5 ms·

Libertarianism is not about not helping others. Not even remotely. Libertarianism means you can help others as much as you want to.

mcphage 9y ago
> Libertarianism means you can help others as much as you want to. What’s the political philosophy that means you can help others as much as they need? Maybe we should talk about that one more.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  With the operative word being "can" there, it's still libertarianism.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
  Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx.
  - gaius 9y ago
    He said it in that order for a reason, Comrade, one that I don’t think people really appreciate. It means “if you don’t work you don’t eat”. Doesn’t sound so benevolent now does it?
tjr225 9y ago
Which, in the case of most of the people who currently hold our wealth, turns out to be not very much at all. Are you surprised?
- rboyd 9y ago
  "our wealth"?
  - tjr225 9y ago
    Some of us disagree very strongly with the premise of capitalism.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      Under libertarianism, there's no law against communes. You can set one up!
      - alistoriv 9y ago
        And if a hypothetical commune became dominant and an existential threat to the existence of a hypothetical libertarian society? The Communist Party of the Philippines operates as a parallel government in many respects, do you think that should be allowed? The Zapatistas? It's misleading to say that it would be a-ok to start a socialist society in a libertarian society. It (like many aspects of libertarian analysis, in my opinion) ignores the reality of a political situation like the one described.
        skookumchuck 9y ago
        It's not misleading. Hundreds (thousands?) of communes have been set up in the US. As far as I know, nobody has tried to shut them down. Nobody is stopping you from joining an existing one. You can find them via Google. More to the point, the notion that communes are a threat to libertarianism is flat out false. Libertarianism is about freedom to associate with and do business with people as you please. That includes pooling ones' interests in a commune. What you cannot do under libertarianism is force someone to join, or prevent someone from leaving.
    - gota 9y ago
      The true premise of capitalism is that a person can own the rights to the exploration of natural resources, most commonly land. Everything else is compounded abstraction. I used to think it was more 'artificial' than it really is; but in fact it seems "natural" that people who lived for a long while in a piece of land deserve the right to keep it; and it also seems "natural" that through force you can take and keep land regardless of who 'deserves' its. Not good, maybe, but natural. My point is that if these things are natural, it is likely that we'd reach a similar structure if we started from scratch. I don't really think that the true premise of capitalism is going away until we reach a Star Trek post-scarcity level of wealth. I do think we can - and should - combat the ill-effects that come from the exercise of a capitalist system for billions of people. I think we need to make it better, not a do over
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Given that about a third of the country would identify themselves as progressives, it's hard to see if they gave of their own free will, there wouldn't be plenty of help to the disadvantaged. But I rarely (never?) see any rhetoric in DNC politics about party members donating of their own free will to anything other than the Democratic party.
  - tjr225 9y ago
    Agreed on both of your points.
  - andygates 9y ago
    Virtue doesn't scale. Hence taxes for public good stuff because otherwise only the town with a generous Moneybags would have roads or a fire service (and the town with a racist Moneybags would only have a fire service in the white quarter). It's also hard to coordinate - see disaster response.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      We're talking simply about charity. There are plenty of wealthy liberals - like Hollywood, Gates, Buffet, Silicon Valley, etc. All the people who donated to Sanders. Plenty of money to give to charity.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Resources are unevenly distributed. Like, why don't the homeless all just pool their resources and buy a house?
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      Seattle votes heavily Democrat. There's only a tiny fraction of them in Seattle that are homeless.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        It's an extreme illustration of a principle that holds at many different levels.
dfgdsfgsd 9y ago
True, if we're talking about poor ol' Hayek and Rothbard... but Ayn Rand discourages it and she's the standard bearer. Interestingly, I always found the aesthetics, philosophy, methods of Randianism quite Stalinist.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Rand doesn't represent libertarianism. You'll get a far more accurate version if you read Friedman's books one economics.

mcphage 9y ago

> Libertarianism means you can help others as much as you want to. What’s the political philosophy that means you can help others as much as they need? Maybe we should talk about that one more.

Consultant32452 9y ago
With the operative word being "can" there, it's still libertarianism.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx.
- gaius 9y ago
  He said it in that order for a reason, Comrade, one that I don’t think people really appreciate. It means “if you don’t work you don’t eat”. Doesn’t sound so benevolent now does it?

tjr225 9y ago

Which, in the case of most of the people who currently hold our wealth, turns out to be not very much at all. Are you surprised?

rboyd 9y ago
"our wealth"?
- tjr225 9y ago
  Some of us disagree very strongly with the premise of capitalism.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    Under libertarianism, there's no law against communes. You can set one up!
    - alistoriv 9y ago
      And if a hypothetical commune became dominant and an existential threat to the existence of a hypothetical libertarian society? The Communist Party of the Philippines operates as a parallel government in many respects, do you think that should be allowed? The Zapatistas? It's misleading to say that it would be a-ok to start a socialist society in a libertarian society. It (like many aspects of libertarian analysis, in my opinion) ignores the reality of a political situation like the one described.
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        It's not misleading. Hundreds (thousands?) of communes have been set up in the US. As far as I know, nobody has tried to shut them down. Nobody is stopping you from joining an existing one. You can find them via Google. More to the point, the notion that communes are a threat to libertarianism is flat out false. Libertarianism is about freedom to associate with and do business with people as you please. That includes pooling ones' interests in a commune. What you cannot do under libertarianism is force someone to join, or prevent someone from leaving.
  - gota 9y ago
    The true premise of capitalism is that a person can own the rights to the exploration of natural resources, most commonly land. Everything else is compounded abstraction. I used to think it was more 'artificial' than it really is; but in fact it seems "natural" that people who lived for a long while in a piece of land deserve the right to keep it; and it also seems "natural" that through force you can take and keep land regardless of who 'deserves' its. Not good, maybe, but natural. My point is that if these things are natural, it is likely that we'd reach a similar structure if we started from scratch. I don't really think that the true premise of capitalism is going away until we reach a Star Trek post-scarcity level of wealth. I do think we can - and should - combat the ill-effects that come from the exercise of a capitalist system for billions of people. I think we need to make it better, not a do over
skookumchuck 9y ago
Given that about a third of the country would identify themselves as progressives, it's hard to see if they gave of their own free will, there wouldn't be plenty of help to the disadvantaged. But I rarely (never?) see any rhetoric in DNC politics about party members donating of their own free will to anything other than the Democratic party.
- tjr225 9y ago
  Agreed on both of your points.
- andygates 9y ago
  Virtue doesn't scale. Hence taxes for public good stuff because otherwise only the town with a generous Moneybags would have roads or a fire service (and the town with a racist Moneybags would only have a fire service in the white quarter). It's also hard to coordinate - see disaster response.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    We're talking simply about charity. There are plenty of wealthy liberals - like Hollywood, Gates, Buffet, Silicon Valley, etc. All the people who donated to Sanders. Plenty of money to give to charity.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Resources are unevenly distributed. Like, why don't the homeless all just pool their resources and buy a house?
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    Seattle votes heavily Democrat. There's only a tiny fraction of them in Seattle that are homeless.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It's an extreme illustration of a principle that holds at many different levels.

dfgdsfgsd 9y ago

True, if we're talking about poor ol' Hayek and Rothbard... but Ayn Rand discourages it and she's the standard bearer. Interestingly, I always found the aesthetics, philosophy, methods of Randianism quite Stalinist.

skookumchuck 9y ago
Rand doesn't represent libertarianism. You'll get a far more accurate version if you read Friedman's books one economics.