Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[mheslep]

Ideology. Putting ideology before reality.

The world would be a better place if everyone were to reject ideologies.

Starting with the idealogy of rejecting ideologies.

 

[Al68]

For instance, a critical component in fiscal conservatism (IMO) is the establishment and enforcement of strict rules of conduct for financiers, brokers, bankers, etc...

So fiscal conservatism is essentially economic authoritarianism (or socialism)?

Establishing strict rules of conduct for private individuals (or groups) is fiscal conservatism? Are you joking?

And "radical neocon" means (slightly) more economically libertarian than Democrats? Is this "make up your own definition for words" day?

there are Republicans fighting regulation of the financial markets. Why?

Gee, maybe they are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them while you voted against them. Imagine that.

 

[Al68]

I used to be very libertarian...Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

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."

 

[turbo]

So fiscal conservatism is essentially economic authoritarianism (or socialism)?

No. Conservatism implies protection of a viable system, and that means that risks and rewards need to be balanced. It is not "just fine" if a speculator leverages the investments of his clients into a liability of a few billion dollars, nor is it proper for the taxpayers to have to save his butt, and his multi-million dollar bonuses so he can find a way to pull that same crap a couple of years later.

Establishing strict rules of conduct for private individuals (or groups) is fiscal conservatism? Are you joking?

Not at all. If there are no rules for the fiscal market to adhere to, there can be no assumption of their acceptance of fiduciary responsibility, nor of conduct pursuant that acceptance. As a saver/investor, I prefer to have some ground-rules.

And "radical neocon" means (slightly) more economically libertarian than Democrats? Is this "make up your own definition for words" day?Gee, maybe they are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them while you voted against them. Imagine that.

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that? Neo-cons are not conservative in the least. They are radical pro-business/pro-power politicians that are concerned about piling up money and increasing their political influence. Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today. He was a good man.

 

[Al68]

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that?

I just told you. Republicans are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them and you voted against them. Why would you think they should take your side against mine after I voted for them? Don't worry, I'm sure they will betray me, they always do.

Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today.

He would be called a "neo-con radical extremist pro-business/pro-power for the rich fatcat loving little children hater" by Democrats.

He was a good man.

Yes, he was. He was nothing like you think.

His economic positions were more like mine (and against yours) than any politician in Washington today. Are you not aware that he fought against the New Deal, Great Society, government economic regulation, and virtually everything you believe in economically? Do you have him confused with someone else?

 

[turbo]

He would be called a "neo-con radical extremist pro-business/pro-power for the rich fatcat loving little children hater" by Democrats.Yes, he was. He was nothing like you think. His economic positions were more like mine (and against yours) than any politician in Washington today.

Would you like to support those statements? And please do so with more than bluster and assertion. I was a Goldwater supporter as a teen, before I was old enough to vote.

 

[Al68]

Would you like to support those statements? And please do so with more than bluster and assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater. And there are many references at the bottom of that page.

I won't bother to point to specific parts or references, unless you specifically want one for a particular issue, because they all say the same thing, and the overwhelming theme is obvious. Goldwater's political philosophy and positions are very well known, not in dispute, and easy to research. He was the ultimate "neocon" to the extreme by your definition. He was probably the single biggest target in history of the Democratic Party's "extremist, for the rich, anti-worker" accusations.

I was a Goldwater supporter as a teen, before I was old enough to vote.

And obviously you had no idea what his political views actually were, and still don't. And how can you not remember Democrats attacking him the exact same way they (and you) attack Republicans today? Almost word for word.

 

[turbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater. And there are many references at the bottom of that page.

I won't bother to point to specific parts or references, unless you specifically want one for a particular issue, because they all say the same thing, and the overwhelming theme is obvious. Goldwater's political philosophy and positions are very well known, not in dispute, and easy to research. He was the ultimate "neocon" to the extreme by your definition. He was probably the single biggest target in history of the Democratic Party's "extremist, for the rich, anti-worker" accusations.And obviously you had no idea what his political views actually were, and still don't. And how can you not remember Democrats attacking him the exact same way they (and you) attack Republicans today? Almost word for word.

You link a Wiki article as a reference without contextual support? I was there. I doubt that you were.

 

[Al68]

You link a Wiki article as a reference without contextual support?

OK, that was laziness on my part. That page contains many other references, and the purpose was to provide a general overview of Goldwater's political beliefs. And it is more than sufficient to substantiate my claim that Goldwater was far more economically libertarian than politicians in Washington today, as well as the specific claims that he was against the New Deal, etc.

I was there. I doubt that you were.

Doubt away. It's logically irrelevant.

 

[CAC1001]

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that?

Conservatives do not argue for no regulation of finance, markets, banking, etc...that would be silly. The big-L Libertarians, the kind who want to get rid of every major federal agency, seem to however.

Neo-cons are not conservative in the least. They are radical pro-business/pro-power politicians that are concerned about piling up money and increasing their political influence.

Your statements contradict one another. You say "Neo-cons rail for NO regulation" then "Neo-cons are not conservative in the least." Those two statements are contradictory. If anything, by your first statement, "neo-cons" are TOO conservative. They want TOO limited a government.

As for being pro-business, this is also contradictory. Regulation benefits big business, because it squeezes out competitors. There are very few, if any, highly regulated industries that are not dominated by very large, powerful corporations. Heavy regulation almost always leads to consolidation of an industry. The only time big business doesn't like regulation is once their industry has already become consolidated and dominated by large players. At this point, more regulation will just cost them profits.

Conservatives who are pro-business as opposed to pro-free market, are most certainly not for limited regulation.

Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today. He was a good man.

I agree, but because he would be considered a right-wing lunatic by the establishment GOP, one of the Sarah Palin-Tea Party-Ron Paul crowd.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" ~~~ Barry Goldwater from his 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

He also proposed using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He lost the election because he was seen as too far to the right by most people.

 

[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.