Libertarians Freak Out

[LilShieste]

@BrainGlutton

A Libertarian once told me Rand hated the Libertarian Party, but I’m not clear on why.

Check this out:

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR: They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

[dropzone]

@acsenray

Sorry, that’s not Milton Friedman. It’s his grandson, Patri.

Said name doomed him to be a douche forever. I almost suggested that, er, such an unusual spelling would doom him to be gay until I ran through the given names of my gay friends. Which would, unless I were to investigate further (as I am not inclined), suggest that being named after one of the Evangelists was the trigger, which couldn’t possibly be the truth. Apparently my assumption that parents condemn their sons to be gay when they name them holds no water whatsoever.
ETA: Unless we expand on the suppositions of “The DaVinci Code” and toss out that “the apostle Jesus loved” was Mary Magdalene and go back to the barefaced apostle being John. :eek:

[E-Sabbath]

A gay entrepreneur's tale

Well known about him being gay. The fact that he’s nuts and gay may mean he’s one of those who think women are useless and weak… ever know the type?

[dropzone]

Hell, I’ve known lots of STRAIGHT guys who think that. Going back a generation or two it would near ALL of them.

[Little_Nemo]

A Libertarian once told me Rand hated the Libertarian Party, but I’m not clear on why.

Rand’s problem with Libertarianism was probably that she couldn’t support any system that wasn’t centered around Ayn Rand.

[Terrifel]

@BrainGlutton

They don’t?! :eek:

:smack: I knew something was wrong with my gaydar!

Whatever you do, don’t get your gaydar mixed up with your slaydar.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

@BrainGlutton

A Libertarian once told me Rand hated the Libertarian Party, but I’m not clear on why.

Ayn Rand hated anyone who wasn’t Ayn Rand.

(see also Fred Phelps)

[Algher]

@E-Sabbath

A gay entrepreneur's tale

Well known about him being gay. The fact that he’s nuts and gay may mean he’s one of those who think women are useless and weak… ever know the type?

I’ll be damned - he dated a female friend of mine long ago (sorry about the hijack).

He is also a HUGE contributor to some conservative causes.

[Frylock]

@Boyo_Jim

No, I agree with Der Trihs. The free market is the solution, even if every single individual hates the result. It’s akin to an unpolular commandment from god.

If every single individual hates the result, how can anything have been solved?

What’s the problem this is a solution to? Who is it a problem for?

[The_Second_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

Probably not. I’ve never read it, but I’ve read excerpts in which Adam Smith seems to be favorable to a welfare state.

Adam Smith was fully aware of the moral consequences of unchecked “invisible hands” and opposed them. He would have been appalled at what has been said in his name.

[BrainGlutton]

@Frylock

If every single individual hates the result, how can anything have been solved?

What’s the problem this is a solution to? Who is it a problem for?

Radical Libertarianism and/or Objectivism is based on the premise that the most important value of all is individual/personal liberty, defined as liberty from control of the state/community (but not from the market); just as radical Communism is based on the premise that the most important values are equality and community. And in both cases the values trump everything else.

From a recent review of The Future of Liberalism, by Alan Wolfe:

In one respect, at least, The Future of Liberalism is wholly successful. Wolfe has found the perfect epigraph, an austere but luminous passage from a 1934 address by John Dewey titled “The Future of Liberalism.” Because it expresses so well the fundamental premise of Wolfe’s book, it is worth quoting in full:

[Liberalism] knows that an individual is nothing fixed, given ready-made. [Individuality] is something achieved, and achieved not in isolation but with the aid and support of conditions, cultural and physical–including in “cultural,” economic, legal and political institutions as well as science and art. Liberalism knows that social conditions may restrict, distort and almost prevent the development of individuality. It therefore takes an active interest in the working of social institutions that have a bearing, positive or negative, upon the growth of individuals who shall be rugged in fact and not merely in abstract theory. It is as much interested in the positive construction of favorable institutions, legal, political and economic, as it is in removing abuses and overt oppressions.

