beasts in the wild do not act out of the goodness of their hearts for others. They establish themselves first, before others. It may be a brutal system, but it is a clean one.

People are not beasts, so we don't need to compare ourselves to or pattern ourselves after wildlife.

Objectivism requires trade as the only method. Why limit yourself to trade/coercion? Just for the sake of greed? Just so you can needlessly separate your "property" from your community when your community would respect your "possessions" to begin with?

"It's better to give than to recieve" is told constantly and is the basic tenant of an altruist. What makes the person recieving, worthy of that gift? And if it is better to give than to recieve, why is it ok for that other person to recieve in that instance from you? The system has that basic hypocrital flaw at it's root. One must give, and one must recieve. One must be right, and one must be wrong, unless there is a person leeching on the recieving end. Which is exactly what will happen. Nature abhors a vacuum. There can not be people giving without someone taking what is given. There will always be a person picking up the recieving slack. And he will be fed by the countless people who have been told that they are just and noble for giving away their life's work. And he will laugh all the way to the hypothetical bank.


Naw that's not altruism. Altruism is carried out collectively. It's not "my stuff is your stuff". It is "our stuff is our stuff, but my stuff is separate and is still my stuff". If we built it together as a community, we are altruist. It is ours because we built it; it's not one person's. If one person built it, it is his even by altruist definitions. Think of the alternative in capitalism... if "we" built it, some conglomerate or executive staff owns it and/or politicians get to control it.

If you don't like altruism, stop being so altruistic for the benefit of the ruling class. Altruism is as real as it gets. You're either gonna be altruistic horizontally or vertically. In anarchism or capitalism, either way, without altruism you're just miserable or even dead... the difference is that you die faster in capitalism. Altruism IS drudgery under capitalism, but it is pleasure in anarchism.

Once you see it in an anarchists' light, it's really hard to be "altruistic" in capitalism. It's more like "forced altruism" which is an oxymoron.

It (altruism) is simply another form or coersion which you seem so adamite about eliminating.

No, what you are illustrating is slavery, not collective, real altruism.

Why is he worthy of the product of your labor more than you are?

Good question. Why is the CEO worthy of 400 to 1000 times more than each worker makes? Why is the rent regime or mortgage company entitled to well over half your income? See how capitalism contradicts itself constantly?

The alternative is an economy where both partners are on an equal field. One gives in fair measure for anothers product. Tit-for-tat, the system polices itself. No one is made a martyr, no one is a leech. The system is pure, and the lives of people are justified.

There's plenty of evidence in the world today to show that this cannot be done in capitalism.

Ah so Objectivism wants a government for the sole purpose of enabling you to trade your way into artificial appropriation of Earth's resources

No an Objectivist wants a government that will stop a person from raiding their house, or stopping an invading force. No more, no less.


"No more, no less" is also impossible in any centralized, vertical structure which has enforcement capabilities of any kind. Mixing centralization with funding and enforcement is big time lobbyist bait. You'll never have "a dictatorship of the Objectivists" as long as money exists. Keeping these vertical governments in place eternally damns you to political parties who are controlled by wealthy lobbyists. If it weren't that way, it wouldn't be vertical. The only other way is horizontal... anarchism.

Speaking of house raids, do you know much about the drug war? It's useless. It violates innocent people all the time. The drug war is the product of capitalism, enabled by centralized, vertical, unstoppable, ever-expanding government.

We can stop criminal house raids and foreign invasions on our own. I already wrote a giant message in this thread about that. I'd much rather have horizontal public militias (as sophisticated as need be) than capitalist police and military forces.

The resulting economy is in effect a free enviroment. People are free to do as they see fit with the capabilites of their mind and hands.

That's only possible in anarchy.

They do not want government to redistribute wealth, but they also do not want to permit a natural form of wealth distribution.

The natural form of wealth distribution is Objectivism.


Objectivism is nothing but capitalist reform. Reform is the foundation for repetition.

Nature demands that one creature is responsible for itself and itself only. Without notions of altruism, that can occur. A rabbit will not lay down and die so that a bear may eat, and by the same token a bear will not let a rabbit go so that the rabbit may live. Animals, of which humans cerainly are, respect that the other has a right to life, so long as that right does not intrude upon anothers. When it comes down to it, everything in nature will act upon it's own self interest. Humans are creatures that do not do this. They are filled with artificial notions of right and wrong. And as a result do not act in harmony with each other.

Aside from repeating that "people are not beasts", I'll just say, I wonder where they get these "artificial notions of right and wrong" from? Capitalist indoctrination is sure to be a huge part of it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline JDavid

  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/moondiggum
Libertarianism defined
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2003, 07:46:00 AM »
Later, I took his phrases from where he was attempting to reject altruism (by painting it out as some form of slavery) and illustrated it in the world of capitalism, just for fun...  I added the stuff that's in brackets:

It's better to give [to a boss, a politician or landlord] than to recieve" is told constantly and is the basic tenant of a [capitalist]. What makes the [capitalist] person recieving, worthy of that [working class person's] gift? And if it is better to give than to recieve, why is it ok for that other person to recieve in that instance from you? [yeah, why?] The [capitalist] system has that basic hypocrital flaw at it's root. One [worker] must give, and one [executive, politician or landlord] must recieve. One must be right, and one must be wrong, [you know who I say is wrong] unless there is a [capitalist] person leeching on the recieving end. Which is exactly what [does happen in capitalism]. There can not be [workers] giving without [the ruling class] taking what is given [or else it's not capitalism]. There will always be [an underpaid laborer] picking up the receiving slack [in capitalism]. And he will be fed by the countless [sheep] who have been told that they are just and noble for giving away their life's work [to their bosses and landlords]. And [the ruling class] will laugh all the way to the hypothetical bank.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »