Category Archives: Libertarianism

FDR 962 - Why Libertarianism Fails: Part 3
Why has libertarianism been such a constantly disappointing cluster-frack?From:fdrpodcastsViews:0 0ratingsTime:24:39More inEducation

Follow this link:
FDR 962 - Why Libertarianism Fails: Part 3 - Video

Ayn Rand #39;s First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967
Ayn Rand was born in 1905 in St. Petersburg, Russia, but defected from the USSR in 1926 and came to the the US, where her writings formed the intellectual basis for the philosophy she called Objectivism. She was the author of The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Rand appears as a guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson in this interview from 1967. She introduces her philosophy and talks with Carson about various topics including the draft, the war in Vietnam, children, theology, and the nature of rights. Read more about Ayn Rand by visiting http://www.libertarianism.org Just think about this. Can ANYONE imagine a "popular" talk show today that was of this nature? As opposed to "big brother" or "X factor"? Shows like this are what we SHOULD be having. But we have Jersey Shore and MTV instead.From:peternolan1109Views:2 1ratingsTime:26:38More inEducation

Go here to read the rest:
Ayn Rand's First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967 - Video

The Hard Truth About Libertarianism
Libertarianism is a Jewish/Catholic Jesuit philosophy made to justify Social Darwinism and a corrupt society. It #39;s evil as Communism! Sources: http://www.henrymakow.com aftermathnews.wordpress.com http://www.henrymakow.comFrom:TheTruthOfAllThingsViews:1 0ratingsTime:06:21More inEducation

More:
The Hard Truth About Libertarianism - Video

A few months ago during the primaries, there was a lot of talk about Ron Paul and the Libertarian ideology. It seemed that it had finally made its way to the table and was being talked about more especially on college campuses.

Libertarianism started to be seen as a fresh ideology and many young voters welcomed it as new and revolutionary. However, it has historical roots and has played historical roles, especially in Europe. Many people seemed surprised because the mini-wave of Libertarianism had just come.

Though having common ground with both parties may seem like an advantage to gain momentum for their movement, it could actually be a double-edged sword. I think it was very bold to think that Libertarianism could take the lead in American politics because of this.

Some voters and commentators even began to speculate whether the Libertarians have started to gain traction in becoming a mainstream party in opposition to the two major parties, and some have even theorized that eventually there will be a slight Libertarian shift in the Republican platform.

Though the Libertarians have some views branded as radical, much of the modern Libertarian ideology is actually simply just a mix between the ideologies of American conservatives and liberals as well.

Libertarians distance themselves on some key issues, but the core beliefs explain this blend and why it has not seemed to gain serious traction as a strong third party in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans, who many seem to think are the only two parties that exist.

Jon Stewart may be more of a comedian than a reporter, but I think that he hit the nail right on the head when he said on his program that the Libertarians seem to be the friendship bracelet of the two major parties in Washington.

When the Libertarians insist that privatization of public programs and institutions are the best way to run them, they gain praise from the conservatives. They also gain praise from conservatives when they support states rights and smaller government.

Liberals like the social and foreign policy views of Libertarians. Many left-leaning minds find many of the Libertarian anti-war and anti-interventionism beliefs to be favorable and also find many Libertarians views of gay marriage and the war on drugs favorable. The Libertarian views tend to lean to the left both of these social matters.

But conservatives dont like what the conservatives like about the Libertarians and vice-versa. Who knows? Politics is like the weather. But it is unlikely in my opinion that Libertarianism will start to gain serious momentum as a juggernaut political party in the U.S. anytime soon.

Follow this link:
2 comments

Funny but true: recently on Facebook, a "friend" tried to insult me by calling me a libertarian and a Randian--a follower of bad novelist Ayn Rand. While I don't mind being labeled with the former since it's somewhat true, I laughed at the latter. We trash Rand and her followers--the creepiest cultists this side of Scientology, although the chicks tend to be hotter--as much as possible here, especially the Irvine-based Ayn Rand Institute, which considers her and her writings their version of Jesus despite Rand's hatred of organized religion other than the sycophants around her.

