WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH LIBERTARIANISM?
Libertarianism can be based on experience as conservatives do. I do not doubt that if people could observe a libertarian/capitalist regime in practice and compare it with monarchism, socialism, syndicalism, etc., many would see the enormous benefits of freedom and choose Libertarianism. In making arguments for liberty, John Stuart Mill, of course, focused on practical (utilitarianism) arguments that it produced the greatest good for the greatest number and I believe that a libertarian-capitalist regime does that. But one question is: how does a full, working libertarian regime come into existence in the first place? How does on advocate it before it exists and we have experience of its benefits? Also, how to defend it since there always will be intellectuals prepared to argue that there are benefits higher than freedom: for example, eternal salvation of the soul, living a virtuous life, preventing ugly excesses that liberty permits. When Irving Kristol went from communist to capitalist, he wrote "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and, also, an essay, "When Virtue Loses All Her Loveliness." Capitalism worked but it was esthetically hard to take. And then, how to defend liberty against being gnawed away by constant compromises? Sure, liberals would say, today, we need to be free and we love the benefits of "the market," but you can have those and still have a robust welfare state. And you can keep having more intervention while the market is working--until suddenly the market not longer does not "work," liberty is gone, and even advocating it may come under censorship. It is only philosophy, fundamental principles about man's nature, the nature and role of reason that operates volitionally, the connection between reason and innovation and survival that enable one to argue in principle that encroachments on liberty may appear at first to be harmless but in principle you are headed in a wrong and disastrous direction. And Ayn Rand showed us, brilliantly and in detail, because defenders of capitalism could not make a philosophical case against altruism, a Christian society in the end would not tolerate the selfishness that capitalism involved. And the Christians who supported capitalism tried every possible argument from results of capitalism--and kept losing and losing, as we know. So an ethics of selfishness must be defended because capitalism indeed is the politics of pursuit of one's own happiness. And that ethic of selfishness cannot be defended without reference to man's nature, the nature and role of values, and the connection between freedom of judgment and action and achievement of ones highest value: maintaining and fulfilling ones own life. Which only consistent freedom makes possible.
I already terminated this worthless discussion, but someone persisted.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
I have no idea what you think you are going to to to affect change in the world with the time you have left. I cared to listen, but no longer.
I am not arguing with you anymore. I will pursue what I know can work in the actual world with people that want to discuss reality, with other real people.
Go waste someone else’s time.
Current fundamental philosophical beliefs include the morality of altruism, the belief that the moral good consists in sacrificing to others. That is not "twisted" from the original meaning of the term. It is the original meaning -- from Auguste Comte, the French Positivist philosopher who coined the term "altruism" in the middle of the 19th century to mean living for others. It has been widely accepted as the good as promoted by the counter-Enlightenment, based on thousands of years of religious demands for sacrifice as a moral duty, including sacrifice to the supernatural but not consistently a call for living for others. The philosophy of altruism does not mean "sympathy".
Most people do not try to consistently live in accordance with that because it would be impossible, and because it is not the original tradition of Americanism from the Enlightenment. The constant appeals to altruism undermine what is left of an implicit American individualism, which has been left defenseless against the barrage from the intellectuals from education to the media. Watch how people squirm with guilt when they want lower taxes but can't defend eliminating the entitlement programs of the welfare state.
Libertariansm, in its various contradictory forms, is a political position, not a "simple philosophy". It is not a philosophy at all. It is simplistic in its ignoring the role of philosophy at the base of a politics and ignoring that the prevailing basic beliefs conflict with a politics of individualism. That is why you "can not affect people when the [political] philosophy is so simple". "Non-initiation of force" is a principle derived from a proper egoistic ethics. It conflicts with altruism. There is no "simple" way to avoid that.
No amount of evasion substituting "sympathy" for the meaning of altruism while appealing for better "oral skills" of marketeers and a vague notion of "reaching people" changes that. Ignoring the role of fundamental ideas in human existence, as if this were no more than a matter of marketing gimmicks to "reach people" in politics, is profoundly anti-intellectual and hopeless. If you don't know what people have to be "reached" for, it doesn't matter what the marketeers do to "reach" them. Nor are marketeers and their slogans a substitute for understanding.
