News Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[1MileCrash]

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

 

[G037H3]

Mostly leftists on this board. They want the easy grant money.

 

[DR13]

Depends how you define Libertarian. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Some people say this is Libertarian.

 

[1MileCrash]

Depends how you define Libertarian. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Some people say this is Libertarian.

That is exactly how I'd define libertarian.

 

[DR13]

Then yes, I am Libertarian. Some people also include things like Libertarians say that we should never engage in a war unless attacked (not like 9/11 attack but like by a real nation a la pearl harbor). Also, that Libertarians think that we should not send aid to other countries (goes with the theme of taking care of us first and not "wasting" money on others). I do not agree with these

 

[mynameisfunk]

I am Libertarian. To the bone. And, not to start a debate, but not sending aid to other countries, I can see, when put that way, how could you possibly agree with not helping your neighbor? The only problem I have with it, is the "forced to help" part. Without a governing body making the decision that "everyone is going to help and pay taxes to help these guys or GTFO," I think enough people who are willing and able to help put together a charity to help out for whatever cause they believe in would certainly do so. But just because you and I want to help out the refugees in the mid east doesn't mean we should go tell the authority about the idea and force everyone to come alone and pay for it.

 

[Jack21222]

I was the chairman of my local Libertarian Party for a few years, but I left that post a few years ago. I still consider myself a small-L libertarian, though I am fairly left-leaning. I believe government intervention should be the last resort in solving a problem, but I don't necessarily believe that government should NEVER intervene to solve a problem. I'm socially VERY liberal, and fiscally moderate, maybe slightly to the right of center.

 

[MATLABdude]

In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

There was a comic I saw a while back which motivated this post:
http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

And then someone else (maybe the same author?) came up with ones for progressives and authoritarians:
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/19/24-types-of-libertarians-vs-24-types-of-authoritarians/

Jack21222 (having been relatively somewhere up there on the LP hierarchy) will probably speak to the nugget of truth in the first comic, and the difficulty when it comes to getting down to brass tacks and actually herding "small-l" cats for "big-L" purposes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I used to be a libertarian when I thought freedom was all there was to life. I'm older now, I guess. I am now almost completely apolitical. I have no opinion on economics (I think most people who do don't know what they're talking about) and my social opinions lean towards liberal/libertarian (people should be able to be gay, worship spaghetti, do drugs, or otherwise engage in victimless activity).

 

[Jack21222]

In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

There was a comic I saw a while back which motivated this post:
http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

And then someone else (maybe the same author?) came up with ones for progressives and authoritarians:
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/19/24-types-of-libertarians-vs-24-types-of-authoritarians/

Jack21222 (having been relatively somewhere up there on the LP hierarchy) will probably speak to the nugget of truth in the first comic, and the difficulty when it comes to getting down to brass tacks and actually herding "small-l" cats for "big-L" purposes.

EVERY political label can be a Rorschach blot. As your second comic points out, the same can hold true for conservatives and liberals as well. For the first comic, I've known libertarians of almost every flavor listed there, it's pretty accurate.

 

[CAC1001]

In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

Being anti-regulation can mean being anti-corporatism, it depends. I consider myself mostly a small-L libertarian, or a classica liberal (using the 19th to early 20th century definition of liberal, not the version co-opted by the Left).

Libertarians do come in different flavors, though. For example, some are pro-choice and not much into religion at all, others are very much pro-life and fundamentalist Christians (i.e. Rand Paul).

 

[czelaya]

I never thought of myself as a libertarian. Matter of fact, I was pretty liberal. I believed that the government should reach out to those in need and that corporations were evil. That was until I started reading libertarian philosophy/history, and started learning that libertarianism was nothing new. Learning the difference between a pure democratic system versus a republic, helped further understand the pillars of libertarianism.

However, what really catalyzed my studies in political thought was learning about economics, and how the word capitalism is used wrongly and should be replaced by corporatism. Then, of course, you learn about taxation; the ever increasing scope of government; inflation and how it ties to governments over extending financial obligations via fiat currencies.