While there are some similarities between libertarianism and Randians, the Randians (or, as they call themselves, Objectivists) hate the freewheeling libs. And if you don't believe me, then check out what Ayn Rand Institute founder Leonard Peikoff and current president Yaron Brooks had to say on a recent podcast. Brooks seems to have a problem that modern-day libertarianism is so damn hippy-dippy in its love of no war, no empire, and no drug war. "Even though it [libertarianism] might have initially been adopted innocently by certain people who were advocates of free markets, it was very quickly, in the 1960's and 70's co-opted by the anarchists and by the complete philosophic subjectivists," Brooks told Peikoff on the podcast. "And they dominated the movements throughout that period of time. Even though I believe that today the libertarian movement is fragmented, it's disintegrating."

"Disintegrating"? Libertarianism is more popular and accepted now than at any point in this nation's history, with more young people than I care to know labeling themselves as such to justify their love of free markets, drugs, and cursing. Objectivism, on the other hand, is crashing and burning--and if you don't believe me, check out the box-office numbers for the execrable film adaptation of the execrable novel, Atlas Shrugged.

(Quick aside: I remember trying to read this book back at Anaheim High, because Randians love to distribute Rand's works en masse to kiddies under the faade of a scholarship. Even then, her writing bored me to death--and I'm someone who could read Finnegan's Wake in two days and get what the fuck Joyce was trying to communicate).

Libertarians ain't taking the insults of Peikoff and Brooks lightly. LewRockwell.com has already posted its retort, and more should come. This sordid episode just further proves my experience: that Objectivists are the most conceited people on Earth, and about as rational as having an ice-cube machine in the Arctic.

Follow OC Weekly on Twitter@ocweeklyor onFacebook!

Read the rest here:
Ayn Rand Institute Bigwigs Piss on Libertarianism, Libertarians Fight Back!

A few months ago during the primaries, there was a lot of talk about Ron Paul and the Libertarian ideology. It seemed that it had finally made its way to the table and was being talked about more especially on college campuses.

Libertarianism started to be seen as a fresh ideology and many young voters welcomed it as new and revolutionary. However, it has historical roots and has played historical roles, especially in Europe. Many people seemed surprised because the mini-wave of Libertarianism had just come.

Though having common ground with both parties may seem like an advantage to gain momentum for their movement, it could actually be a double-edged sword. I think it was very bold to think that Libertarianism could take the lead in American politics because of this.

Some voters and commentators even began to speculate whether the Libertarians have started to gain traction in becoming a mainstream party in opposition to the two major parties, and some have even theorized that eventually there will be a slight Libertarian shift in the Republican platform.

Though the Libertarians have some views branded as radical, much of the modern Libertarian ideology is actually simply just a mix between the ideologies of American conservatives and liberals as well.

Libertarians distance themselves on some key issues, but the core beliefs explain this blend and why it has not seemed to gain serious traction as a strong third party in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans, who many seem to think are the only two parties that exist.

Jon Stewart may be more of a comedian than a reporter, but I think that he hit the nail right on the head when he said on his program that the Libertarians seem to be the friendship bracelet of the two major parties in Washington.

When the Libertarians insist that privatization of public programs and institutions are the best way to run them, they gain praise from the conservatives. They also gain praise from conservatives when they support states rights and smaller government. Liberals like the social and foreign policy views of Libertarians. Many left-leaning minds find many of the Libertarian anti-war and anti-interventionism beliefs to be favorable and also find many Libertarians views of gay marriage and the war on drugs favorable. The Libertarian views tend to lean to the left both of these social matters.

But conservatives dont like what the conservatives like about the Libertarians and vice-versa. Who knows? Politics is like the weather. But it is unlikely in my opinion that Libertarianism will start to gain serious momentum as a juggernaut political party in the U.S. anytime soon.

See the rest here:
Libertarianism not likely to yield third party

[Libertarian Papers (2010)]

The essence of libertarianism is its nonaggression principle. In order to determine whether some act or concept or institution is compatible with this philosophy, one may use this as a sort of litmus test. If you initiate violence against someone, you must pay the penalty for so doing, and are presumptively acting outside of libertarian law.

