Libertarians?

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Ashoka:
I actually agree with many true Liberatarian ideas, but some things need central control - like public health and safety.

But does central control actually make you feel safer or healthier?

I think I disagree. The "safety" that the state provides is an illusion. And when the bubble bursts, like on 11th of september, or simply when you're mugged on the street and noone helps you, you'll realize some heavy stuff.

Even the welfare state (which is what I suppose I live in) cannot live up to its own expectations and promises. And everyone walks around oblivious, thinking "I'm glad we have this social security, because if something happens, they'll take care of me".

When something then does happen, you'll experience bureaucracy and frustration and inadequacy. Not genuine help from other people, who genuinely feel like helping you. But the critical eyes of the state, watching your every move. "Now, do you really need our money, or are you just taking advantage of the system?!" Now, what an insult to people who for years have trusted this system! But it is simply the way things are, due to lack of ressources, and we better get used to it, the sooner the better. I'll prefer any day the helpful hand of my neighbour, than having the state watch my back and take half my income without even asking, (which is the present case). It's like the mob demanding "protection money" without caring to ask if I need their "protection".

SKM:
In short, every man (woman) for himself (herself)? I like this philosophy personally.

Basically you're right. Except that there are a broad spectrum of philosophical angles on this one. Personally I do not believe in any natural "rights" a la Ayn Rand a.o. I like the ideas of the german philosopher Max Stirner, who wrote a mindblasting book some 150 years ago, advocating a radical kind of individualist egoism. The english title is "The Ego and his Own".

The general idea of this work, is that you are what you make of yourself. So every man for himself, but also that it is up to any man by himself, to figure out what this means for him in his life, instead of blindly subscribing to the views and concepts of others. And he didn't rule out the possibility that helping others and socializing actually could be an option in our own self interest.

 

[allan]

Not familiar with the Stirner book, but I'd love to read it, he seems to have a very similar philosophical outlook as my own.

I am a libertarian, but although I agree with Ayn a lot in principle I would not call myself an "objectivist", mainly because I believe there is a god (what His role is has been very twisted and distorted by men IMHO), and I do believe in helping others VOLUNTARILY, and probably prioritize this moreso than Rand seemed to (I don't think Rand had a problem with charity per se, but....).

The problem with many other libertarians however is their seeming priority on those principles of libertarianism that coincide with the right wing's beliefs. For instance, I myself believe that the BIGGEST priority of a new libertarian government should be disabling big business' influence on the government (by restricting government power enough so that they no longer can grant favors to the highest bidder)--while many libertarians preach against the evils of government regulation, which isn't nearly as bad. Both should disappear, but the latter cannot disappear without the former happening first, IMHO.

But I came to libertarianism from the left.... And I still see "welfare" as perhaps one of the LEAST of the many destructive facets of big government. I do not think libertarian principles will ever be activated all at once (or could), but in stages--so how we prioritize is very important!

BTW, I would not put McVeigh in the libertarian camp, as the Libertarian Party does not endorse violence against the US government. (Plus some of McVeigh's views, like his anti-Semitism and white supremacism, are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to libertarianism.) We wish to bring about change in a peaceful and democratic manner--which will take a lot of work but is by far the best (and probably the only) way to bring about the greatest liberty for all.

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Interesting stuff, if any of you are interested in this stuff you should not limit your study to Ayn Rand though. the idea that man is an end not a mean was popularized by Immanula Kant I beleive (well you could say it was Plato too ) He was a German philosopher in the 18th century, and could be argued to be the most influential philospher since antiquity (ahh, Plato rears his head again). I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Was the objectionist movement (if one existed in the US) involed with American philosopher John Rawls? Rawls admits to being heavily influenced by Kant.