I just can't believe that over the last 4 years I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian. I can't believe how strongly I hold to libertarian values.

I think most people don't understand the concepts behind libertarianism because the first thing anyone tells me is that liberarians, in general, are anarchist, which they are not. There is definite role for government.

 

[arildno]

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

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.

 

[Gokul43201]

A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.

 

[Al68]

I used to be a libertarian when I thought freedom was all there was to life.

Freedom, like many things, is often not considered important until one does not have it. And different freedoms are important to different people. Some are perfectly content without economic freedom, as long as they have the social freedoms they desire, while others are just the opposite.

I think the core of libertarianism is to not just believe in the specific freedoms that are essential to your own enjoyment of life, but to believe in the ones that aren't, because they are essential to someone else's enjoyment of life.

I see in this forum repeatedly a complete disregard for the liberties others hold dear, as long as the liberties they hold dear are never violated. Then they scream bloody murder.

Of course most are honest enough not to call themselves libertarians, but it seems to me that a non-libertarian simply has no standing to complain about some violations of liberty, after advocating others.

 

[Proton Soup]

i used to be a card-carrying libertarian. but what i came to learn over time is that it is less the Reardens and Galts of the world that are attracted to it, but the PR Barnums. want to sell a fraudulent product without government interference of regulation? want to sue people that warn others that your product doesn't work? are you some kind of chiropractor or other witch doctor? then the libertarian party is probably for you.

plus the fact that libertarians simply do not build great civilizations. unless you consider monarchs to be the ultimate manifestation of libertarianism, but they always resort to violence.

 

[mugaliens]

The Whatever Works Best Party

Depends how you define Libertarian.

I'd let the party define itself, as they have http://www.lp.org/platform".

There's a lot of things I believe in, but most are cribbed from most parties, including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independants. It's sort of a "take the best and forget the rest" approach to government.

In fact, I've already given it a title: The Whatever Works Best Party.

As for what's on my voter card, I think it's "unaffiliated."

Other possible titles:

The Un-Party

The Anti-Party-Cull

The Anti-Politic-Cull

I could go on, Lol.

 

[Al68]

i used to be a card-carrying libertarian. but what i came to learn over time is that it is less the Reardens and Galts of the world that are attracted to it, but the PR Barnums. want to sell a fraudulent product without government interference of regulation? want to sue people that warn others that your product doesn't work? are you some kind of chiropractor or other witch doctor? then the libertarian party is probably for you.

Nonsense. If you used to be a "card carrying libertarian", you must have not read the motto on the card. It reads "No force, No fraud".

plus the fact that libertarians simply do not build great civilizations.

How about the most libertarian nation in history going from literally nothing to the greatest power in the history of the world in less than 150 years with virtually no economic regulation or income taxes?

Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in history?

 

[BobG]

A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.

I scored P=50% and E=70%, putting me in in the upper right hand corner of centrist (the corner close to libertarian and conservative).

That's a quiz too short to make an assessment, though.

I don't think there should be a military draft (because draftees make poor military members), but I'd agree with some kind of mandatory community service to get certain government benefits (tuition assistance, etc).

I'm not an absolutist on free trade, either. In general, I think government should eliminate barriers to free trade, but there could be exceptions.

I agree with privatization of Social Security and cutting taxes as an end goal, but not necessarily as a sudden change (in fact, I kind of think an abrupt change for either would have some disasterous short term effects).

In other words, I'm probably a little more to the center than that quiz reflects.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The quiz is also written in a particular way, that is likely to provoke a particular response: "End government barriers to international free trade" vs. e.g. "Require imports to pass the same safety requirements as domestic products". For that matter most "corporate welfare" (which libertarians traditionally oppose) is implemented as a tax reduction (which libertarians traditionally favor).

I think this is what is called a "push poll" - one designed to shape opinions rather than measure them.

 

[turbo]

Socially liberal, and fiscally conservative (to an extreme) would brand me as a Libertarian, but the brand has been co-opted by neo-cons in recent years, who mask their "fiscal conservatism" in protectionism for corporations and weak regulatory policies. (Any Pauls come to mind?)

