Can Learning About Libertarianism Lead to Fiscal Conservatism and Profit?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MFriedmam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between learning about libertarianism and its potential influence on fiscal conservatism and profit. Participants explore various economic theories, the writings of Ayn Rand, and the implications of libertarian principles on real-world economic practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest reading works by Milton Friedman, Hayek, Mises, and Ayn Rand to understand the connection between economics and fiscal conservatism.
  • One participant questions the practicality of Rand's ideas, suggesting they are based on a contrived fictional world.
  • Another participant argues that Ayn Rand opposed government bailouts and subsidies, emphasizing her belief in true capitalism.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the interpretations of Rand's philosophy, particularly regarding economic freedom and the role of government.
  • There are claims that deregulation is not something Rand opposed, while others argue that her views on natural resources and intellectual property are misrepresented.
  • One participant mentions the influence of Alan Greenspan, a follower of Rand, on economic policies that contradict her principles.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of Rand's philosophy on societal issues, such as education and resource ownership.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on Ayn Rand's philosophy and its implications for economics and society. There is no consensus on the interpretation of her ideas or their applicability to real-world situations, leading to ongoing debate and disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various interpretations of Ayn Rand's works and the economic theories associated with libertarianism. There are unresolved questions about the application of these theories in contemporary economic contexts and the assumptions underlying participants' arguments.

MFriedmam
1)read this faq http://www.lp.org/faq"
2)LEARN SOME ECONOMY...i suggest you Milton Friedman,Hayek,Mises,Fukuyama and ask yourself "why economists are always fiscally conservative?"
3)Read Ayn Rand...i suggest you the masterpiece Atlas Shrugged
4)http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx
5)Profit!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I would suggest a 'How to become ..' should be supplemented with a 'Why you should become ...'
 
Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?
 
DavidSnider said:
Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

Ayn rand did not advocate for government bailouts nor believe that the government should provide any subsidies to companies who requested it. She argued that they were not real capitalists if they were wrongly receiving benefits from the federal government.

Greenspan abandoned her principles on how the economy should function for she argued that a capitalist society would function properly and fully only if the money supply was backed by a valuable commodity like Gold or Silver. Seems like you need to read Capitalist : the unknown ideal and Atlas shrugged. I don't think you understand any of the fundamentals ideas that Ayn rand was advocating for concerning the economy and her idea of Liberty.
 
I need to read some Rand. I keep meaning to but I am always certain that she will just annoy me.
 
I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidSnider said:
Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

I think these are sort of exaggerations. I have never heard of "shutting down schools for subnormal children" though I have heard of focusing on trade schools for those who may not be cut out for college and leaving college for those best capable of benefiting from it.
 
DavidSnider said:
Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?
No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened. :rolleyes:

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.
 
DavidSnider said:
I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.



Can you provide links for those quotes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
noblegas said:
Can you provide links for those quotes?

They weren't quotes, they were paraphrases from bits of the interview. Not sure exactly which part got to watch the whole thing.
 
  • #11
Al68 said:
No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened. :rolleyes:

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
DavidSnider said:
1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. ...
Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.
 
  • #13
DavidSnider said:
They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly.
So does the US constitution.
5th amendment said:
...nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
  • #14
When I first heard of the word "libertarian" it was explained to me that libertarians were far right republicans. Then I briefly researched both the ideology and the political party. I specifically became very interested in libertarianism after reading Ron Paul's "The Manifesto". Soon afterward I read Charles Murray, "Why I'm a Libertarian" and David Boaz, "Libertarianism" that I found myself embracing the libertarian ideology as my own. I guess the greatest revelation of becoming a libertarian is that it's nothing new. It's basically the foundation of economic and personal freedom. Furthermore, I try to explain to people that libertarians are not far right republicans. But it seems that many democrats and republicans don't understand the Nolan Chart.

I've realized now to further educate myself in libertarian principles will require an extensive amount of studying and reading in economics (policies and history), world affairs, and government infrastructure. Thank you, Cato and Mises Institute.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
mheslep said:
Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

mheslep said:
You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.

I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.
 
  • #16
mheslep said:
So does the US constitution.

The US constitution never defined what property was.
 
  • #17
Interesting topic since I have some libertarian leanings in my political views. One thing that I feel is missed by the hardcore libertarians is that there are some things the government is actually good at (ok well maybe a better explanation is that there are somethings the government is better at than others).

For instance, fundamental research. There is no money to be made in answering questions about the beginning of the universe. In an ideal libertarian society, however, that would mean the only way cosmology research would be done is with a grant from a wealthy individual. So, would that sort of question ever be answered? I don't know.
 
  • #18
DavidSnider said:
I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

Yes, the capitalism rand has envisioned has never existed because no one has tried laissez faire capitalism, unlike communism. This country has truly never had a laissez capitalist economy, even Rand acknowledges this fact. Whereas communism has been tried in multiple parts of the world, and has failed multiple times. Show me a society that has tried to implement full blown capitalism.


I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.


What is your point? Humans have always been altering their surroundings to suit there needs. If humans did not reshaped nature for their benefit, we would not be where we are.
 
  • #19
DavidSnider said:
1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.
That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.
2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production.
We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner.
They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.
You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?
3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.
Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?
 
  • #20
Al68 said:
That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner. You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?

Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?
 
  • #21
DavidSnider said:
Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?
No. It doesn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Al68 said:
No. It doesn't.

So there is no concept of intellectual property rights? Or just no penalty?
 
  • #23
DavidSnider said:
So there is no concept of intellectual property rights?
Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.
 
  • #24
Al68 said:
Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.

Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.

EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.
 
  • #25
DavidSnider said:
Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.
That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.
EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.
EDIT: Oops, I need to stop trying to edit my posts after I make them.
 
  • #26
Al68 said:
That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.

Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.
 
  • #27
DavidSnider said:
Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.
I agree, but an objectivist wouldn't use the word "monopoly" to describe intellectual property rights, since it has another very common specific meaning.

But this is a case of libertarians making an exception to the normal case, similar to the way that public roads are an exception to the normal case of non-intervention of government.

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simply giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Al68 said:
Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simple giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.

Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.
 
  • #29
DavidSnider said:
Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.
That sounds strange as a criticism of libertarianism. We're not libertarian enough for you?

We also support laws against fraud, murder, assault, etc. We are just way too oppressive. :smile:

Edit: I guess it only sounds strange because most of the criticism comes from a completely different direction.
 
  • #30
DavidSnider said:
The US constitution never defined what property was.
Alright, but what ever we agree to be property (when you referenced it above), it is not granted by the state. Ownership of property is indeed a natural right in US history, not to be taken away arbitrarily by the state, and certainly not granted by the state.