However, in the view of some commentators who really should know better, intolerance, not creating an uninvited border crossing, is the be-all and end-all of libertarianism. In this view, tolerance, while it may not be sufficient, is certainly a necessary condition. If you are not tolerant, you cannot be a libertarian. States Milton Friedman (1991, p. 17, material in brackets inserted by present author. See also Friedman and Friedman, 1998, p. 161) in this regard,

I regard the basic human value that underlies my own [political] beliefs as tolerance, based on humility. I have no right to coerce someone else, because I cannot be sure that I am right and he is wrong. Why do I regard tolerance as the foundation of my belief in freedom? How do we justify not initiating coercion? If I asked you what is the basic philosophy of a libertarian, I believe that most of you would say that a libertarian philosophy is based on the premise that you should not initiate force, that you may not initiate coercion. Why not? If we see someone doing something wrong, someone starting to sin [to use a theological term] let alone just make a simple mistake, how do we justify not initiating coercion? Are we not sinning if we don't stop him? How do I justify letting him sin? I believe that the answer is, can I be sure he's sinning? Can I be sure that I am right and he is wrong? That I know what sin is?

This relativistic, know-nothingism of Friedman's has been subjected to a withering rebuke by Kinsella (2009):

He was in favor of liberty and tolerance of differing views and behavior because we cannot know that the behavior we want to outlaw is really bad. In other words, the reason we should not censor dissenting ideas is not the standard libertarian idea that holding or speaking is not aggression, but because we can't be sure the ideas are wrong. This implies that if we could know for sure what is right and wrong, it might be okay to legislate morality, to outlaw immoral or "bad" actions.

And states Hoppe (1997, 23),

To maintain that no such thing as a rational ethic exists does not imply "tolerance" and "pluralism," as champions of positivism such as Milton Friedman falsely claim, and moral absolutism does not imply "intolerance" and "dictatorship." To the contrary, without absolute values "tolerance" and "pluralism" are just other arbitrary ideologies, and there is no reason to accept them rather than any others such as cannibalism and slavery. Only if absolute values, such as a human right of self-ownership exist, that is, only if "pluralism" or "tolerance" are not merely among a multitude of tolerable values, can pluralism and tolerance in fact be safeguarded.

Precisely. The strong implication, here, would appear to be that if we were vouchsafed such knowledge, then we would be justified in imposing our values on others. But this is hardly in keeping with the libertarian ethos.

Further, Friedman is guilty of tolerance, and humility with a vengeance. So much so it amounts to a stultifying skepticism. If it is reminiscent of anything, it is that of multiculturalism's claim that no society can possibly be better than any other. If no one can really know anything about anything, and are as humble as Milton Friedman claims to be, how can we even engage in political philosophy? Yet if there is anyone associated at least in the public mind with taking strong stances on issues, a host of them as it happens, it is Professor Friedman.

See original here:
Friedman on Intolerance: A Critique

Freedom is rarely absolute. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre, expressing your religion by killing people - everything has a limit. I'm generally a fan of anonymity online. I like that anyone can be anyone, it's often hilarious, and it encourages conversation free of pretence. The freedom to remain anonymous has a limit, however: when you post a bomb threat or creepy photos of women without telling them.

You might have heard about this controversy over the past few days. Basically, Gawker threatened (and followed through) uncovering the real identity of a notorious Reddit troll, and some Redditors threatened to release the real names of /r/creepshots mods. Creepshots was a forum for posting covert sexual pictures of women unaware that they were being photographed.

Many on Reddit got pretty mad - Gawker was banned from the site for a time. Creepshots was voluntarily banned, the mods scared off by the possibility of their real-life details being released. You see, revealing personal details is against the rules of Reddit - who take being a neutral platform/freedom of speech very seriously. The backlash from many in the Reddit community has been strong - anonymity is important to many - and the fear is that exposing users' details will now become the norm with any conflict. I understand this fear - but I think it is unfounded.

A lot of people have posted stuff anonymously that they would be horrified to have released to the public. That is totally fine. There is a line that we should all be able to understand here. Ninety-nine per cent of anonymous discussion deserves to remain that way - weird fetishes, fringe political views, gossip - but creepshots of other people is over the line. We all accept that child porn is over the line, so we are obviously fine with not being absolutists. Creepshots aren't just something that people find icky - think MLP porn or libertarianism - it directly victimises people.

