The Dangers of Libertarianism

[Vladimir Lenin]

The Dangers of Libertarianism
An Article by John Galt

Let us look at the beliefs and goals of Libertarians, and the Libertarian ideology:

I shall quote the United $tates Libertarian Party Platform:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty"

What does this liberty entail? Blank out.

"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings."

What is the soure of these rights? Blank out.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

Why do we need to respect the rights of others? Blank out.

Libertarianism, while being politically aligned with Objectivism, lacks the same basis. Why do Libertarians want freedom? Because they want it. Why do they want it? Blank out.

Libertarianism, is attractive politically, but it has no foundation. It is like trying to build a skyscraper without first having a philisophical foundation. (For more information see my thread, The Importance of Metaphysics: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...11#post3071911)

Libertarians have same flaw that the founding fathers did, they believe they get their rights from their creator. Nothing created them. The Universe is not a power, it has no characteristics that we can define.

The Objectivist believes we have rights because of our conciousness, to say that something exists, we have conciousness and awarness. Animals have a specific instinct, they can not act in their own destruction. Man however can act in his own destruction, we have full conciousness and full thought. That is where we get rights from. Men respect the rights of others because it is in their own best interest. Me trying to kill anyone would not be good, as I would be put in Jail, or killed by the other person in self-defense.

Libertarianism denies the true order of rights, yet they argue for Rights. It is this contradiction and willful rejection to think rationally, that will eventually lead to the fall of Libertarian ideology. A society with a contradiction as big as this within it's make up is destined to fall a long, long, long and hard fall downwards.


Copyrighted: John Galt
(For those of you who believe I need to say it.)

[Sidmen]

Did anyone else not notice any actual dangers in this thread?

You just claimed that Libertarians didn't have a base for their belief in freedom. How is that a danger? How is that any different from the belief that "we have rights because of our conciousness, to say that something exists, we have conciousness and awarness."

Being consciously aware is nothing more than a correct alignment of matter and energy that gives the basics of thought. It is already well known that this is easily removed - by an adequate loss of this matter.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Did anyone else not notice any actual dangers in this thread?

You just claimed that Libertarians didn't have a base for their belief in freedom. How is that a danger? How is that any different from the belief that "we have rights because of our conciousness, to say that something exists, we have conciousness and awarness."

Being consciously aware is nothing more than a correct alignment of matter and energy that gives the basics of thought. It is already well known that this is easily removed - by an adequate loss of this matter.

1. The danger is in not knowing why they advocate it, they reach the same conclusion, but for different, wrong reasons.

2. Yes, but the traits of being conscious and aware, are specifically inherent only to Humans. Humans are the only specie that is able to be concious and act upon it with Rational Thought. Animals and Plants can not act except through instinct, they both value survival. It is only man that can value things different then survival.

Libertarianism reaches an end conclusion of liberty for all the wrong reasons. They have no set of values. They only support liberty because they want it. They only support a cause because of a flawed philisophical base. It is a fatal contradiction.

3. The Danger of Libertarianism lies in the fact that Libertarianism only supports rights because of what their "Creator" gave them. What happens if they now believe their creator gave them a whole different set of rights? The rights are not set standards, but fluid perceptions of what they believe their, "Creator" gave them.

[Exarch]

LOL
john galt, u crack me up
good work tho
it's so nice seeing young kids these days gettign more political

[Sidmen]

The Danger of Libertarianism lies in the fact that Libertarianism only supports rights because of what their "Creator" gave them. What happens if they now believe their creator gave them a whole different set of rights?

An incorrect assumption, Libertarians believe in freedom and the right to do something based on their interactions with other people. My understanding is that they believe that one conscious and aware person shouldn't 'mess' with another conscious and aware person.

The only exception being when one conscious and aware person has already messed with another, and should not be allowed the chance to do so again.

You still haven't pointed out a danger. Just made an incorrect statement about where they get their belief from, and said it was dangerous.

[Vladimir Lenin]

An incorrect assumption, Libertarians believe in freedom and the right to do something based on their interactions with other people. My understanding is that they believe that one conscious and aware person shouldn't 'mess' with another conscious and aware person.

The only exception being when one conscious and aware person has already messed with another, and should not be allowed the chance to do so again.

You still haven't pointed out a danger. Just made an incorrect statement about where they get their belief from, and said it was dangerous.

Ask a Libertarian the following, "Do you people that men have certain unalienable rights granted to them by their creator?" The answer, you will find will be a resounding, "Yes."

