News Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[Shaun_W]

Starting with the idealogy of rejecting ideologies.

It's not a political ideology.

I can't resist quoting Barry Goldwater on this one, after he was referred to as an extremist for his often libertarian positions: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Well I also think liberty is extremely important, but I'm not naive enough to sincerely believe that libertarians as they exist in the modern world are solely about being defenders of our freedom. Most that I've met have been corporistists can class warriors. Don't think I've ever came across a true libertarian, and if I did I probably would still disagree with his him economically.

 

[Al68]

Well I also think liberty is extremely important, but I'm not naive enough to sincerely believe that libertarians as they exist in the modern world are solely about being defenders of our freedom.

That's what the word "libertarian" means. Someone who is not an advocate of liberty is not a libertarian.

Most that I've met have been corporistists can class warriors.

Then either you are wrong about them being libertarians, or you're wrong about them being "corporatists/class warriors". A single person cannot be both, although it is common for power hungry politicians to fraudulently claim libertarians to be "pro-corporation, for the rich, etc" because of their advocacy of economic liberty.

Don't think I've ever came across a true libertarian, and if I did I probably would still disagree with his him economically.

Libertarians do in fact exist exist. I'm one of them. And yes, you probably disagree with me economically.

 

[ThomasT]

This line of argument has always confused me. P&G apparently felt that these employees were making less money than they cost -- otherwise their desire for profit would encourage them to keep the employees. So what is the criticism, in particular?

* "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is incompetent and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
* "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is insufficiently profit-focused and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
* "The employees were not making money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership should have breached its fiduciary duty."

I suspect the third one is the intended meaning: that the company has enough money that it should 'share' it with employees, even those who are unproductive (in the sense that profits would increase if they were laid off). But in that case, the "why?" is obvious: it's illegal for them to do otherwise!

I think Moore's intention was to paint an emotional picture regarding his view that our values of justice and equality, and the best interests of certain communities, are at odds with the profit-motivated usual practices of big business.

As for why the P&G employees re the Moore thing were laid off, I don't think it's usually a matter of being able to calculate the extent to which an employee is "making money for the company", or not. Rather, it's just standard practice for any company, especially a large one, to continually review and determine whether it can lay off a certain number of employees, perhaps increasing the workload of a certain number of remaining employees, while meeting projected necessary levels of production, and thereby increase the bottom line. Nothing wrong with that. It's just business as usual. And it isn't unfair because employees know this, or at least they should, and thereby agree to it, at least tacitly, on being hired.

However, to some, normal 'downsizing' can seem unnecessary and unfair. Moore's craft, just like much government and corporate propaganda, capitalizes on common, uninformed perceptions and sentiments. P&G posted $6B in profits that year, the company was in no trouble, so why lay a bunch of people off? Although this is just one aspect of how good managers run profitable companies, and although it isn't necessarily unfair or contrary to the public interest, it can be perceived that way depending on how it's presented and who it's being presented to.

While Moore's P&G thing isn't really illustrative of it, there is, nevertheless, a necessary conflict between libertarianism and egalitarianism. Many modern societies ostensibly embrace the ideals of both. But the extremes of both philosophies are mutually unrealizable. So societies have evolved various practical syntheses of the two.

There is necessarily a line beyond which, and there will arise situations wrt which, considerations of public responsibility supercede 'business as usual' and the accumulation of personal wealth. The US has some examples of this in its history.

I used to be very libertarian. Now I've rejected all political ideologies in favour of taking each issue individually and applying logic and reasoning to it and deciding based on that, not what some ideology says. Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

I agree that this is the most sensible and most productive way to approach things.

Identifying with ideological labels doesn't serve any good purpose. It just tends to divide people and keep them ignorant.

 

[readaynrand]

Just seeing if there are others out there on this board.

Not libertarian, but objectivist.

What's the difference between the two? Libertarians hold the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, whereas objectivists hold the principle of egoism as the moral absolute. In many cases libertarians and objectivists agree, but there are some major disagreements, for example about matters of foreign policy and intellectual property. Some libertarians are also anarchists, whereas objectivists are minarchists.

 

[Al68]

Not libertarian, but objectivist.

