Category Archives: Libertarianism

Consequentialist libertarianism (also known as libertarian consequentialism[1]) refers to the libertarian position that is supportive of a free market and strong private property rights only on the grounds that they bring about favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency.[2] What consequentialist libertarians advocate is derived simply through cost-benefit calculation, taking a broad account of consequences.[3] It is contrasted with deontological libertarianism, also known as "natural-rights libertarianism," which considers the initiation of force and fraud to be immoral, regardless of consequences.[4][5] Unlike deontological libertarians, consequentialist libertarians do not necessarily see all cases of initiation of force as immoral and never see it as inherently immoral (i.e., they do not express a belief in natural rights). Rather, their position is that political and economic liberty lead to the best consequences in the form of happiness and prosperity, and for that reason alone it should be supported. (Some libertarians may have a conception of libertarianism that is a hybrid of consequentialism and deontology).[2]

Unlike deontological libertarians, consequentialist libertarians advocate actions they believe bring about favorable consequences regardless of whether these constitute initiation of force.[6][7] For example, unlike deontological libertarians, in addition to support for involuntary taxes, some consequentialists libertarians support eminent domain[8] Particular views vary among consequentialist libertarians, with political theorist David D. Friedman supporting a consequentialist form of anarcho-capitalism where the content of law is bought and sold rather there being an established legal code forbidding initiation of force.[9]

Milton Friedman,[10]David D. Friedman, Peter Leeson, Ludwig von Mises,[11] and Friedrich Hayek[12][13][14] are consequentalist libertarians.

See the article here:
Consequentialist libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rand Paul cracks jokes about smoking pot. He says the GOP needs to bring minorities and people with ponytails into the fold. The Kentucky senator doesnt back gay marriage, but hes not out beating the drums against it, either. And hes advocated cutting defense spending.

Not exactly the typical profile of a Republican standard-bearer. But that appears to be precisely Pauls gambit for a possible presidential bid in 2016: that he can remake the partys traditional coalition, engaging younger and minority voters without alienating the older, whiter and more conservative demographics that typically decide the Republican nomination.

Its a narrow tightrope for Paul to walk. Every break with his party on national security and foreign policy and there have been several threatens to make it that much harder for him to shed the isolationist tag in the eyes of the Republican establishment. Every entreaty to libertarian-leaning college students who adored his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, could complicate the task of creating some space from an element of the GOP regarded in some quarters as radical, even kooky.

(WATCH: 7 defining quotes from Rand Paul)

But Pauls success or failure could have big implications for a party thats been watching young, urban and minority voters flock to the Democratic Party with no apparent counterstrategy. If he can make a dent in that Democratic coalition by using his libertarianism to woo young voters and others who dont traditionally fall in the GOP camp, Paul could help his party forge a path back to the White House.

He has a particular appeal to young people with libertarian views, about keeping government out of our lives even in a Republican primary he might get a strong share of that vote, said longtime GOP strategist Charlie Black, who has worked on presidential campaigns for Republicans including Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush. At the same time, Black added that Pauls views are out of step on foreign policy and national security with the mainstream Republican Party.

Even as the national mood swings away from interventionist approaches, Pauls emphasis on privacy in national security debates, coupled with his inward-looking approach to foreign policy, gives pause to some party stalwarts.

(QUIZ: Do you know Rand Paul?)

Clearly, everybody is tired of wars that seem to drag on and on, said GOP strategist Whit Ayres. On the other hand, a strong element of the Republican coalition believes America has both a moral and a self-defense obligation to lead in the world.

Yet Pauls more libertarian approach to those issues makes him stand out to young voters, an overwhelmingly Democratic demographic despite a recent poll showing President Barack Obamas approval rating floundering with that group.

See the original post:
Rand Paul walks tightrope to expand GOP's appeal

At least three alleged moderators of the forums for the Silk Road online drug marketplace have been indicted on federal charges, according to a document unsealed today.