 

[mheslep]

A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.

Me:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%

 

[mheslep]

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

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.

Great criticism of Rand, though she's far from synonymous with libertarianism.

 

[Gokul43201]

The quiz is also written in a particular way, that is likely to provoke a particular response: "End government barriers to international free trade" vs. e.g. "Require imports to pass the same safety requirements as domestic products". For that matter most "corporate welfare" (which libertarians traditionally oppose) is implemented as a tax reduction (which libertarians traditionally favor).

Not unexpected, given that the quiz is created by "advocates for self-government". For the most part though, I think it still can be used to distinguish a statist from a libertarian, etc (I know people that took it and ended up all over the map).

 

[CAC1001]

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

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.

I have no idea what you said there; when you say "state conception," what do you mean? When you say "affective (alogical" attachments & demands, do you mean she does not acknowledge the validity of emotional arguments and demands?

Do you mean that her project is self-destructive in that her philosophy and concept of a state does not acknowledge the validity of emotional reasons...?

BTW, I am not a strict Randian at all, from what I understand, she was more of an anarchist, I just got confused by your post.

 

[mheslep]

The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand
http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/24/4/39

For eighteen years I was a close associate of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand whose books, notably The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrrugged, inspired a philosophical movement known as objectivism. This philosophy places its central emphasis on reason, individualism, enlightened self-interest, political freedom-and a heroic vision of life's possibilities. Following an explosive parting of the ways with Ayn Rand in 1968, I have been asked many times about the nature of our differences. This article is my first public answer to that question. Although agreeing with many of the values of the objectivist philosophy and vision, I discuss the consequences of the absence of an adequate psychology to support this intellectual structure-focusing in particular on the destructive moralism of Rand and many of her followers, a moralism that sublty encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt. I offer an explanation of the immense appeal of Ayn Rand's philosophy, particularly to the young, and suggest some cautionary observations concerning its adaptation to one's own life.

 

[mheslep]

WFB's 1982 obit:

...What did Miss Rand in was her anxiety to theologize her beliefs. She was an eloquent and persuasive anti-statist, and if only she had left it at that—but no, she had to declare that God did not exist, that altruism was despicable, that only self-interest is good and noble. She risked, in fact, giving to capitalism that bad name that its enemies have done so well in giving it; and that is a pity. Miss Rand was a talented woman, devoted to her ideals. She came as a refugee from Communism to this country as a young woman, and carved out a substantial career. May she rest in peace, and may she experience the demystification of her mind possessed.

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

 

[mheslep]

Whittaker Chambers, a US intellectual, communist and Soviet spy who reformed when learning of Stalin's purges, wrote the 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged.

Big Sister Is Watching You. NR 1957, W. Chambers
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback

 

[arildno]

I have no idea what you said there; when you say "state conception," what do you mean? When you say "affective (alogical" attachments & demands, do you mean she does not acknowledge the validity of emotional arguments and demands?

Do you mean that her project is self-destructive in that her philosophy and concept of a state does not acknowledge the validity of emotional reasons...?

BTW, I am not a strict Randian at all, from what I understand, she was more of an anarchist, I just got confused by your post.

Rand makes the same mistake as communists:

She doesn't take into account grubby, dirty reality:

Communists fantasized about strictly altruistic human beings who didn't bother about who happens, at a particular transaction to get "the most", being equally willing to pull the shortest straw the next time.

Rand fantasizes about the strictly rational, self-serving individual, unfrightened by the individuality of The Other, and makes her philophy on basis of that.


To both of these movements, the following line is most apt:
It ain't necessarily so.

 

[1MileCrash]

I think this video does a great job of showing libertarian values.

 

[arildno]

As a follow-up:

CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENCY OF "SLAVISHNESS" vs. "LOVE OF FREEDOM":

If the vast majority of humans can be expected to prefer death to a miserable slavish existence, then Rand's conception of society could be a stable one (disregarding issues about how pleasant/good society it would be).