What's the difference between the two? Libertarians hold the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, whereas objectivists hold the principle of egoism as the moral absolute. In many cases libertarians and objectivists agree, but there are some major disagreements, for example about matters of foreign policy and intellectual property. Some libertarians are also anarchists, whereas objectivists are minarchists.

Libertarianism is the core political philosophy of objectivism, so there is no difference politically. But libertarians (including objectivists) do disagree among themselves on some issues, like those you mention. But they share the core tenet that the legitimate reason to use force is to protect liberty, not to enforce a social agenda against people, or to control, shape, mold, or "better" society by using force to deprive people of their liberty.

The interesting thing about objectivism is that much of its core (non-political) philosophy is embraced universally by the scientific community, and much of society in general, but most of those same people reject (or ignore) that same core philosophy when applied to politics.

 

[readaynrand]

Libertarianism is the core political philosophy of objectivism

You may be right. In my native language "libertarian" describes those who hold the non-aggression principle as the moral absolute, whereas the political philosophy of objectivism is called "classical liberalism".

But libertarians (including objectivists) do disagree among themselves on some issues, like those you mention. But they share the core tenet that the legitimate reason to use force is to protect liberty, not to enforce a social agenda against people, or to control, shape, mold, or "better" society by using force to deprive people of their liberty.

True.

The interesting thing about objectivism is that much of its core (non-political) philosophy is embraced universally by the scientific community, and much of society in general, but most of those same people reject that same core philosophy when applied to politics.

Good point, people have been brainwashed by the media and politicians to adopt an altruistic philosophy. People behave very differently in small groups, like among friends and family, than they do when they go to cast their votes.

 

[Al68]

You may be right. In my native language "libertarian" describes those who hold the non-aggression principle as the moral absolute, whereas the political philosophy of objectivism is called "classical liberalism".

Sure, but that difference is in core moral philosophy. I would say that as it applies to politics, libertarianism and classical liberalism are essentially identical.

Good point, people have been brainwashed by the media and politicians to adopt an altruistic philosophy.

I wouldn't call the philosophy "altruistic", since not only is altruism consistent with libertarianism, altruism does not advocate coercing others into doing what they think is "altruistic". It's not altruistic to help one person at the expense of another, it's only altruistic if it's at one's own expense.

I would call it Marxist philosophy, since it not only asserts that one person's self interest is generally harmful instead of beneficial to others, it advocates the use of force against others to deprive them of liberty, which is decidedly non-altruistic, under the assumption that using force to deprive people of their liberty causes unhappiness.

And, at least in the U.S., the general philosophy of government, and society, historically was the classical liberalism of The Enlightenment, until Marxist influence "de-enlightened" so much of the population, mainly via power hungry politicians who sought power not to protect and defend the liberty of U.S. citizens, but to deprive them of it for the purpose of "bettering" society. That's far from altruistic to those who consider liberty to be essential to happiness.

Edit: Nice screen name, BTW. Atlas shrugged is a classic that everyone should read. It's uncanny how unlikely such a story might seem in principle (to you and me at least), while at the same time we've witnessed the bulk of it in real life.

 

[readaynrand]

Altuism says that it is moral to sacrifice - to put the interests of other people (or God, the government, the country, etc) above your own interests. No wonder why altuists often also are more than willing to "help" other people sacrifice themselves. Therefore, most altruists are socialists who vote for anti-individualism parties.

And, at least in the U.S., the general philosophy of government, and society, historically was the classical liberalism of The Enlightenment, until Marxist influence "de-enlightened" so much of the population, mainly via power hungry politicians who sought power not to protect and defend the liberty of U.S. citizens, but to deprive them of it for the purpose of "bettering" society.

To sacrifice individual liberty is as altruistic as you get it.

 

[readaynrand]

Edit: Nice screen name, BTW. Atlas shrugged is a classic that everyone should read. It's uncanny how unlikely such a story might seem in principle (to you and me at least), while at the same time we've witnessed the bulk of it in real life.

Atlas Shrugged is a prophetic novel, anyone who reads it will gain a whole new understanding the reality we live in and the the current events taking place.

 

[Al68]

To sacrifice individual liberty is as altruistic as you get it.

Sure, if its their own liberty they are sacrificing. Using force to deprive another of their liberty is not altruistic by definition.

The situation appears more like socialists claiming to be altruistic when they are not. Just fits the pattern of socialist fraud in general.