The three suspects Andrew Michael Jones, Gary Davis and Peter Phillip Nash have been indicted in the Southern District of New York on conspiracy charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and hacking, according to the document (.pdf).

All three allegedly worked for Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner and operator of Silk Road, who authorities say was 29-year-old Ross Ulbricht. Ulbricht was arrested last October in San Francisco after a years-long investigation that brought down the Silk Road, which facilitated the marketing and sales of illegal drugs.

Jones, who allegedly went by the name Inigo, is accused of being an administrator on the Silk Road site since at least October 2012. Davis, who allegedly used the name Libertas, was also an alleged administrator on the site since at least last June.

Nash, who allegedly used the aliases Samesamebutdifferent and Batman73, among others, allegedly served as the chief moderator of the Silk Road discussion forum since at least last January. The forum was a place where users discussed the sale of drugs and exchanged advice about taking drugs, eluding the feds, and other topics.

Silk Road administrators were responsible for monitoring user activity on the site and handling customer disputes. Forum moderators were responsible for providing guidance on how to use the Silk Road site, monitoring discussions, and reporting problems discussed in the forums to Silk Road administrators and Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner of the site.

Moderators and administrators were paid between $50,000 and $75,000 a year by Dread Pirate Roberts, according to the indictment.

Word of the arrests began swirling online when a user of the Reddit forum (which is owned by WIREDs parent company) posted a message indicating that her boyfriend had been arrested. The user, who posted under the name PrincessBtcButtercup before deleting the name, wrote that the person with whom she was in a relationship was an admin on Silk Road and had been the subject of a search warrant in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Im not sure what his login name was, all i know is that apparently he was an admin and then a mod and that he also ran the book club. He is a wonderful person and has been supporting me (due to my chronic pain), so to say the least my world has been turned inside out and upside down. They told me they were making arrests all around the world at the same time.can anyone give me any info on who he was? im hoping he was well liked and respected because even though i didnt know he was doing this, I can guarantee he was doing it out of his passion for Libertarianism and for the idea of a free marketplace. Just thought i would pass on the message..

She then posted a copy of the search warrant along with a copy of a business card from FBI Agent Christopher Tarbell.

See the original post:
Silk Road’s Alleged Top Moderators Indicted

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5]political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent.[7] While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management. [14][15][16][17]

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19]In the United States, the term libertarianism is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism.

Many countries throughout the world have libertarian parties (see list of libertarian political parties).

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to incompatibilist determinism.[20] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[21][22]

Libertarian as an advocate or defender of liberty especially in the political and social spheres was used in 1796 in London Packet on the 12th of February:

Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians.[23]

The word libertarian was used also in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir":

The author's Latin verses, which are rather more intelligible than his English, mark him for a furious Libertarian (if we may coin such a term) and a zealous admirer of France, and her liberty, under Bonaparte; such liberty![24]

The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a new set of political positions has been tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Djacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[25] By 1878, Sir John Seeley could characterize a person "who can properly be said to defend liberty" (by opposing tyranny or "resist[ing] the established government") as a "libertarian."[26]Libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for anarchism since the 1890s.[27] By 1901, Frederic William Maitland could use the term to capture a cultural attitude of support for freedom. Observing that "the picture of an editor defending his proof sheets [...] before an official board of critics is not to our liking," Maitland emphasized that "[i]n such matters Englishmen are individualists and libertarians."[28] As early as 1923, H. L. Mencken could write: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[29]Albert Jay Nock and Mencken were the first prominent figures in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[30]

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[31][32] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[33][34]

Go here to read the rest:
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are not logically incompatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6]Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, E.J. Lowe, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7]Timothy O'Connor, Derk Pereboom, and Galen Strawson.[8]

The term "libertarianism" in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,

In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.

Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14]Quantum Mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. He states, however, that none of the arguments in his book will rely on this.