People would rather starve to death than accept personally disgraceful contracts of work (say, that they are to get the job on condition that their bodies are to be sexually penetrable for their employer at any time of his choosing).

But what if the willingness to live, however badly, is way more frequent than the commitment to ideas of personal dignity?

In that case, the Rand model has too few checks&balances in-built to prevent the evolution of an effective master/slave-society.

Now, what we DO have evidence about is that the vast majority of societies in history has been extremely abusive of what we would call basic human rights, and those societies cannot be regarded as less stable than the others.

We have a number of pitiful contracts, for example, from the merovingian period of the early middle ages, of people selling themselves into slavery in order to gain a small measure of material security.

To expect on a theoretical level, that sufficient numbers of people by themselves will refuse to undignify themselves is a wholly unargued-for position, and its truth is highly suspect.

Yet, it remains a basic, unstated premise in Rand's conception that the willingness to be free is a naturally widespread emotion/attitude.

Now, one might try to modify this by saying:
"Oh, we need not assume such a necessary love of freedom existing in sufficient frequency, rather, it will blossom in some manner".

In that case, one might legitimately ask:
a) Should such an attitude be INCULCATED in the population? Can we trust the parents to do so?
Or must we start public, "free" schools in order to make our propaganda stick?
In that case, the minimalist state conception of Rand is already..destroyed.

b) Or, who is the more freedom-loving lowlife:
The one taking a lousy job at Burger King, or the one developing himself into a..Burglar King?

 

[BobG]

I'd let the party define itself, as they have http://www.lp.org/platform".

There's a lot of things I believe in, but most are cribbed from most parties, including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independants. It's sort of a "take the best and forget the rest" approach to government.

In fact, I've already given it a title: The Whatever Works Best Party.

I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.

 

[Proton Soup]

Nonsense. If you used to be a "card carrying libertarian", you must have not read the motto on the card. It reads "No force, No fraud".

yeah, so? doesn't change the fact that it attracts swindlers eager to be free of the shackles of regulations that keep them in check.

How about the most libertarian nation in history going from literally nothing to the greatest power in the history of the world in less than 150 years with virtually no economic regulation or income taxes?

Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in history?

i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.

 

[turbo]

I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.

Or being a loyal reader of Newsweek vs Time, or a loyal consumer of Coke vs Pepsi. In both cases, neither choice is good for you, or sufficient. Pick your poison.

 

[Al68]

i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.

LOL. I was referring to the U.S. economy during its first ~150 years. And I was using the term "libertarian" relatively, ie relative to other nations historically.

Sure there are "swindlers" that will always take advantage of freedom. But it's absurd to say that the purpose of economic freedom is to allow swindlers to take advantage of it.

 

[Al68]

Rand makes the same mistake as communists:

She doesn't take into account grubby, dirty reality:

Communists fantasized about strictly altruistic human beings who didn't bother about who happens, at a particular transaction to get "the most", being equally willing to pull the shortest straw the next time.

Rand fantasizes about the strictly rational, self-serving individual, unfrightened by the individuality of The Other, and makes her philophy on basis of that.


To both of these movements, the following line is most apt:
It ain't necessarily so.

You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.

 

[turbo]

LOL. I was referring to the U.S. economy during its first ~150 years. And I was using the term "libertarian" relatively, ie relative to other nations historically.

Sure there are "swindlers" that will always take advantage of freedom. But it's absurd to say that the purpose of economic freedom is to allow swindlers to take advantage of it.

Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?
Face-palm moment.

 

[Al68]

Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?

What are you talking about? Citing economic freedom is silly? This thread is about libertarianism.

I was responding to a claim that libertarianism is beneficial to "swindlers". Did you misread my post?

What "loopholes" are you even referring to? I wasn't talking about crooks benefiting from any loopholes, I was referring to them taking advantage of the same economic freedom that everyone else would have in a libertarian society. And my point was that that was no justification for depriving everyone of such freedom.

 

[Max™]

Technically I fall pretty close to libertarian positions, but I am a naive anarchist. The individual is the most important part of society, the good of the one, collectively, would naively be expected to lead to good for all.