 

[readaynrand]

Sure, if its their own liberty they are sacrificing. Using force to deprive another of their liberty is not altruistic by definition.

The situation appears more like socialists claiming to be altruistic when they are not. Just fits the pattern of socialist fraud in general.

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice, which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction, which yet again means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruists say: "Yes."

 

[Al68]

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice, which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction, which yet again means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

That was my point. Altruism is about self-sacrifice, not the sacrifice of others. Self-denial, not the denial of others. Self-destruction, not the destruction of others.

In other words, an altruist would give the beggar the dime, not use force to take a dime from the beggar, under the guise of forcing altruistic behavior on the beggar. Using force to take a dime from the beggar is not altruism.

 

[readaynrand]

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

 

[Al68]

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

But that beneficiary isn't the only relevant "other". And I understand altruism to (by definition) involve self-sacrifice or selflessness. It's not self-sacrifice to give someone my neighbor's property. My neighbor is an "other", too.

I think the supposed "altruism" claimed by socialists is a twisted delusional notion of altruism, not true altruism.

 

[readaynrand]

It's not self-sacrifice to give someone my neighbor's property. My neighbor is an "other", too.

This is still altruism, because you communicate that it is your neighbour's duty to sacrifice his property.

Socialists want you to sacrifice and to surrender, and it is one thing that they want you to surrender more than anything else.

Your mind.

All those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others" - end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others."

 

[readaynrand]

I don't have any respect for ideologies that are self-destructive, because they are..self-destructive.

Objectivism is not self-destructive, to the contrary.

 

[mheslep]

Objectivism is not self-destructive, to the contrary.

Was for Rand.

 

[Al68]

This is still altruism, because you communicate that it is your neighbour's duty to sacrifice his property.

OK, instead of belaboring the point, even if socialists meet that definition of altruism, I would still not refer to socialists as altruists because not all altruists meet the definition of socialist.

It would be analogous to using the word "Americans" to refer to socialists. Or "Christians" to refer to the KKK.

 

[readaynrand]

Was for Rand.

No, it was not.

 

[readaynrand]

not all altruists meet the definition of socialist.

That's true. Some are Muslims, Catholics, etc.

 

[Al68]

Was for Rand.

How so?

 

[readaynrand]

If egoism is bad for the individual, what is altruism?

A single word can blast the morality of altruism out of existence: "Why?" Why must man live for the sake of others? No earthly reason has ever been given for it in the whole history of philosophy.

 

[Evo]

If egoism is bad for the individual, what is altruism?

A single word can blast the morality of altruism out of existence: "Why?" Why must man live for the sake of others? No earthly reason has ever been given for it in the whole history of philosophy.

This isn't philosophy and the thread has gone off topic.

 

[readaynrand]

The "topic" is "are there any libertarians here?" How can one NOT go off topic?

 

[mheslep]

Objectivism is not self-destructive, to the contrary.

Was for Rand.

No, it was not.

Are you familiar with her biography?

Rand had a vicious streak in her that's apparent in Atlas and her personal life:

Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback?page=3

The saddest and the most gossiped-about story in her life began around 1950 when two young Canadians, Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, swam into her circle as acolytes, colleagues and eventually (as she saw it) betrayers. A married couple who came together through a shared interest in Rand's work, they both appealed to her. Rand so much admired Nathaniel that she set up the Nathaniel Branden Institute, devoted to Randian study.

Ayn and Nathan had a flirtatious relationship until the day she summoned him to her apartment. Burns depicts it as a scene from a romantic novel: "Rand became urgent and direct. She and Nathan had fallen in love, yes? Nathan, overwhelmed, flattered, excited, confused, responded in kind. They kissed hesitantly. There would be no turning back." At the time he was 24 years old, she 49.

Eventually their romance left everyone involved shell-shocked. Rand decided they should be honest and open, so they told Barbara Branden and also Rand's husband, Frank. Everything would be civilized. Barbara and Frank appeared to go along but Barbara had panic attacks and Frank notably extended his drinking hours.

