What is the most Libertarian country in the world?

[septimus]

@John_Mace

I would think libertarians would support any type of free association. As long as unions are free associations, then they get the libertarians’ support. Libertarians are (or should be) strongly opposed to any coercive effort to impose or to eliminate a union.

A closed union shop is created by a free covenant between employer and union. Is that “libertarian”? Monopolies and cartels derive from liberty and free covenants. Are they “libertarian”? I’m not just asking rhetorically; I’d like a single coherent definition of what Dopers mean when they say “I’m a libertarian.”

Regarding the list of countries sorted by economic freedom, I wonder if it measures instead “countries where multinational corporations will have an easy time.” In some countries assistance from police etc. is for sale, just like assistance from doctors or plumbers. Is it clear that the latter implies “economic freedom” and the former not?

[MrDibble]

@friedo

An anarchist failed state certainly doesn’t meet that definition.

Somalia is not an anarchist state, it is an anarchic** one. There is a difference, IMO.

[panache45]

@BrightNShiny

Ok, let’s backtrack from the sniping, since my original questioning was an attempt to find out what she thought.

Here’s what I see you saying:

1. Morality is rooted in objective self-interest.

2. It is okay to donate to charity.

Now, you specifically mentioned earthquake relief, so let’s take that example. I don’t know anybody in Chile, I’ve never been to Chile, I have no business interests in Chile. There is no benefit to me for donating to Chile. If I donate money to Chilean earthquake relief, then I have not acted in my objective self-interest. All I get are good-tummy feelings, but if those aren’t relevant, then I have acted against my self-interest, since that money is no longer available to benefit me.

So, that’s where I see the contradiction. You seem to be saying that morality is rooted in self-interest, but at the same time, it’s okay to act against your self-interest (as in, it’s okay to act immorally). Please explain this apparent discrepancy (this is also the contradiction I’m seeing between the video and her Playboy interview).

Earthquake relief was my example, not Rand’s . . . but my reason for mentioning it is that the victims had done nothing to cause the earthquake, so they didn’t deserve to suffer. Rand believed that the average person is not totally corrupted by altruism, that most people, at least partially, believe that a certain amount of rational self-interest is acceptable. Since the average person shares some of her values, especially innocent children who haven’t yet learned about altruism, and assuming she can afford to help, there would be nothing improper about helping them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with feeling good about it. That would be subjectivism. It has more to do with what Rand referred to as a “benevolent sense of life.” Feeling good shouldn’t be a motive for helping people, but it can be a byproduct.

However, if she knew that the survivors were all corrupt, or if they had somehow brought the disaster upon themselves, or if they claimed that it was her DUTY to help them, she would not help them in any way. The fact that they are suffering is not sufficient reason to help them.

[BrightNShiny]

@panache45

Earthquake relief was my example, not Rand’s . . . but my reason for mentioning it is that the victims had done nothing to cause the earthquake, so they didn’t deserve to suffer. Rand believed that the average person is not totally corrupted by altruism, that most people, at least partially, believe that a certain amount of rational self-interest is acceptable. Since the average person shares some of her values, especially innocent children who haven’t yet learned about altruism, and assuming she can afford to help, there would be nothing improper about helping them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with feeling good about it. That would be subjectivism. It has more to do with what Rand referred to as a “benevolent sense of life.” Feeling good shouldn’t be a motive for helping people, but it can be a byproduct.

However, if she knew that the survivors were all corrupt, or if they had somehow brought the disaster upon themselves, or if they claimed that it was her DUTY to help them, she would not help them in any way. The fact that they are suffering is not sufficient reason to help them.

I’m still not getting my question answered. Let’s say the survivors weren’t corrupt or hadn’t brought the disaster on themselves or were claiming it’s a duty to help them. How is it in my objective self-interest to help them? I’m out of money that I could be using in my own self-interest, so why isn’t it against my objective self-interest to help them?

[panache45]

@BrightNShiny

I’m still not getting my question answered. Let’s say the survivors weren’t corrupt or hadn’t brought the disaster on themselves or were claiming it’s a duty to help them. How is it in my objective self-interest to help them? I’m out of money that I could be using in my own self-interest, so why isn’t it against my objective self-interest to help them?

If you need the money for other things, then it’s ***not ***in your self-interest to help them. You’d be sacrificing a greater value (your own needs) for a lesser value (the needs of strangers) . . . and this is not something Rand would approve of.

It’s really not as much a self-interest issue, as a benevolence issue. If you can afford to help someone, and have no reason not to, then it’s your choice to help them or not. But you’re not under any obligation, either way.