Nozick puts forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations.[6]

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

Go here to see the original:
Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First published Thu Sep 5, 2002; substantive revision Tue Jul 20, 2010

Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view. This entry will focus on libertarianism in the strict sense. For excellent discussion of the liberty tradition more generally (including classical liberalism), see Gaus and Mack (2004) and Barnett (2004).

Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things. (See, for example, Narveson 1988, 2000, Steiner 1994, and Narveson and Sterba 2010.) This is sometimes called Spencerian Libertarianism (after Herbert Spencer). It is usually claimed that this view is equivalent to above self-ownership version of libertarianism. Kagan (1994), however, has cogently argued that the former (depending on the interpretation) either leads to radical pacifism (the use of force is never permissible) or is compatible with a wide range of views in addition to the above self-ownership libertarianism. I shall not, however, attempt to assess this issue here. Instead, I shall simply focus on the above self-ownership version of libertarianism.

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic moral principle or as a derivative one. It might, for example, be advocated as a basic natural rights doctrine. Alternatively, it might be defended on the basis of rule consequentialism or teleology (e.g., Epstein 1995, 1998; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005; or Shapiro 2007) or rule contractarianism (e.g., Narveson 1988 and roughly Lomasky 1987). Instrumental derivations of libertarianism appeal to considerations such as human limitations (e.g., of knowledge and motivation), incentive effects, administrative costs, the intrinsic value of liberty for the good life, etc. This entry will not address arguments for libertarian principles on the basis of other moral principles. Instead, it will simply address the plausibility of libertarian principles in their own right.

Although libertarianism could be advocated as a full theory of moral permissibility, it is almost always advocated as a theory of justice in one of two senses. In one sense, justice is concerned with the moral duties that we owe others. It does not address impersonal duties (duties owed to no one) or duties owed to self. In a second sense, justice is concerned with the morally enforceable duties that we have. It does not address duties for which it is impermissible to use force to ensure compliance or to rectify (e.g., punish) non-compliance (e.g. a duty to see your mother on her birthday). We shall here consider libertarianism as a theory of justice in each sense.

Libertarianism is often thought of as right-wing doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on socialrather than economicissues, libertarianism tends to be left-wing. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianismright-libertarianismthere is also a version known as left-libertarianism. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

The best known early statement of (something close to) libertarianism is Locke (1690). The most influential contemporary work is Nozick (1974).

Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners just in case they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects. Below we shall distinguish between full (interpersonal) self-ownership and full political self-ownership. Many versions of libertarianism endorse only the latter.

Full ownership of an entity consists of a full set of the following ownership rights: (1) control rights over the use of the entity: both a liberty-right to use it and a claim-right that others not use it, (2) rights to compensation if someone uses the entity without one's permission, (3) enforcement rights (e.g., rights of prior restraint if someone is about to violate these rights), (4) rights to transfer these rights to others (by sale, rental, gift, or loan), and (5) immunities to the non-consensual loss of these rights. Full ownership is simply a logically strongest set of ownership rights over a thing. There is some indeterminacy in this notion (since there can be more than one strongest set of such rights), but there is a determinate core set of rights (see below).

At the core of full self-ownership, then, is full control self-ownership, the full right to control the use of one's person. Something like control self-ownership is arguably needed to recognize the fact there are some things (e.g., various forms of physical contact) that may not be done to a person without her consent, but which may be done with that consent. It wrongs an individual to subject her to non-consensual and unprovoked killing, maiming, enslavement, or forcible manipulation.

Read the original post:
Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree. Nevertheless, there is a certain family resemblance among libertarian theories that can serve as a framework for analysis. Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations. Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

In terms of political recommendations, libertarians believe that most, if not all, of the activities currently undertaken by states should be either abandoned or transferred into private hands. The most well-known version of this conclusion finds expression in the so-called minimal state theories of Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, and others (Nozick 1974; Rand 1963a, 1963b) which hold that states may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the stateregulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roadsis itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate.