When Nathaniel ended the affair, 14 years later, the scandal reverberated through objectivism for years. Burns writes that Rand's anger was boundless. "She would never forgive, never forget." She read him out of the movement, took away his Institute and purged Barbara as well. The lovers wrote separate accounts of their break-up for the readers of their house publication, The Objectivist, omitting the fact that they had been lovers.

http://www.robertfulford.com/2009-11-10-rand.html
That is, you'll find an abundance of acolytes in Rand's life, but very few, if any, friends, towards the end.

On the first meeting between Rand and devout Catholic WF Buckley:

I had met Miss Rand three years before that review was published. Her very first words to me (I do not exaggerate) were: “You ahrr too intelligent to believe in Gott.”

http://the-laws-of-thought.blogspot.com/2010/01/ayn-rand.html

 

[Al68]

Are you familiar with her biography?

Rand had a vicious streak in her that's apparent in Atlas and her personal life:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback?page=3

Whitacre Chambers must have read a different Atlas Shrugged than I did. Maybe he got it confused with Das Kapital. Or more likely he was simply misrepresenting it. I never heard voices say “To a gas chamber — go!” on a single page, while Chambers heard it on every page? Chambers is simply full of doggy excrement.

As far as her relationship problems stemming from her romantic escapades, that's hardly unique to objectivists.

 

[mheslep]

Whitacre Chambers must have read a different Atlas Shrugged than I did. Maybe he got it confused with Das Kapital. Or more likely he was simply misrepresenting it. I never heard voices say “To a gas chamber — go!” on a single page, while Chambers heard it on every page? Chambers is simply full of doggy excrement.

Remember the chapter "The Moratorium on Brains”? Rand litterly has everyone asphyxiated on a coal burning train going through a long mountain tunnel when diesel trains existed, all victims of one of her 'looter' parasite characters that run the railroad. Ok, fair enough, bad people doing bad things. But then Rand goes on to suggest every passenger on the train, men women and children, deserved it.

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet [that’s the train] were not guilty [note that word] or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence. . . .

. . . The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, “I don’t care, it’s only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.” . . .

. . . These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244381/greatly-ghastly-rand-jason-lee-steorts
To my mind the above is little different from the loathesome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_September_11_attacks_essay_controversy" comment about the WTC 911 victims.

As far as her relationship problems stemming from her romantic escapades, that's hardly unique to objectivists.

Yes, self-involvement is not limited to that philosophy. And what Rand did was hardly just the common romantic escapade. From what I can see she treated others as if she was one of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch" , and anyone that didn't measure up could leave the planet.

 

[Al68]

But then Rand goes on to suggest every passenger on the train, men women and children, deserved it.

I didn't interpret it quite that way. But, since it's a work of fiction, people will differ on the meaning of certain parts.

But in this case, as in many cases in real life, there exists a sort of "language barrier" between people of different political philosophies. It seems likely that my interpretation of Rand's writings would be a far more accurate indication of her intended meaning than the interpretation of someone with a different philosophy.

While that is less relevant for someone like Chambers (or you) than it would be for a Marxist, it was apparently still a significant factor.

Even so, the suggestion that she was metaphorically telling the reader she wanted them to go to a gas chamber to die is still absurd.

And, even if that were true, she would have been talking specifically to Marxist readers, not every reader, which means not me.

From what I can see she treated others as if she was one of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch" , and anyone that didn't measure up could leave the planet.

Well, I never got that impression. The impression I got was that while she could easily be friends with people who disagreed with her, she (like me) could not be close friends with people who claimed she was "for the rich", didn't care about poor people, etc, even if it wasn't their fault they were victims of Marxist propaganda. It's just not possible to be close friends with someone when you are not the person they think you are.

That's a very bad side effect of Marxist (or Democratic Party) propaganda, it destroys friendships and rips families apart, because it convinces people that their friends and family members have bad motives, are uncompassionate, etc. It's possible to be friendly and civil to someone who believes that, but a really close relationship is obviously precluded by it, since you are simply not the person they think you are.

 

[Danger]

I don't even know whether or not there are "Libertarians" in Canada. If so, they certainly don't have any sort of organized party.
I am most definitely a Rhinoceros, but our party disbanded several years ago. Next to that, I'm fully NDP. That's the closest to Socialist that we have.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't interpret it quite that way. But, since it's a work of fiction, people will differ on the meaning of certain parts.

