4 ms·

I was trying to present the good side of libertarianism. The argument you present for libertarians is bad and borderline shameful (and, I think, not representa

I was trying to present the good side of libertarianism. The argument you present for libertarians is bad and borderline shameful (and, I think, not representative of the majority of libertarians. but certainly something some of them would say). But there much better arguments with similar conclusions. The main reason it's an awful position, in my view, is that it's premised on conflicts of interest and compromise -- some things outweigh others, and there are losers which must lose while having legitimate points. It views life as a mixed bag, with inevitable suffering and sacrifice and loss. This is not the position of, for example, Ayn Rand who argued in Virtue of Selfishness chapter 4 for a very different worldview in which there are no conflicts of interest among rational men. Your claim that if voluntary charity worked, no one would have invented public services in the first place is incorrect. If voluntary charity didn't work in the context in which Government was first invented, that absolutely doesn't imply that a more sophisticated version of voluntary charity could not work today in a rather different world.

philwelch 15y ago
This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods, but only private goods gained through mutually beneficial transactions. To Rand, there's no rational interest in having a public library, so there is no rational conflict between the wealthy taxpayer and the impoverished library patron. Randroidism is one of the most brutal and shameful forms of libertarianism.
- xenophanes 15y ago
  You're wrong and should stop hating people you're ignorant of. I'll give brief examples in hopes you, recognizing you really were wrong about some basic facts, will either learn about the subject or stop making nasty, ignorant accusations in the future. Ayn Rand did not have a policy of "never accept handouts", said so, and, for example, signed up for medicaid. Ayn Rand's argument I cited does not consist of denying there are public goods. Whatever her position on public goods, if you read the chapter, public goods are simply not what she talks about, and your comments do not address the argument she did make. Ayn Rand rejected and harshly criticized libertarianism. Calling her a libertarian is ignorant.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    I was a fanatical Randroid myself in my younger years, and while she may not have gone as far as "never accept handouts", she did go as far as "never expect handouts", and in Rand's system there is explicitly no right or expectation to anything unearned. Rand's opposition to "libertarians" was purely a personal dislike of the people in Rand's time who called themselves libertarians. Most sensible definitions of the word "libertarian", ranging anywhere from "an advocate for limited government" to "an advocate of the non-aggression principle" easily entail Rand's philosophy. Finally, while I think Ayn Rand was irrational or just plain wrong in many aspects of her philosophy and in her personal and political dealings, and while I think her philosophy has frankly horrific consequences, I don't hate the woman. I actually have a degree of fondness for her, and her role in my intellectual development.
    - GFKjunior 15y ago
      I am a fanatical libertarian and Rand is not a major figure in most modern circles. Austrian writers are the go to role models for most libertarians, Hayek, Mises, my favorite is Rothbard.
      - xenophanes 15y ago
        Are you aware the Rothbard thinks of children as property, and is anti-semitic, among other disgusting positions? And that Hayek sympathizes, morally, with socialism? Mises is wonderful but these other people you list with him are really quite different than him.
        sshumaker 15y ago
        Rothbard: "The parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." See http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp Yeah, pretty disgusting.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods,... This is simply false. In Atlas Shrugged, she explicitly acknowledges that providing public goods is a legitimate function of government, and taxation is legitimate insofar as at it used to pay for public goods. If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), it was Hank Reardon who states this point. I believe a (fair) judge was also allowed into Galt's Gulch, though I might be misremembering this point. As I said, it's been a long time since I read the book.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    I think this is actually one of the contradictions in Rand, and I'm not the first person to think so: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
  - sid6376 15y ago
    You are right about that. It was Judge Narragansett.
- _delirium 15y ago
  On the plus side, I don't think there are many hardline Randians. In technology, I would guess that libertarianism boils down to some mixture of: 1) being really annoyed about civil-liberties, EFF-type issues; 2) being moderately annoyed about regulations seen as unnecessary; and 3) being mildly-to-moderately annoyed about taxes. Varies by person, but I think if you took a vote even restricted to people in Silicon Valley who actively called themselves "libertarian-leaning", over whether libraries should get some funding, the answer would probably still be "yes". Not too many people are actively against libraries; I think they get cut more because, unfortunately, their constituency isn't as powerful as other things that might be cut instead.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    We're an odd bunch, and there are certainly plenty of technical folks who are logical-minded enough to get themselves into some hardline position or another, but hardline Randians are probably a minority of any group you could think of, except for the group of hardline Randians of course.