That liberalism is concerned with both positive and negative liberty, with development as well as freedom–that in fact the traditional distinction between them is oversimplified and misleading–is Wolfe’s guiding conception.

As he puts it in his first chapter, concerned with definitions: “The core substantive principle of liberalism is this: As many people as possible should have as much say as is feasible over the direction their lives will take.” That means, on the one hand, open societies with no more than a necessary minimum of state coercion, and on the other hand, a guarantee of “sufficient economic security to individuals so that they are not dependent on the arbitrary will of others for the basic necessities of life.” As this definition makes admirably clear, conservatives and libertarians are simply one-handed liberals, opposed to restraints on economic activity but unconcerned about those unable, for whatever reason, to take part in economic activity on equal terms.

Liberalism is committed to liberty and equality, Wolfe reminds us. When economic inequality is too great, the liberty of the less powerful is diminished. “The freedom to live your life on terms you establish does not mean very much if society is organized in such a way as to deny large numbers of people the possibility of ever realizing that objective.” Freedom has material prerequisites. Liberals recognize this; laissez-faire conservatives don’t, or don’t care.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

I feel embarrassed for libertarians having read OP’s link.

[panache45]

@E-Sabbath

Mr. Thiel is, one notes, gay. This may have some relation to his opinion of women.

And WTF is that supposed to mean? Do people hate all people they’re not attracted to?

[panache45]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

I feel embarrassed for libertarians having read OP’s link.

I feel embarrassed for anyone trying to make sense of this trainwreck of a thread.

[Der_Trihs]

@BrainGlutton

@Der Trihs

You do it by being the sort of person who thinks that the free market is the solution to everything, should never be interfered with under any circumstances, and takes these principles on faith.

No, you do it by being the sort of person who thinks the free market should never be interfered with, as a matter of moral principle, regardless of whether it is the solution to anything or not.

Same thing, really. Ever hear the phrase “the market is never wrong” ? If the market, say, collapses, and makes everyone miserable - that was a “solution”. That’s what “should have happened”. It’s the equivalent of saying that anything that happens is part of God’s Plan and shouldn’t be interfered with; the free market fundamentalists are the economic equivalent of the people who pray at their dying relative’s bedside instead of taking them to a doctor. Because if God/the Market wanted them better, it would happen on it’s own. And trying to help is evil, and shows a lack of faith.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Frylock

If every single individual hates the result, how can anything have been solved?

What’s the problem this is a solution to? Who is it a problem for?

Think about a “solution” as an act of god. There’s a huge flood, everyone drowns, all their problems are “solved”.

To the radical Libertarian or Capitalist, a free market is like an infallible god. Whatever problem exists, the market will solve. Greenhouse gasses and global warming? The market may devise a solution where it’s to the benefit of manufacturers to reduce emissions, or it may produce a solution make suncreen cheaper. Or it may produce no change at all, and as the last free marketeer gasps if last breath in a 200 degree soup of an atmosphere, he can die proud in the knowledge that he lived according to his principles.

Actually, that last piece is hyperbole, because the market theoretically wouldn’t make it advantageous for everyone to die, and hence ruin the market. So it would devise another solution. Still, believing this is kind of like having faith that your god won’t kill you.

[FriarTed]

@BrainGlutton

A Libertarian once told me Rand hated the Libertarian Party, but I’m not clear on why.

She considered them to be hippies.

[Rhythmdvl]

So a Libertarian, a Randian, and a LaRouchian walk into a bar…

[jayjay]

@Rhythmdvl

So a Libertarian, a Randian, and a LaRouchian walk into a bar…

Bartender says, “Is this some kind of joke?”

[Boyo_Jim]

@Rhythmdvl

So a Libertarian, a Randian, and a LaRouchian walk into a bar…

The Libertarian orders a Cuba Libre, the Randian orders Absolut, and the LaRouchian orders the death of the other two.

Where’s my money?