But in this case, as in many cases in real life, there exists a sort of "language barrier" between people of different political philosophies. It seems likely that my interpretation of Rand's writings would be a far more accurate indication of her intended meaning than the interpretation of someone with a different philosophy.

While that is less relevant for someone like Chambers (or you) than it would be for a Marxist, it was apparently still a significant factor.

Even so, the suggestion that she was metaphorically telling the reader she wanted them to go to a gas chamber to die is still absurd.

'People will differ'? Your interpretation is 'more accurate' because there's a 'language barrier'? You might have just said, "Rand is great, I'm not interested in her flaws." up thread.

I understand the appeal of this John Galt fan boy stuff - running away to secret mountain fortress and escaping a parasitic government. I have an affinity for it myself. And along with some wonderful ideas, it also has its flaws.

 

[Al68]

'People will differ'? Your interpretation is 'more accurate' because there's a 'language barrier'? You might have just said, "Rand is great, I'm not interested in her flaws." up thread.

I understand the appeal of this John Galt fan boy stuff - running away to secret mountain fortress and escaping a parasitic government. I have an affinity for it myself. And along with some wonderful ideas, it also has its flaws.

What are you talking about? I never said Rand didn't have flaws. I said nothing relevant to any "John Galt fan boy stuff". I simply share her libertarian beliefs.

And my point was that my interpretation of the meaning of her writings might be more accurate than an interpretation by someone who doesn't share her basic political philosophy. Such differences are common for that reason.

 

[Char. Limit]

I noticed there was a big battle on "what is libertarianism" going on in another thread, so I decided to revive this one to ask that question.

In order to define yourself as a libertarian, you first have to define a libertarian. Now, to me, a libertarian is one who believes in small government, basically national defense, crime, and emergencies. However, different people have different views. So how do YOU define libertarianism?

Oh, and here's an analogy I personally believe:

Libertarianism is to anarchy as modern liberalism is to communism.

 

[Al68]

In order to define yourself as a libertarian, you first have to define a libertarian. Now, to me, a libertarian is one who believes in small government, basically national defense, crime, and emergencies. However, different people have different views. So how do YOU define libertarianism?

lib·er·tar·i·an –noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian

It's a very general term. More specifically, it's commonly used to refer to http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian", essentially the core philosophy of the U.S. founding and constitution.

 

[nismaratwork]

lib·er·tar·i·an –noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian

It's a very general term. More specifically, it's commonly used to refer to http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian", essentially the core philosophy of the U.S. founding and constitution.

Do you believe in so-called, "Judicial Activism", and if so, what are the examples you'd give, which span left->right?

In the absence of strong regulation, and in the face of the failure of markets to be self or otherwise regulated... why do yo think increased freedom would be beneficial?

How would you see this made more than your dream, without using authoritarian measures?

 

[OmCheeto]

I noticed there was a big battle on "what is libertarianism" going on in another thread, so I decided to revive this one to ask that question.

In order to define yourself as a libertarian, you first have to define a libertarian. Now, to me, a libertarian is one who believes in small government, basically national defense, crime, and emergencies. However, different people have different views. So how do YOU define libertarianism?

Oh, and here's an analogy I personally believe:

Libertarianism is to anarchy as modern liberalism is to communism.

In order to define libertarian, you also have to define liberty. I brought this up last week with my friend Vladimir. He tried to explain his definition of liberty, but I had to admit that I didn't know what he was talking about. He suggested I read a book by Viktor Frankl: "Man's Search for Meaning". I of course promised that I would buy the book, and of course broke the promise immediately, being the way I am.

But a quick look through the wiki entry yielded what I think my friend was trying to tell me:

Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.

In a perfect world, filled with perfect people, I'm sure we'd all be Libertarians. But it isn't a perfect world, and we are not all good.

From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two—the ‘race’ of the decent man and the ‘race’ of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society.

I'm afraid it is the indecent ones, that put the burden on us all, and prevent us from living in such a Utopia:

The 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government

I'm afraid that when I look at the list, I see an equation. Somewhat like a fraction, with various points negating each other. And the solution to the equation, is simply the society that we enjoy today.

ps. I took http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz" from page 1, and came up with this:

Centrist
Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At heart I'm a Libertarian, but "limited government" assumes a need for some government. When we talk about expanding government, in my view a libertarian isn't automatically opposed so long as it's justified. Over the years I have to come to realize that markets alone cannot solve all problems. There are times when we need the government to step in. That is not to say that Government can solve all problems, but there are jobs best left to the Government.

