|
Post by maximus on Jun 14, 2012 21:52:48 GMT 10
Are you saying Libertarianism has no philosophical basis? If so why raise the philosophical Enlightenment? I did not state it has no philosophical basis, however, it does not have a "Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost" basis you mistakenly seem to ascribe to it.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 15, 2012 4:22:10 GMT 10
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. -- Frédéric Bastiat
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 15, 2012 11:04:12 GMT 10
I don't understand why Aussies, and, apparently, eggheaded intellectuals, can't grasp these simple principals!
Oh, how we have fallen from the Enlightenment! I guess for the same reason we can't grasp the simplistic principles of Objectivism and Evolutionary Psychology. It is because anti-intellectualism hasn't taken quite as stong a hold here as in the US.Libertarianism and Objectivism are two entirely different animals. One is a system of political principles, the other a philosophical system. To equate them is a False Premise. Your premise is wrong. I used an analogy with regard to anti-intellectualism. I did not equate the identity of Libertarianism with that of Objectivism (or with that of Evolutionary Psychology). Are you saying Libertarianism has no philosophical basis? If so why raise the philosophical Enlightenment? I did not state it has no philosophical basis, however, it does not have a "Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost" basis you mistakenly seem to ascribe to it.Where does it seem to you that I ascribed that basis? My chief objections to libertarianism and anarchy are that they appear to have fixed and unrealistic views of human nature and of the efficiency of self-regulation (as with laissez-faire economics). When they come to addressing current and historical under-privilege I am not confident that either could ensure sufficient resources from private charity, especially for worthy but unfashionable causes. One of the chief characteristics of civilization is division of labour. Always in a civilization there will be competing and unequal interests which some people will exploit unless restrained by the wider community.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 15, 2012 11:33:15 GMT 10
One of the chief characteristics of civilization is division of labour. Always in a civilization there will be competing and unequal interests which some people will exploit unless restrained by the wider community. So then, you advocate limits on individual rights. The tyranny of the majority. Should we be ruled by philosopher kings, as in Plato's Republic? Are we so ignorant to know what is for our own good, that we need our "betters" to guide us?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 15, 2012 14:16:36 GMT 10
Should we be ruled by philosopher kings, as in Plato's Republic? Had Phillip suggested that?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 15, 2012 19:00:28 GMT 10
So then, you advocate limits on individual rights. The tyranny of the majority. Should we be ruled by philosopher kings, as in Plato's Republic? Are we so ignorant to know what is for our own good, that we need our "betters" to guide us? The tyranny of the majority is preferable to anarchy, if by "tyranny of the majority" you mean democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 15, 2012 22:35:01 GMT 10
So then, you advocate limits on individual rights. The tyranny of the majority. Should we be ruled by philosopher kings, as in Plato's Republic? Are we so ignorant to know what is for our own good, that we need our "betters" to guide us? The tyranny of the majority is preferable to anarchy, if by "tyranny of the majority" you mean democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
Winston Churchill I don't understand this anarchy you seem fixated on. Libertarianism is not anarchy. It does not preclude taxes and social services. You have fallen into the trap of allowing the opponents of individual liberty to define what it entails. Democracy is, in fact, one of the worst forms of government, precisely because it does not protect the rights of the minority, including those women Freemasons you are so obsessed with, or racial minorities. In theory, 51% could vote to kill and eat the other 49%. A republican form of government protects the rights of the minority against the capricious whims of the majority. As Rome learned, to it's detriment, the mob is fickle and easily led to violence. The rule of law, and equal justice under the law, is the only sane system.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 16, 2012 7:41:52 GMT 10
From what I can gather, YOUR understanding of "anarchy" is not MY understanding of "anarchy:"
My understanding of "anarchy" is that of a system that does not preclude taxes and social services and it is not a pejorative term meant to elicit a knee-jerk, populist reaction. I would be interested to know how you think "libertarianism," as understood by libertarians, differs from "anarchy," as understood by anarchists.
I know several self-professed anarchists. Each has a strong social conscience and I admire them greatly. However IMO, they (and Libertarians) are naively optimistic in their assumptions about human nature.
As for your criticisms of democracy, IMO in nations with strong democratic traditions the reality is that the rights of minorities tend to be better protected than under other forms of government.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 16, 2012 10:28:52 GMT 10
I can see we are arguing at cross purposes here. You are using an entirely different definition than am I.
From Marriam-Webster:
an·ar·chy noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Definition of ANARCHY
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker> 3 : anarchism See anarchy defined for English-language learners » See anarchy defined for kids » Examples of ANARCHY
Anarchy reigned in the empire's remote provinces. When the teacher was absent, there was anarchy in the classroom. Its immigration policies in the last five years have become the envy of those in the West who see in all but the most restrictive laws the specter of terrorism and social anarchy. —Caroline Moorehead, New York Review of Books, 16 Nov. 2006
Origin of ANARCHY
Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- First Known Use: 1539 Related to ANARCHY
Synonyms: lawlessness, misrule
As you can see, it has, since it's first usage, meant no governmental authority, a state of lawlessness.
Some egghead intellectuals in the decadent cesspool of Europe may see it as an ideal system of government, but they are off in the head.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 16, 2012 11:12:11 GMT 10
Your definition is from an American dictionary. As was said in my earlier post, the US has a different understanding of "anarchy" to the rest of the world. My understanding of the term is that of those who identify themselves as anarchists. See Anarchist FAQ. The first person to do so was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. Anarchy as it is understood in the wider world has been the subject of much study and IMO the criticism of impracticality that apply to it also applies to libertarianism, with perhaps the main difference being that anarchy is mostly about "we" while libertariansim seems to be more about "me." See Anarchy (this site).
|
|