Libertarian advocates of a strictly minimal state are to be distinguished from two closely related groups, who favor a smaller or greater role for government, and who may or may not also label themselves libertarian. On one hand are so-called anarcho-capitalists who believe that even the minimal state is too large, and that a proper respect for individual rights requires the abolition of government altogether and the provision of protective services by private markets. On the other hand are those who generally identify themselves as classical liberals. Members of this group tend to share libertarians confidence in free markets and skepticism over government power, but are more willing to allow greater room for coercive activity on the part of the state so as to allow, say, state provision of public goods or even limited tax-funded welfare transfers.

As this article will use the term, libertarianism is a theory about the proper role of government that can be, and has been, supported on a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds. Some libertarians are theists who believe that the doctrine follows from a God-made natural law. Others are atheists who believe it can be supported on purely secular grounds. Some libertarians are rationalists who deduce libertarian conclusions from axiomatic first principles. Others derive their libertarianism from empirical generalizations or a reliance on evolved tradition. And when it comes to comprehensive moral theories, libertarians represent an almost exhaustive array of positions. Some are egoists who believe that individuals have no natural duties to aid their fellow human beings, while others adhere to moral doctrines that hold that the better-off have significant duties to improve the lot of the worse-off. Some libertarians are deontologists, while others are consequentialists, contractarians, or virtue-theorists. Understanding libertarianism as a narrow, limited thesis about the proper moral standing, and proper zone of activity, of the stateand not a comprehensive ethical or metaphysical doctrineis crucial to making sense of this otherwise baffling diversity of broader philosophic positions.

This article will focus primarily on libertarianism as a philosophic doctrine. This means that, rather than giving close scrutiny to the important empirical claims made both in support and criticism of libertarianism, it will focus instead on the metaphysical, epistemological, and especially moral claims made by the discussants. Those interested in discussions of the non-philosophical aspects of libertarianism can find some recommendations in the reference list below.

Furthermore, this article will focus almost exclusively on libertarian arguments regarding just two philosophical subjects: distributive justice and political authority. There is a danger that this narrow focus will be misleading, since it ignores a number of interesting and important arguments that libertarians have made on subjects ranging from free speech to self-defense, to the proper social treatment of the mentally ill. More generally, it ignores the ways in which libertarianism is a doctrine of social or civil liberty, and not just one of economic liberty. For a variety of reasons, however, the philosophic literature on libertarianism has mostly ignored these other aspects of the theory, and so this article, as a summary of that literature, will generally reflect that trend.

Probably the most well-known and influential version of libertarianism, at least among academic philosophers, is that based upon a theory of natural rights. Natural rights theories vary, but are united by a common belief that individuals have certain moral rights simply by virtue of their status as human beings, that these rights exist prior to and logically independent of the existence of government, and that these rights constrain the ways in which it is morally permissible for both other individuals and governments to treat individuals.

Although one can find some earlier traces of this doctrine among, for instance, the English Levellers or the Spanish School of Salamanca, John Lockes political thought is generally recognized as the most important historical influence on contemporary natural rights versions of libertarianism. The most important elements of Lockes theory in this respect, set out in his Second Treatise, are his beliefs about the law of nature, and his doctrine of property rights in external goods.

Lockes idea of the law of nature draws on a distinction between law and government that has been profoundly influential on the development of libertarian thought. According to Locke, even if no government existed over men, the state of nature would nevertheless not be a state of license. In other words, men would still be governed by law, albeit one that does not originate from any political source (c.f. Hayek 1973, ch. 4). This law, which Locke calls the law of nature holds that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions (Locke 1952, para. 6). This law of nature serves as a normative standard to govern human conduct, rather than as a description of behavioral regularities in the world (as are other laws of nature like, for instance, the law of gravity). Nevertheless, it is a normative standard that Locke believes is discoverable by human reason, and that binds us all equally as rational agents.