philwelch 15y ago

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods, but only private goods gained through mutually beneficial transactions. To Rand, there's no rational interest in having a public library, so there is no rational conflict between the wealthy taxpayer and the impoverished library patron. Randroidism is one of the most brutal and shameful forms of libertarianism.

xenophanes 15y ago
You're wrong and should stop hating people you're ignorant of. I'll give brief examples in hopes you, recognizing you really were wrong about some basic facts, will either learn about the subject or stop making nasty, ignorant accusations in the future. Ayn Rand did not have a policy of "never accept handouts", said so, and, for example, signed up for medicaid. Ayn Rand's argument I cited does not consist of denying there are public goods. Whatever her position on public goods, if you read the chapter, public goods are simply not what she talks about, and your comments do not address the argument she did make. Ayn Rand rejected and harshly criticized libertarianism. Calling her a libertarian is ignorant.
- philwelch 15y ago
  I was a fanatical Randroid myself in my younger years, and while she may not have gone as far as "never accept handouts", she did go as far as "never expect handouts", and in Rand's system there is explicitly no right or expectation to anything unearned. Rand's opposition to "libertarians" was purely a personal dislike of the people in Rand's time who called themselves libertarians. Most sensible definitions of the word "libertarian", ranging anywhere from "an advocate for limited government" to "an advocate of the non-aggression principle" easily entail Rand's philosophy. Finally, while I think Ayn Rand was irrational or just plain wrong in many aspects of her philosophy and in her personal and political dealings, and while I think her philosophy has frankly horrific consequences, I don't hate the woman. I actually have a degree of fondness for her, and her role in my intellectual development.
  - GFKjunior 15y ago
    I am a fanatical libertarian and Rand is not a major figure in most modern circles. Austrian writers are the go to role models for most libertarians, Hayek, Mises, my favorite is Rothbard.
    - xenophanes 15y ago
      Are you aware the Rothbard thinks of children as property, and is anti-semitic, among other disgusting positions? And that Hayek sympathizes, morally, with socialism? Mises is wonderful but these other people you list with him are really quite different than him.
      - sshumaker 15y ago
        Rothbard: "The parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." See http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp Yeah, pretty disgusting.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods,... This is simply false. In Atlas Shrugged, she explicitly acknowledges that providing public goods is a legitimate function of government, and taxation is legitimate insofar as at it used to pay for public goods. If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), it was Hank Reardon who states this point. I believe a (fair) judge was also allowed into Galt's Gulch, though I might be misremembering this point. As I said, it's been a long time since I read the book.
- philwelch 15y ago
  I think this is actually one of the contradictions in Rand, and I'm not the first person to think so: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
- sid6376 15y ago
  You are right about that. It was Judge Narragansett.
_delirium 15y ago
On the plus side, I don't think there are many hardline Randians. In technology, I would guess that libertarianism boils down to some mixture of: 1) being really annoyed about civil-liberties, EFF-type issues; 2) being moderately annoyed about regulations seen as unnecessary; and 3) being mildly-to-moderately annoyed about taxes. Varies by person, but I think if you took a vote even restricted to people in Silicon Valley who actively called themselves "libertarian-leaning", over whether libraries should get some funding, the answer would probably still be "yes". Not too many people are actively against libraries; I think they get cut more because, unfortunately, their constituency isn't as powerful as other things that might be cut instead.
- philwelch 15y ago
  We're an odd bunch, and there are certainly plenty of technical folks who are logical-minded enough to get themselves into some hardline position or another, but hardline Randians are probably a minority of any group you could think of, except for the group of hardline Randians of course.