But like I said, this is my example, not Rand’s.

[BrightNShiny]

@panache45

If you need the money for other things, then it’s ***not ***in your self-interest to help them. You’d be sacrificing a greater value (your own needs) for a lesser value (the needs of strangers) . . . and this is not something Rand would approve of.

Even if I don’t need the money, I’m still acting against my self-interest, since I can’t use that money once I give it away, right? This is what I don’t understand. You’re placing a value on the needs of strangers (you say “lesser value,” but that still means you’ve placed some minimum value on it): where is this value coming from? If it’s not good-tummy feelings, then what is this value?

It’s really not as much a self-interest issue, as a benevolence issue.

This statement, again, makes it unclear for me. If all morality is rooted in self-interest, then how can you say that some particular thing has nothing to do with self-interest? This seems to be carving out some area of life that the morality doesn’t apply to, which to me reads as a contradictory moral system.

If you can afford to help someone, and have no reason not to, then it’s your choice to help them or not. But you’re not under any obligation, either way.

Yes, I get the part about obligation. So, let’s remove that from the discussion. I’m focusing on purely voluntary charitable donations.

But like I said, this is my example, not Rand’s.

But it’s a good example of what I want to get clarification on, since it’s an example of undifferentiated charitable giving.

[Deeg]

@John_Mace

Or, you might consider the US as it was in the first 100 years of its existence.

The early States were not very libertarian. For example, Connecticut had a state religion until 1818. Massachusetts required men to belong to a church (any church) until 1833. (These examples pulled from Wikipedia). It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights was (mostly) applied to state laws.

[panache45]

@BrightNShiny

This statement, again, makes it unclear for me. If all morality is rooted in self-interest, then how can you say that some particular thing has nothing to do with self-interest? This seems to be carving out some area of life that the morality doesn’t apply to, which to me reads as a contradictory moral system.

Ok, we’re getting away from a strict GQ discussion of Ayn Rand, and discussing my interpretation of her position more than anything she actually said. There are examples in her novels of people helping out another individual, but she wrote very little about charitable acts on a societal or global scale. I don’t want this thread to be about me, because I don’t agree with Rand on certain subjects . . . and the last thing I want is to participate in yet another 40-page thread about her.

One thing I’ll point out, though, is that you’re thinking of self-interest in a very narrow sense, as if in every action you were tallying up what’s in it for you. It doesn’t work that way. Self-interest also entails loyalty to one’s values, including the value of living in a free society in which you can interact with others . . . and the simple value of human life in general.

That’s all I have to say on the subject. If you really want to know what Rand believed, read her books. It’s all in there, and there are no contradictions.

[FriarTed]

@John_Mace

Or, you might consider the US as it was in the first 100 years of its existence.

Except for slavery, legal subjugation of women, and state-level funding of churches.

Added: Note to self- read rest of thread before posting, or at least the very next post!

[constanze]

Of course, the best way to get a good answer would be if you first listed some objective measurements first for libertarianism / Objectivism. Otherwise, we can discuss (argue?) about what it is and isn’t till the cows come home without getting an answer.

So, what does Rand in her book, or the common Libertarian think-tanks, or a cross-section of Libertarians, consider useful yardsticks? What other areas would negate a good perfomance in one area?

For example, if you say it’s about people being happy, there is some poll that asks people how happy they feel. Some scandinavian countries rank very high (Denmark and Sweden, IIRC), as some of the small Pacific islands. The scandinavian are very social democratic though, and the islanders have very little material wealth.

Is it about highest number of rich people? Then some countries like Luxemburg and Monaco, or the Bahams, would count, since a lot of rich people move there solely for tax purposes. But their riches were gained elsewhere, so this is probably not in the original spirit.

Is it about personal freedoms as written in the law - then you have to draw a list of what freedoms are important. (You’ll probably run into the usual US/European divide, where most Americans rate freedom to own guns and absolute freedom of speech as highest, where many Europeans rate freedom from complete poverty as high).

Or is it about personal freedoms as in practical real life? Then culture plays a role in it, because the rights of homosexuals or “weirdos” to live unmolested in many areas ruled by fundies is restricted, regardless of the offical laws of the land. Or people with the wrong skin color in racist areas. But this spreads down onto a regional, not a country, basis.

So until you tell us what should be measured, you won’t get a definitive answer, only suggestions and counter-arguments.

Though getting some definitve measurements in the first place might also be an lenghty exercise …