Lockes belief in a prohibition on harming others stems from his more basic belief that each individual has a property in his own person (Locke 1952, para. 27). In other words, individuals are self-owners. Throughout this essay we will refer to this principle, which has been enormously influential on later libertarians, as the self-ownership principle. Though controversial, it has generally been taken to mean that each individual possesses over her own body all those rights of exclusive use that we normally associate with property in external goods. But if this were all that individuals owned, their liberties and ability to sustain themselves would obviously be extremely limited. For almost anything we want to doeating, walking, even breathing, or speaking in order to ask anothers permissioninvolves the use of external goods such as land, trees, or air. From this, Locke concludes, we must have some way of acquiring property in those external goods, else they will be of no use to anyone. But since we own ourselves, Locke argues, we therefore also own our labor. And by mixing our labor with external goods, we can come to own those external goods too. This allows individuals to make private use of the world that God has given to them in common. There is a limit, however, to this ability to appropriate external goods for private use, which Locke captures in his famous proviso that holds that a legitimate act of appropriation must leave enough, and as good in common for others (Locke 1952, para. 27). Still, even with this limit, the combination of time, inheritance, and differential abilities, motivation, and luck will lead to possibly substantial inequalities in wealth between persons, and Locke acknowledges this as an acceptable consequence of his doctrine (Locke 1952, para. 50).

Read more:
Libertarianism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1] However, the views of Rand and her philosophy among prominent libertarians are mixed and many Objectivists are hostile to non-Objectivist libertarians in general.[2]

Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[3] but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom." Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[4] They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle.[citation needed]

Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages", and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights", was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians."[5] Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism", was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.[5]

Libertarians and Objectivists often disagree about matters of foreign policy. Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" extended to the Middle East peace process in the 1970s.[5][6] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads."[6] Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."[6] Many libertarians were highly critical of Israeli government at the time.[citation needed]

Most scholars of the libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[7] while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[8][9]

The United States Libertarian Party's first candidate for President of the United States, John Hospers, credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[10]David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, described Rand's work as "squarely within the libertarian tradition" and that some libertarians are put off by "the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following."[11]Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."[12] One Rand biographer quoted Murray Rothbard as saying that he was "in agreement basically with all [Rand's] philosophy," and saying that it was Rand who had "convinced him of the theory of natural rights..."[13] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing in The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult that:

The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[14]

Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's former wife), and others. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between "open Objectivists" and the libertarian movement.[citation needed]

Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[15] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[16]

Rand said of libertarians that:

Read the original here:
Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another health-care delay Listing all the delays Obama heads to Hawaii, but dont be surprised if we hear from him first Republicans again dealing with immigration and gay rights A busy next two months And the top 10 races of 2014 to watch.

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Another 11th-hour health-care change:Fearing that the number of people who lose coverage could match the number who sign up for insurance this year, the administration announced a new grandfather clause Thursday night: People who received cancellation notices for their policy but are not eligible for subsidies can use the laws hardship exemption to buy a bare-bones plan. Also, the administration announced these folks will NOT get hit with a tax penalty this year if they do not have insurance by Jan. 1, NBCs Maggie Fox reports. This is just the latest of several delays and extensions offered by the administration (some items listed below). The insurance industry behind the scenes is panicking over this, thinking it will affect their cost estimates, warning that it could increase costs and could mean higher prices eventually. This is just the latest in a series of rules changes the administration has put into place as criticism of the implementation has heated up. Heres a quick list of just some of the delays put in place this year:

REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman

The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare", outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi October 4, 2013.

And thats in addition to the delayed sign up deadline that slid eight days (Dec. 15-23), the extended sign ups until March 31, 2014, open enrollment being pushed back into November, as well as the web sites back-end delays, the Spanish-language site delay, and the essentially two-month delayed functional launch of HealthCare.gov. Serious question: will there be a single uninsured American in 2014 who will end up paying the mandate penalty?