I've never been a "witchhunt the pedos" kinda guy, but if this is what it took for them to shut down Creepshots then so be it. The ones threatening the release of names weren't chasing down a guy who hasn't offended in years, they were trying to stop something that was happening every day. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to distribute sexualised photos of strangers, but I think you could make a pretty good case for it covering the name of a creepshot mod. I can understand a variance of opinion with the release of names though; I just think Creepshots should have been shut down by Reddit itself months ago. I'm sure there is someone who works there whom most of the community could trust to draw a line between "distasteful" and "horrific".I wouldn't want everything I have ever posted in various anonymous places revealed at all, but there is a difference between stupid stuff I said when I was 15 and something like creepshots.What do y'all think?

Email Henry or follow him on Twitter.

See the rest here:
Anonymity and its limits: Reddit v Gawker

Among the mythologies of the pseudo-libertarian ideology fashionable among modern Republicans is the notion that any government regulation is an unconscionable assault on individual liberty and, if left alone, individuals will themselves make decisions that are ultimately good for the community.

There is no clearer proof that this is an asinine theory than the current debate regarding smoking bans in the Lowcountry, where the City of North Charleston recently decided against enacting a ban on smoking. After all, how long should the community wait for individuals to realize that their personal liberties are negatively affecting everyone else?

Smoking bans are nothing new. One of the earliest dates back to the middle of the 1500s when Mexico and some Spanish holdings in the Caribbean banned tobacco consumption inside churches (which is now such a common thing that it is hard to imagine that one could ever smoke in church). One wonders if such bans were as controversial back then as they are today. Regardless, I doubt smokers 500 years ago thought that the ability to smoke whenever and wherever they pleased was considered to be a right, as many do today.

Today's pro-smoking libertarian crowd is focused primarily on the perceived right of business owners to do what they want with their businesses, a point made moot by existing regulations detailing exactly what business owners may or may not do. The pro-puffers also like to proclaim that patrons are free to pick and choose businesses that either ban or allow smoking and then act as if this one "freedom" is the only benchmark of a free society.

Business owners, naturally, tend to view themselves as individuals who should have the right to allow or ban smoking as they see fit. This ignores the simple fact that there exists a communitarian aspect to any business that is open to the public and which employs individuals other than the proprietor. As a result, the government has the right to regulate and legislate these businesses. Safety standards, wage guarantees, and equal hiring policies are all part of this arrangement, as are restrictions even on hours of operation.

As for patrons, how their rights are affected one way or the other is unclear. After all, they truly are the ones with the most choice in the matter, and they are going to go somewhere no matter what bans or regulations are in place. Otherwise, most of the bars in places like New York City would have dried up years ago, as would most churches.

Ultimately, though, smoking bans most benefit those who are often least mentioned the workers who spend anywhere from four to 10 (or more) hours a day in smoke-filled bars and restaurants. When they are mentioned, it is usually with the most rational and reasoned of conservative mantras, "If you do not like where you work, you are free to go elsewhere." Of course, the individuals who spout this kind of nonsense ignore the fact that jobs aren't as plentiful as they used to be.

For people who claim to be interested in Constitutional government, it seems that ignoring the parts that disagree with their ideology is common. The Constitution in all its vaguely worded glory does contain references to both personal liberty and the general welfare. How a society balances those two concepts is as important as having either one of them individually, and it is this balancing act that few people readily accept in modern politics.

One accepted premise of individual rights is that mine end where yours begin. In other words a person should be free to do what she likes as long it does not infringe on another's freedom to do the same. Smoking in public places, even "private" businesses, is not an inviolate right. As Canadian conservative writer Rachel Marsden puts it, "Smoke anywhere you want, but do it with a plastic bag tied over your head, please. Then everyone is happy. Smokers lament the law becoming increasingly restrictive as to where they can light up in public, but it's only because enough of them have chosen to behave in a manner that restricted others' freedom not to smoke."

Ultimately, the inability to understand that personal behavior affects communities and that legislation is sometimes required to achieve a balance between individual freedom and the needs of the community is the fundamental failure of the pseudo-libertarian ideology. True libertarianism understands the difference between personal rights and infringing on the rights of others just to fulfill a selfish desire, and it is this libertarianism that informs the best public policy decisions. The City of North Charleston's vote against a smoking ban is not one of the best by a long shot.