To say that it is too soon for a fundamental individualistic political reform because it requires wide acceptance of a proper philosophy of reason and egoism is not a "strategy" of "waiting". It is a fact. There are no shortcuts. Plunging into politics without regard for the intellectual prerequisites is hopeless. The "libertarians", in particular, let alone the fringe Libertarian Party, are mostly hopeless to effect any policy changes even where that is still possible.
True, but irrelevant. We are not asking our gardeners to like what we ask them to plant.
"Libertarians do not understand how philosophical views such as altruism motivate people and why after half a century the Libertarian Party is still on the 3% fringe. Having an alleged consistent political position contrary to the basic premises of voters and range of the moment tactics would not win them elections making fundamental change. It is too soon for that kind of politics even if the Libertarian Party could make consistent sense."
That may be so. I don't doubt it. If we don't understand what is motivating people for what they support today, we have no chance of influencing them to proper policies.
Most people do not think that much about it. This is why a majority of people vote along the lines of their parents/families/friends. In the case of altruism specifically, the term is twisted from its original meaning to mean we should have sympathy and some charity for "others" lesser well-off. Then the rich are defiled. The combination makes the majority believe they are the "others", thus they support these policies. There isn't much thinking.
In terms of having some influence on policy changes in legislation and agencies what you said about the Libertarian Party on "d" is notoriously true.
Precisely my issue. Exactly. Why can we not affect people when the philosophy is so simple?
In my job, engineers are smart. They develop technology. However, they are traditionally terrible communicators. They don't have the understanding of people, good written and oral skills, or the ability to watch body language and influence people. Therefore we use others (business development (BD) people) for this. Often these people were engineers that weren't that good at it, but can communicate. Sometimes, not technical at all.
I believe the Libertarian Party is full of intellectuals, because that is what is required to wade through the bombardment of crap being thrown, real information and set aside wrong for correct, logical approaches. This type of person is statistically predisposed to be less extraverted and communicative. I believe the Libertariam Party is very much like a company made up entirely of engineers, wondering why everybody doesn't buy their obviously superior products, when if they just painted them blue and round instead of brown and angular, they'd sell like hotcakes.
The last sentence of the center paragraph bothers me greatly.
"It is too soon for that kind of politics even if the Libertarian Party could make consistent sense."
Waiting can be a strategy/tactic. However, it is based on:
1. expecting your opponent making a mistake.
2. you being disadvantaged presently, but some change will readvantage you.
The first sentence of that paragraph asserts "Libertarians don't understand..." I do not share the view, at least for myself and some others. Perhaps a majority do not. However, based on that assertion, the reason to delay is #2.
What would change (#2) to readvantage us?
A revolution, economic mess? Maybe. It could go the other way too. We study, evaluate understand and communicate among Libertarians what the motivations are, however inappropriate.
Ok, I'm in. Let do that. You bet your ass the D's and P's do it. I think I got it already understand, but fine. More Libertarians may need to come along. Let's get going.
The world is not full of cerebral people. It is just not. People have an attention span of a couple of minute to capture, and various (if they stay interested) a few more to listen. That is it. That isn't changing, unless we eliminate technology and go back to poverty and boredom. Today, boredom is eliminated. There is nothing to escape, so messages must be interesting.
The world is a herd mentality, clearly. The unstated process is that is enough people believe something, then it must be right, and it avoids me having to read all that stuff. We must reach enough people to be relevant. Then the logic, freedom and economic success will take root, and we'll have another enlightenment. Waiting, just makes the task harder, and path longer.
Libertarians do not understand how philosophical views such as altruism motivate people and why after half a century the Libertarian Party is still on the 3% fringe. Having an alleged consistent political position contrary to the basic premises of voters and range of the moment tactics would not win them elections making fundamental change. It is too soon for that kind of politics even if the Libertarian Party could make consistent sense.
In terms of having some influence on policy changes in legislation and agencies what you said about the Libertarian Party on "d" is notoriously true.
Influencing all decisions requires understanding who the decision makers are, who the influencers are, who the implementers are and what the gaps are in between their position and the decision you want. This is true for all decisions.
Advertisers and psychologists will reaffirm several effective means to affect people's opinions or though process. Trillions of dollars are spent on this, and where there are trillions of dollars spent competitively, effective, arguably optimally effective, methods are established, optimal being limited by technology.