*** Wanna get away? All that could make the person in charge of this law and whose legacy rests on its implementation want to book a flight and get out of town for the holidays. President Obama is doing just that tonight when he leaves for Hawaii at 6:45 pm ET. He does not return to Washington until Jan. 5th. It would be surprising if we didnt hear from him one more time before he leaves. There is no doubt the president cant wait for 2013 to be in the books, easily his most troubled year politically. And now most of his vacation, if hes focused on work, itll be health care, so admin officials told reporters yesterday. There will be regularly updates provided to the president regarding signups. Ironically, while the president has had a terrible year politically, the economy continues to slowly and steadily improve. The economy grew at a 4.1% annual rate, according to GDP numbers out this morning, up from the 3.6% reported earlier this month. Thats the fastest pace in nearly two years. By the way, Steve Harveys interview with President Obama airs at 3 pm ET today.

*** What do Republican presidential hopefuls do about immigration? Gov. Chris Christie (R) struck a deal with the state legislature yesterday on a bill that allows in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. He promised to do this during his campaign. It wasnt clear that he would go through with it, but he did. In-state tuition was an issue in 2012 for Rick Perry, and nearly sunk John McCains presidential aspirations in 2008. By the way, this could be a dividing line issue for Christie with another governor, who wants to make the case that he can appeal to moderates Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. In 2011, Walker stripped out in-state tuition rates for children of undocumented immigrants, something that had been put in there in 2009 by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, per NBCs Vaughn Hillyard. Of course, the wild card here is what do presidentials do if the GOP-controlled House tackles some similar immigration measures next year? Secretly, every GOPer running in 2016 would love nothing more than for the House Republicans to simply get this issue out of the way for them.

***Conservatives dont Duck this fight: From one thorny GOP issue to another To us, that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty saying something controversial/offensiveisnt political news, or that its political news he got suspended from A&E for saying it. After all, plenty of celebrities -- conservative or liberal -- say controversial/offensive things all the time and they usually get some slap on the wrist. But what IS political news is when prominent politicians swoop in to defend the controversial/offensive comments. Here wasLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R): The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don't agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. (Of course, companies are also entitled to fire/suspend their employees, too.) And here was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) onTwitter:If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over treatment of Phil Robertson. But the real reason why this is a story is that the Jindal-Cruz comments go precisely against the RNCs autopsy recommendations. On messaging, we must change our tone especially on certain social issues that are turning off young voters, the RNC report said.These comments may feel good in the moment and appeal to the base (something certainly Jindal needs to do with sagging poll numbers). But thats all this is talking to. And it reinforces the problems Republicans have with swing voters when it comes to these issues. Thats the danger here. Republicans have three choices on things like this denounce, support, or say nothing. The safest thing for most of them is to say nothing.

*** Look at the busy couple of months ahead -- Some upcoming political dates to circle on your calendars:

Excerpt from:
First Thoughts: Another 11th-hour health-care change

Libertarians Recruiting More Candidates in Pursuit of Election Success

December 12, 2013

Central Texas is home to many Libertarians, as shown by this map of the percentage of votes Libertarians received by county. Map by Roy Varney.

By Roy Varney

For Reporting Texas

The shorthand for the original slogan of the Libertarian Party could easily be confused with an anagram or a new strand of flu. But TANSTAAFL pronounced tanstaffel and standing for There aint no such thing as a free lunch was the 1971 launch of an effort to shake up the countrys traditionally two-party political system.

The first platform promised to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We kind of half-jokingly said there was something in that platform that could offend anyone, recalls Roger Gary, a party member since 1977.

Gary said hes seen the meaning of Libertarianism in Texas change dramatically during his tenure. He has also see significantgrowth in the partys ability to attract voters.

Libertarianism was once considered a fringe party in Texas, but thanks to improved leadership, prolonged public exposure and indirect benefits from the decline of the state Democratic Party, Texas is now the top producer of Libertarian candidates.

Read the rest here:
Libertarians Recruiting More Candidates in Pursuit of Election Success