Also, it seems clear to me that free-market capitalism has failed fundamentally. While it may work in principle, we can't tolerate market corrections like one we've just endured. Those clowns nearly destroyed the global economy! THAT is unacceptable by any measure. Ideologies must be put aside in the face of brutal realities. That is why even Paulson relented in the end and betrayed a lifetime philosophy. So in the strictest sense, I think the economic philosophy of Libertarianism has failed as well. But again, this gets back to the role of government. If we need the government to protect the world from finanacial calamity because wall street and the banks can't be trusted to act in their own best interests, then so be it. That doesn't make me liberal. I still look to Libertarianism as a basis for our way of life. I am just willing to accept the facts of life. And I do agree with AI68 in that Libertarianism IS the American way. "Liberty" is what defines us - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Al68]

Do you believe in so-called, "Judicial Activism"...

You would have to give a specific example.

In the absence of strong regulation, and in the face of the failure of markets to be self or otherwise regulated...

Not sure what you mean here. A free market can't fail to self-regulate because a free market by definition is a self-regulating market.

Of course a free market may fail to meet some goal you desire, but that's a different story.

How would you see this made more than your dream, without using authoritarian measures?

Still not making sense. Libertarianism is anti-authoritarianism.

 

[Al68]

In a perfect world, filled with perfect people, I'm sure we'd all be Libertarians. But it isn't a perfect world, and we are not all good.

That seems to ignore what a libertarian is. What a libertarian is not is someone who advocates liberty as long as the societal result is perfectly to his liking.

A libertarian is someone who advocates liberty in an imperfect world, specifically the very world we live in.

I'm afraid it is the indecent ones, that put the burden on us all, and prevent us from living in such a Utopia:

What Utopia are you referring to? What does any utopia have to do with libertarianism? Libertarianism, unlike many other ism's, refers to an ideal government, not an ideal society. Huge difference there.

I'm afraid that when I look at the list, I see an equation. Somewhat like a fraction, with various points negating each other.

Then I would suggest that you are interpreting the items in that list very differently from the way libertarians do.

 

[Al68]

Also, it seems clear to me that free-market capitalism has failed fundamentally.

Repeating this lie over and over won't make it true. Anyone who thinks that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or U.S. banking in general, represented "free-market capitalism" needs to take a kindergarten economics class somewhere.

Rejecting free-market capitalism was the obvious cause of the mortgage crisis, as has been discussed in other threads.

I think the economic philosophy of Libertarianism has failed as well.

Complete nonsense. See above.

Look what economic authoritarians have succeeded in doing here: restrict liberty, blame resulting problems on too much liberty, repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat...

Economic illiteracy, and ignorance of what actually happened, allows them to convince people of such craziness.

 

[nismaratwork]

So alone in your fight, and so unwilling to answer direct questions. If you do believe in Judicial Activism, do you have any examples that spring to mind? You're the one defining yourself, and so far, only by vague and shifting rules you refuse to enunciate.

 

[Al68]

So alone in your fight, and so unwilling to answer direct questions. If you do believe in Judicial Activism, do you have any examples that spring to mind? You're the one defining yourself, and so far, only by vague and shifting rules you refuse to enunciate.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you spiking your koolaid again? There is no fight and I'm far from alone. Judicial activism is not a religion that one "believes in" or not, and my representation of myself has been flawless.

If it's your intent to derail and destroy another thread with nonsense, count me out of this one. If you have a specific, logically coherent question that contains no false premises, ask it.

 

[nismaratwork]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you spiking your koolaid again? There is no fight and I'm far from alone. Judicial activism is not a religion that one "believes in" or not, and my representation of myself has been flawless.

If it's your intent to derail and destroy another thread with nonsense, count me out of this one. If you have a specific, logically coherent question that contains no false premises, ask it.

You've described yourself as a "Libertarian" and a "Constructionist"... do you just believe some random grouping of junk, and feel the need to give it a name? 'Libertarian' isn't your magical catch-all. You asked for direct questions, and I gave you a "yes or no" based on your own espoused beliefs. I'd add, try to be polite, you're lowering the tone.