The danger is in the fact that rights are not set standards to them, but fluid perceptions of what they believe their, "Creator" gave them. They do not believe that they should'nt mess with another "concious" "aware" person, they believe that it's because they have inherent rights, not for their conciousness or awareness, but for existince itself.

This naturally leads to a form of entitlement, they get their rights recognized simply for existing. The Libertarian hates the welfare state, but the ideas of entitlment are already within his views. Where as an Objectivist recognizes rights simply because it is in his best interest to do so.

My attack on Libertarianism is because:

1. According to them rights have no set meaning if it's only what we believe our creators gave us.

2. They create a huge contradiction they respect rights but they do not know the nature of these rights. No ideology which does not know the nature of what they represent can succed. And when this theory goes into practice, it falls quickly do the internal contradiction.

[Senno]

You seem to have arrived at your conclusion first. Then try to come up with arguments to fit the conclusion. And you give no factual basis for your arguments.

Libertarians believe they are sovereign over their own body. When you govern them in any way, you impinge on their personal sovereignity. They wish to be free to do what they wish, as long as they do not harm you.

All I get out of the article as far as a conclusion is: "I don't like libertarians so neener neener."

[Vladimir Lenin]

You seem to have arrived at your conclusion first. Then try to come up with arguments to fit the conclusion. And you give no factual basis for your arguments.

Libertarians believe they are sovereign over their own body. When you govern them in any way, you impinge on their personal sovereignity. They wish to be free to do what they wish, as long as they do not harm you.

All I get out of the article as far as a conclusion is: "I don't like libertarians so neener neener."

1. Why do they want freedom? Blank out.

The Libertarians through either neglect or purpose, left out why they wish to be left alone, why they ought to be free to do what they wish.

[Sidmen]

1. Why do they want freedom?
Because freedom is a desirable thing to have. Seriously, When you look at the world, you can see people with freedoms, and people without - your conclusion will always be that the people with freedoms have it better.

Ask a Libertarian the following, "Do you people that men have certain unalienable rights granted to them by their creator?" The answer, you will find will be a resounding, "Yes."

What happens to your ideology there when I point out the many thousands of atheist libertarians. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect and seem to be missing the forest for all the trees.

[Vladimir Lenin]

1. Why do they want freedom?
Because freedom is a desirable thing to have. Seriously, When you look at the world, you can see people with freedoms, and people without - your conclusion will always be that the people with freedoms have it better.

What happens to your ideology there when I point out the many thousands of atheist libertarians. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect and seem to be missing the forest for all the trees.

1. Why do they desire the desirable?

2. My ideology remains totally intact. The argument may be lost, but the idea that we are endowed with rights means something "endowed" us. That "endower" is a being that we do not know, and can not define.

They feel they are inherently free. They are their own sovereign. No one tells them they are free. It's inherent.

I'm not a libertarian, I have a tendency to it on the big board we use (.5 right, -2 down). Rush is a libertarian, he will tell you I'm a liberal (probably LoL) because I find "laissez faire" capitalism a bit to much freedom as demonstrated by the conduct by capitalists in the 1800's.

I want the smallest government I can get, while still lightly regulating that level of capitalism.

P.S. What does "Blank out" mean? You find no reason given?

1. Why are they inherently free?

2. Blanking out is the biggest sin a man can commit. It's when a man willfully does not think. i.e Why are humans inherently free? Stop thought.

[Senno]

They feel they are inherently free. They are their own sovereign. No one tells them they are free. It's inherent.

I'm not a libertarian, I have a tendency to it on the big board we use (.5 right, -2 down). Rush is a libertarian, he will tell you I'm a liberal (probably LoL) because I find "laissez faire" capitalism a bit to much freedom as demonstrated by the conduct by capitalists in the 1800's.

I want the smallest government I can get, while still lightly regulating that level of capitalism.

P.S. What does "Blank out" mean? You find no reason given?

[Sidmen]

1. Why do they desire the desirable?

You answered your own question within the question. It is desirable, therefore it is desired.

The argument may be lost, but the idea that we are endowed with rights means something "endowed" us. That "endower" is a being that we do not know, and can not define.

This belongs in the Ethos then, since it has nothing to do with the actual political ideology, and everything to do with religions that many people have.

[Vladimir Lenin]

You answered your own question within the question. It is desirable, therefore it is desired.

This belongs in the Ethos then, since it has nothing to do with the actual political ideology, and everything to do with religions that many people have.

1. But why is the desirable desired? Because it benefits us?

2. No. It does not, the political ideology is flawed at the core because it is based on a flawed premise of individual rights.