What is needed is:
a. A logical, consistent position, which we largely have.
b. A solid evaluation of where various factions and positions stand.
c. A long-term strategy to affect change, and how fast to affect change in each area.
d. A tactical plan for each immediate period and each area.
You have been talking about a. (I think). I think this is relatively well-established. I am talking about c and/or d, which I think we Libertarians do about as well as adolescent boys do on their first date.
If they then tried to be consistently individualist they would lose because there is almost no political support for that; it is far too soon.
If they were not consistent in order to try to be viable they would become like the conservatives -- half not viable and half not believable -- while still retaining the practical problems of any minority third party.
Clowns like Johnson and Weld were not a path to anywhere.
As it stands now, "taking some real positions in Washington" would be meaningless because no one in Washington take the Libertarian Party seriously. In matters of practical politics influencing policy, libertarians are known for "not operating in the real world".
Certainly not with a page, or 10 pages. you do it with a clear concise message that gets them thinking about the next thing, why is isn't in the D platform, or anything. A small success also goes a long way.
Look (appeal to the expert). I have a very long, successful history convincing people (the Navy, shipyards, government labs, etc) to adopt significant technologies/plans. I convinced the Navy that electric propulsion was feasible and the right answer for the Columbia Class submarine while at GD. Then I won every major component of the system in 7 separate competitions, while in my present role. I convinced the Navy to adopt hybrid electric drive. I convinced the Korean Navy to adopt hybrid electric drive.
Every one of these campaigns takes significant effort. It is grounded in technical and economic "right", with significant logic. However, what opened the door with admirals, SES's, executives and congressmen were clear, simple painfully brief messages following the bouncing ball that are are part of a larger logical plan or a benefit of that plan. The minute it gets complicated, people turn right off.
No, zero, none of these began with an education of the masses or leaders in these environments. They began with a simple message, that open a dialog, then more broader discussion, with more lower level people, and then the logic develops a life of its own. Years from now, few are going to learn of care about the complicated logical foundation (e.g. why vacuum circuit breakers enable higher frequency power distribution because they came from the RF industry). Some will, but not the masses.
Gary Johnson mentioning marijuana in every speech, and purveying bizarre positions:
"We are going to have ti inhabit other planets"
"What is Aleppo?" (perhaps forgivable)
"In the future the sun is going to expand and encompass the Earth, so we'll have to live with global warming"
If he was attempting humor, it failed. Libertarians need to put up a moderate candidate the supports the social freedom everyone is clamoring about (but want to achieve by force = problem), and clear fiscal freedom. The welfare state is not going away in a term. A process to get people off and self sufficient has to be the transition.
No it is not. Absolutely not. If this is what you are basing the assertion that I disdain logic argument, it is wrong. Stop this characterization.
Slogans don't explain or convince anyone beyond what they already think. They appeal to what they already think. Explaining basic ideas on contemporary issues, such as Ayn Rand did in her Los Angeles Times column, which was very popular, is not marketing toothpaste. Advertising company expertise in emotional manipulation is the last place to go for advice on communicating rational ideas contrary to mainstream bromides.
Obama didn't have to sell his collectivism. He relied on large numbers, including the intellectuals, already wanting it, and used his golden tongue to try misrepresent himself to the rest as not doing what he was doing. Once in a while he slipped, but the media covered for him and didn't let it become a damaging major controversy. The left doesn't have to debate fundamentals because their's are already widely accepted as not controversial. All they have to do is lie about and evade the negative effects on people. That they do with slogans.
I just assert, for the 75th time, that this is not the way to influence large groups. Every advertising company in the world agrees. Obama, for all his faults, is a great orator, and he get this. The people that don't get it are first Libertarians, perhaps because they are disorganized, and fight everything rather than focus, and second conservatives, because they don't know what the internet is.
"That assertion is not true. Your posts here have repeatedly ridiculed serious thinking and the role of fundamental ideas, as demonstrated in the long list of snide quotes repeatedly characterizing your own posts https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
"No one here has 'equated' libertarians with anarchists, nor is there any connection between the two false assertions directed at me personally."
I am not "snapping responses back". I carefully read your posts and thoughtfully respond to address the content, which you do not seem to be interested in or following. The importance of philosophical ideas to the life of an individual and to the course of the culture was central to Ayn Rand's approach, and is essential to understanding and dealing with the current decline of this country.
Load more comments...