Here is the original post:
Libertarians are wrong about smoking bans

As the Conservative diaspora gathers in Birmingham, David Cameron finds himself bombarded with advice from fellow Tories about how to stop the rot. Tory modernisers want more moderate policies, the Tory Right wants a sharp dose of cuts in tax and spending, while Tory pollsters urge the party to reconnect with the striving classes of Middle England.

There is no doubt that David Cameron has had a terrible year. A double-dip recession, the collapse of confidence in Osbornes economic Plan A, a Budget that prioritised the privileged, and a catalogue of incompetence have all undermined the faith of the Tory faithful. But the roots of his annus horribilis run far deeper. The truth is that the crisis of the Conservative government stems from a crisis of values in the Conservative movement. Because over the last 30 years, the Tory Party has abandoned the tapestry of sympathies, principles and priorities that made it seem the natural representatives of middle class Britain for so long.

Many Conservatives like to think of their politics as pragmatic rather than based on a philosophy. But Conservative politics from the mid-19th century to the last quarter of the 20th century and articulated by practitioners and thinkers such as Benjamin Disraeli, Harold MacMillan, Quintin Hogg and Michael Oakeshott was based on a distinctive family of values. Conservatives believed in limited government, but obligations of the privileged towards those with less. Conservatives supported economic freedom, trade and wealth-creation, as well as a government that maintained the framework of markets and social solidarity. Conservatives were cautious and sceptical, Christian and civic. And Conservatives conserved. They protected institutions and ways of life that people held dear.

But something happened to Conservative thought from the late 1970s onwards. It got stripped down, reduced and mutated. It moved from a concern for how a healthy society should work to a charter for economic libertarianism. In modern Conservatism, the encouragement of economic freedoms has become a fundamentalist faith in the market, with a heroic assumption that free markets can on their own produce not just prosperity but also fairness. And the affection for limited but socially responsible government has turned into vilification of the public sector, and an obsession with reducing its size as the primary goal of politics.

The casualties of this libertarian fanaticism have been the other values that Tories cherished. Modern Conservatism has lost any conception of what holds our society together other than our participation in the market. We are united as contestants in a race, first and foremost. The responsibility of those with means to those with less has been marginalised. Paternalism offers the wrong incentives for the poor, and is bad for the economy. And instead of seeing institutions, practices and ways of life as things to be protected, modern Conservatism is more likely to view them as things to be challenged if they hold back efficiency.

It is this shift in values that is at the root of the choices David Cameron has made on issues ranging from the excessive pace and scope of spending cuts, to reducing income tax for the wealthiest as Britain re-entered recession, to attacking the principles of the NHS. Modern Conservatism in Britain has become a creed of the haves versus the have-nots, and has forgotten how and when to conserve.

British voters have spotted this change in values. Indeed the alarm bells should have been ringing for the Tories at the time of the election in 2010. The result was a terrible one for Labour, but it was a very bad one for the Tories too. 24.1 per cent of the electorate voted for Cameron in 2010, just 1.6 per cent more than their record defeat in 1997. David Camerons project to detoxify the Tory brand was always hamstrung by the fact that underneath the surface, the modern Conservative Party has become fundamentally economically libertarian in a country that is not.

Lord Ashcrofts polling shows that those who considered but did not end up voting Tory in 2010 feel the Party under-prioritises the NHS and education, and is too extreme on the pace and scale of cutting the size of the state and the deficit. And yesterday Ashcroft reminded the Tories that they are making a serious mistake to think that those who think of themselves as strivers have a ruggedly individualistic approach to life and simply want the government to get out of their way.

The signs are that Ashcrofts warnings will not be heeded. Currently the voices of the libertarian Right are baying at David Cameron the loudest, frustrated at a life of compromise inside the Coalition, and desperate for more and more market and less and less government. David Cameron finds himself besieged and weak, more concerned to use his Conference to manage his Partys right wingers than to address the hollowing-out of its underlying values.

But values matter. Ultimately, winning elections requires parties to have values that are shared by those that vote for them. In 1959 Quintin Hogg, then a Tory minister in MacMillans government, wrote in The Conservative Case that being Conservative is only another way of being British. I am sure that millions of Tory voters in that period of Conservative ascendancy thought what Hogg said was obvious. The fact that the same claim would be laughable to most voters now should be the thing that concerns David Cameron the most.

See more here:
Lord Wood of Anfield:the crisis of Conservative values