If you're a strict constructionist, then yes, JA should be part of your religion. If you think I'm harassing you, ask Evo... she can explain what it's like when I actually harass. I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you; you're long on talk and short on backing that talk up. I'm not even asking you to justify your beliefs, just say what they entail; I'm tired of sparring over your special definitions of ideologies.

If I sound harsh, well... what can I say?... I'm not a fan of Kool-Aid.

 

[Al68]

You've described yourself as a "Libertarian" and a "Constructionist"...

If you mean "strict constructionist", yes, that's right.

do you just believe some random grouping of junk, and feel the need to give it a name?

Nope. See what happens when you ask a direct logically coherent question? (even if rhetorical).

If you're a strict constructionist, then yes, JA should be part of your religion.

Won't argue about what my religion should or shouldn't be.

I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you; you're long on talk and short on backing that talk up.

You will never get a straight answer from me with questions that have false assumptions, false claims about me, or are logically incoherent. That's just the way I roll.

I'm tired of sparring over your special definitions of ideologies.

I've offered no such special definitions, and there has been no sparring over that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Repeating this lie over and over won't make it true.

First of all, I stated it as an opinion so it can't be a lie. Secondly, denying the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Anyone who thinks that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or U.S. banking in general, represented "free-market capitalism" needs to take a kindergarten economics class somewhere.

Freddie and Fannie were only the tip of the iceberg. Unregulated dark markets were a primary cause of the failure along with unregulated lending practices. You can be condescending and offensive all you want, but the fact still remains that a lack of regulation and failures to enforce existing laws are what caused this disaster.

Greenspan himself admitted this shouldn't have been possible under free-market principles [the ones under which the system operated]. In other words, the model failed. Every Libertarian has to come to grips with this fact. Or are you calling Greenspan an economic illiterate? I have linked to his Congressional testimony several times before. I would assume that you know about this testimony as it is directly from the most powerful Libertarian of the last 30 years - a protege of Ayn Rand. Or is it necessary to link it again?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...The commission found substantial losses after reviewing more than 25 million loans purchased or guaranteed by the GSEs or the private sector, but delinquency rates of Fannie's and Freddie's loans were substantially lower than those securitized by Wall Street firms and others. Fannie and Freddie mortgages, by the end of 2008, were far less likely to be seriously delinquent than were other mortgages. For example, for borrowers with credit scores below 660, the difference was significant: 6.2 percent versus 28.3 percent.

The commission also concluded that Fannie and Freddie mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis due to their implicit government guarantee. Thus, they did not contribute to the significant losses that were central to the crisis...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-03-03/news/bs-ed-fannie-freddie-20110303_1_fannie-and-freddie-freddie-mac-risky-mortgages/2

...The Commission concluded that this crisis was avoidable. It found widespread failures in financial regulation; dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance; excessive borrowing and risk-taking by households and Wall Street; policy makers who were ill prepared for the crisis; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels. Here we present what we found so readers can reach their own conclusions, even as the comprehensive historical record of this crisis continues to be written...

http://fcic.gov/

 

[Al68]

Freddie and Fannie were only the tip of the iceberg. Unregulated dark markets were a primary cause of the failure along with unregulated lending practices. You can be condescending and offensive all you want, but the fact still remains that a lack of regulation and failures to enforce existing laws are what caused this disaster.

Greenspan himself admitted this shouldn't have been possible under free-market principles [the ones under which the system operated]. In other words, the model failed. Every Libertarian has to come to grips with this fact. Or are you calling Greenspan an economic illiterate? I have linked to his Congressional testimony several times before. I would assume that you know about this testimony as it is directly from the most powerful Libertarian of the last 30 years - a protege of Ayn Rand. Or is it necessary to link it again?

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony. Second, using his testimony the way you are is a classic logical flaw (appeal to authority). Third, can you not see the self-contradiction of calling someone the "most powerful libertarian Hint: if you hold someone in higher esteem than I do, he might not be much of a libertarian.

Fourth, lending practices were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination. Fifth, the system did not in fact operate in a free market, in any sense relevant to this issue. You're aware that "free market forces" exist in all markets, free or not? Sixth, while you can claim that this problem wasn't related to Fannie and Freddie alone, you can't deny they were the instigator and driving force behind toxic and subprime lending. They started the problem, they fell first, other banks fell because they were stuck with the bad assets Fannie and Freddie had promised to buy.