Why do men love the lovely? It's natural.

You may argue natural law supports it I suppose. I wouldn't argue that here in the US.

Here libertarians look to the Constitution as the foundation. The Constitution refers back to the Magna Carta and common law.

Libertarians here in the US seek the absolute least amount of government that they can obtain. They feel their "freedoms" are impinged upon by the level of government they feel weighing down upon them. But not all libertarians agree on every issue.

1. No. Men love the lovely because it represents the values they uphold. The man that watches Epic films and enjoys them has a high regard of humanity.

The man that watches films that depict man as a lowly being and enjoys them has a low regard of humanity.

2. Correct. But what is the nature of their freedoms?

[Senno]

Why do men love the lovely? It's natural.

You may argue natural law supports it I suppose. I wouldn't argue that here in the US.

Here libertarians look to the Constitution as the foundation. The Constitution refers back to the Magna Carta and common law.

Libertarians here in the US seek the absolute least amount of government that they can obtain. They feel their "freedoms" are impinged upon by the level of government they feel weighing down upon them. But not all libertarians agree on every issue.

[Sidmen]

1. But why is the desirable desired? Because it benefits us?

Nope, most freedoms don't even indirectly benefit us. Most freedoms are desired for reasons that are far more important than a logical assessment of benefits and detriments.

2. No. It does not, the political ideology is flawed at the core because it is based on a flawed premise of individual rights.

No, not really. You claimed that these rights originated at a divine source, an incorrect assumption that belongs in the ethos. Since I don't have a god, I believe that rights originate at our self. If I would like to be treated a certain way, I should endeavor to make certain that others are so treated as well. Otherwise there will be nobody to help me when I am mistreated.

1. No. Men love the lovely because it represents the values they uphold. The man that watches Epic films and enjoys them has a high regard of humanity.

The man that watches films that depict man as a lowly being and enjoys them has a low regard of humanity.

I happen to enjoy both from time to time. Man loves the lovely because his brain sends off chemical signals that he has no control over, he likes them because we evolved to like them.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Nope, most freedoms don't even indirectly benefit us. Most freedoms are desired for reasons that are far more important than a logical assessment of benefits and detriments.

Such as? Blank out.

No, not really. You claimed that these rights originated at a divine source, an incorrect assumption that belongs in the ethos. Since I don't have a god, I believe that rights originate at our self. If I would like to be treated a certain way, I should endeavor to make certain that others are so treated as well. Otherwise there will be nobody to help me when I am mistreated.

I made no such claim. I claimed that rights are gained because of conciousness and awarness of humans. I claimed that Libertarians believe that "something" whether others or a divine source, endowed them with rights.

[Chlodwig I.]

I don't get why this should be dangerous?

Please explain?

[Senno]

I'd try to figure it out, but I can't whole-heartedly argue a position I don't hold.

Gonna have to take this up with a true libertarian.

[Sidmen]

The danger is in the fact that rights are not set standards to them, but fluid perceptions of what they believe their, "Creator" gave them. They do not believe that they should'nt mess with another "concious" "aware" person, they believe that it's because they have inherent rights, not for their conciousness or awareness, but for existince itself.

Your claim that Libertarians believe it origionates at a divine source.

Such as? Blank out.

Don't say blank out again or I'm blocking you and you'll be all alone. Ask the question and wait for a reply, don't insult me by insinuating that I don't think.

Chemical exchanges within your brain give you things called feelings, these feelings are what motivate people to do things. Are you with me so far?

Using logic, we can deduce how another person's feelings will be affected by certain actions, such as bashing someone's face in. We can then deduce that we wouldn't like that to happen to us, and not do it. Apply this principle to most everything else and we've got the origin of rights.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Your claim that Libertarians believe it origionates at a divine source.


Don't say blank out again or I'm blocking you and you'll be all alone. Ask the question and wait for a reply, don't insult me by insinuating that I don't think.

Chemical exchanges within your brain give you things called feelings, these feelings are what motivate people to do things. Are you with me so far?

Using logic, we can deduce how another person's feelings will be affected by certain actions, such as bashing someone's face in. We can then deduce that we wouldn't like that to happen to us, and not do it. Apply this principle to most everything else and we've got the origin of rights.

1. I make no such claim. I say they believe in a "Endower" whether that is a Society, or Nation, or a Divine Source.

2. Exactly. See, above. The endower in this case becomes the society. I choose not to kill or bash your face in because I happen to grant you those rights.