If everyone followed the golden rule, anarchy might be functional.

I recognize that this isn't likely to happen, so I grumble, and rant now and then when prodded.

Re: Rand

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

[arildno]

You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.

While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.

And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.

 

[CAC1001]

To expect on a theoretical level, that sufficient numbers of people by themselves will refuse to undignify themselves is a wholly unargued-for position, and its truth is highly suspect.

Yet, it remains a basic, unstated premise in Rand's conception that the willingness to be free is a naturally widespread emotion/attitude.

An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."

 

[CAC1001]

Communism, IMO, is just a fantasy system that does not take into account reality. Even if everyone had a heart of gold and was of solid moral character, communism still would not work, because there would be no way to know how to ration anything for the economy.

All attempts at a communist society degenerate into a socialist system, with a centrally-planned economy. And a centrally-planned economy is highly inefficient. In a market, you have millions of interconnected prices, representing supply and demand. Prices constantly fluctuate. If one price shifts, this automatically causes millions of other prices to change as well. Of course, EACH of those millions of other prices fluctuating influences one another and even more prices.

A central planner in an economy must mathematically try to figure out the same things that a freely-fluctuating price system does automatically in a free-market, and thus the task is impossible. The calculations become insanely complex.

It would take a monumental bureaucracy alone just to allocate food to a city like London or New York, if done with central planning (and that's just one city!). When Gorbachev visited London, he asked Margaret Thatcher, "How do you see to it that people get food?" Of course she didn't, the price system and private sector did that.

This lack of allocation also leads to the individual enterprises within a centrally-planned system producing a lot of unnecessary stuff. Imagine for example Sony producing its own tires, trucks, tools, machine parts, etc...simply because it knows it cannot rely on the parts of the economy responsible for these things to produce them in quantity needed.

This leads to shoddy quality everything, including the things they are charged with building originally (say televisions and cameras).

So even with hearts of gold, any attempt at a communist system, which leads to a socialist system, is still going to be highly inefficient. And that's also ignoring that to create a socialist system, you need force. At most, a centrally-planned economy with everyone having hearts of gold just would lack the massive corruption systems like the Soviet Union experienced.

 

[CAC1001]

Some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

I would argue/claim that. A lot of the high-tech stuff we have today ultimately came from discoveries from research funded by DARPA, which the free-market was then able to take advantage of to build into all of the goodies we have today.

 

[mheslep]

Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.

now you're just being tedious.

 

[arildno]

An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."

Hmm..I'd rather say that the vast majority of us prefer life to death, non-pain over pain.

Precisely because most of us wish to be mostly free, we would prefer to submit to a master we thought was kind (i.e, someone who let's us do what we want to do. Mostly), rather than risk death or a lot of pain by not submitting in that manner.

 

[mheslep]

now you're just being tedious.

Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.

 

[Proton Soup]

Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite. my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

 

[mheslep]

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite.

Fair enough, I'm with you on most of that.

my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

Depends I suppose on the definition of a 'project'. If one looks at the scope of 'big' enterprises in the US, certainly the government has had its share, certainly all the military operation, but then so does private enterprise, collectively. The internet as we know it today for instance was far from either being constructed by or funded by a central authority. Every decade or so Boeing or the like comes out with another aircraft far more advanced than prior models and requiring $10-20 billion in development, etc, etc.

 

[Al68]

While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.

A free-market economy by definition is not economically authoritarian. If you mean authoritarian on social issues, then I agree, but don't see the relevance. And historically, social oppression tends to accompany economic oppression, not economic libertarianism.

And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.

Any evidence to support such an absurd claim that history does not support?

And you seem to have a huge conceptual misunderstanding of what Rand, and economic libertarians advocate. We do not advocate a particular type of society, or changing, shaping, or controlling society. That's the whole point. We believe in peaceful co-existence, not government coercion to shape society into whatever mold is preferred.

But both history and basic logic tell us that economic freedom leads to prosperity, and economic oppression leads to poverty.