Changing the subject to talk about other factors that contributed doesn't change anything, since I have never denied that there were other factors.

But you have offered no evidence whatsoever that logically shows that this problem was caused by a free market, or that it would even be possible in a free market.

This has been pointed out to you before, and your only response that I can see is to repeat the same claims, point out the same Greenspan testimony that doesn't prove what you claim it does, then make the same claims as if they were generally accepted truth. You even claim this time that libertarians generally accept it as true, when you know that's a whopper. And Greenspan is your representative for libertarians? Oh, puleeese!

 

[nismaratwork]

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony.<snip>!

In what way... you see, this is where I mean that you're long on talk and short on facts. You make statements, not arguments, and if you're a Strict Constructionist then by definition, you believe in JA. Thanks for at least one answer... maybe you can answer a few more?

 

[Al68]

In what way...

By claiming that Greenspan believed that the banking system was a "free market".

You make statements, not arguments, and if you're a Strict Constructionist then by definition, you believe in JA.

Yes, I believe judicial activist exists. It is real, not imaginary like the tooth fairy.

Thanks for at least one answer... maybe you can answer a few more?

I'll answer any question that is logical coherent and doesn't contain false assumptions, same as always.

 

[nismaratwork]

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony.

Please cite his testimony and explain how Ivan has misrepresented it.

Second, using his testimony the way you are is a classic logical flaw (appeal to authority).

No... every use of a quote or asessment isn't that... it's called a basis for an argument, an example. You should peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and here's a hint as to where you went wrong:

2.there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter.

Third, can you not see the self-contradiction of calling someone the "most powerful libertarian"?

You don't take well to rhetorical points you're not in the process of making do you? Again, what you describe is really very distant from Libertarianism; ignorance of what you really want doesn't give you the right to give that a title.

Fourth, lending practices were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination.

Not unregulated, by poorly regulated in theory and in practice. Would you agree, or disagree? In either case, why?

Fifth, the system did not in fact operate in a free market, in any sense relevant to this issue.

Your free market doesn't remain free when humans are involved... nothing will match your vision of a free market after a while. What is it that you believe is so fantastic about a truly free market, and how do you believe that it won't be exploited by cartels of various stripes? In short, why do you think the evolution of finance won't repeat again and again?

Sixth, while you can claim that this problem wasn't related to Fannie and Freddie alone, you can't deny they were the instigator and driving force behind toxic and subprime lending. They started the problem, they fell first, other banks fell because they were stuck with the bad assets Fannie and Freddie had promised to buy.

Given the number of assets related to mortgages and other lending Frannie & Freddie (and oh yes... the one still standing...) were involved in, you're at least partly correct. If you're laying blame where these toxic assets werre bundled and sold, then you need to look elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong... I get it... you mean that they allowed people not otherwise able to buy homes when they shouldn't have. True, but "started the problem"... you might as well just blame poor people for wanting to own a home... or maybe Goldman-Sachs, and others who so kindly made the whole thing a gamble and REALLY took out the economy?

Changing the subject to talk about other factors that contributed doesn't change anything, since I have never denied that there were other factors.

True... changing subjects doesn't help you at all.

But you have offered no evidence whatsoever that logically shows that this problem was caused by a free market, or that it would even be possible in a free market.

You've offered nothing, but rhetoric... if you want more, offer more.

This has been pointed out to you before, and your only response that I can see is to repeat the same claims, point out the same Greenspan testimony that doesn't prove what you claim it does, then make the same claims as if they were generally accepted truth. You even claim this time that libertarians generally accept it as true, when you know that's a whopper. And Greenspan is your representative for libertarians? Oh, puleeese!

Are you really missing his point, or being intentionally coy?

 

[nismaratwork]

By claiming that Greenspan believed that the banking system was a "free market".Yes, I believe judicial activist exists. It is real, not imaginary like the tooth fairy. I'll answer any question that is logical coherent and doesn't contain false assumptions, same as always.

Thanks for the straight answer... pity two threads and half a dozen posts were needed, but... fussy eaters...

So, what do you call judicial activism, and how does it compare to activism in the executive and legistlative branches?