Log of "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" Notice: This log copyright 1995 by Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Reproduction without prior permission is prohibited. All statements starting with > were made by Tom Wright Session Start: Fri Oct 27 23:03:19 1995 > And now, without further ado, let's begin tonight's discussion. > To start off, just what is Libertarianism? What are the essential tenents of this > movement? * TomM is not sure there is an essential element, since it is a hodge-podge movement...anyone who speaks the word "freedom" is welcomed. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that promotes the cause of "freedom". They tend to define freedom as the absence of government-mediated coercion. Do they promote individual rights? Property rights? What would you add to that, Wright? > Is that a good definition of Libertarianism? but they agree to disagree over specific exceptions. > Gilles: Sometimes, yes. Gilles: No, though they claim they do...individual rights can only be upheld by a legitimate government, which Libs distain. Wright: yes. Gilles: Yes, they promote individual rights, though they don't define them very well. TomM: They do see some functions for a government, at least some libertarians do. I see. Are they against criminal-mediated coercion? Or just government-mediated coercion? > So..when Libertarians say that they promote freedom, what do they mean? > Or do they even know? Wright: Generally, they mean subjectivism, of the personal type. Gilles: Depends on who you ask....mostly, they are agains private meaqnies, but like organized meanies. against gilles: Like the PLO, whom they seem to admire. What basis do they have for their defense of freedom? Subetai: None. ;) > Okay.. anyone have something further to add on the definition of Libertarians? TomM: What do they claim as their basis? > Subetai: You're getting ahead of me here :) Sorry, Wright. > This leads into my next question... Subetai: The "freedom" to do whatever one feels like doing...and no one has a right to stop any of it. > What do Libertarians take as an axiom? Why is this incorrect? Wright: They seem to take volition as an axiom...out of context of existence and a proper moral code. or any moral code, for that matter. The evil of initiating force. They have not virtues which are negated by force. > Tom: That's along the lines of what I was getting at... > Fredrik: Yes They have a lot of things they call "axioms". In fact, anything they can't defend is an "axiom" to them. I heard one say on TV that it was an axiom that a small law made the way for more comprehensive legislation. I doubt they know what "axiom" means. Fredrik: That is true as well. 'Do thine own will, but do no harm." > Subetai: I wasn't getting at what they think axioms are, but at what they take as an axiom, as we understand the term harm being subjective in many cases... > An irreducable primary Wright: That freedom is good. Wright, DO Libertarnains accept the premise of axioms? > Yes. Fredrik hit the nail on the head Libertarians take the value of freedom as an axiom, and this is incorrect because the value of freedom is not an irreducible primary, but logically depends on the fact that man's specific mode of survival requires freedom. Which itself is not irreducible. > Gilles: Exactly They are quite unique in western moral though tough, they focus on means rather than ends. Eg its good because no one has intiated force to achieve a particular end. > On what level of Philosophy does the concept of "freedom" sit? tough:=though > Metaphysics? Epistemology? ...etc. freedom is a political concept. fredrik: Yes, that means, of course, that the Libs dispise morality...they are a-moral on principle. it rests on ethics. Write: it "sits" on ethics. > Ghaki right, and what are ethics based upon? Epistomology, Metaphysics. to=te Ethics are based on a concept of morality...and that upon metaphysics...the Libs never go deep enough into their thought basis. TomM: But still the same split ends/means > So, what fallacy are the Libs comitting when they take freedom as a primary? Yes, they think the ends justifies the means. TomM: I think it's incorrect to assume that they have a thought basis. Wright: Context dropping on a grand scale. Wright: The stolen concept? > Gilles: That's what I was getting at Gilles: Well, they calim they do, and have written many a book on their supposed philosophy ;) oops claim Wright: You mean, they advocate freedom while denying that man has any specific mode of survival? > Exactly, Libs embrace everyone from religionists to communists, as long as they rennounce the use of force Wright: Which only proves they **do not** renounce the use of force. > Okay, this gets into the next question ... the password is freedom right? > right > Why is it impossible to uphold freedom while renouncing a need for ethics? Ghaki: I already messaged them. > This should be easy, given the previous resposes Subetai: Betsy is having trouble getting it to work. Because you wouldn't know what you would be upholding. Wright: Because it does not answer the question: Freedom to do what, for whom, and by what standard? Because freedom is contextual. You need to answer freedom for whom and for what. Freedom is a value, and values are the province of etics. > All right.. on to the next question > Peter Schwartz writes "There is nothing un-libertarian about the basic moral tenants of > dictatorship ." Explain why this is the case. > tenents, excuse me Wright: Well, a dictatorship occurs when one man (or several) take over a country by force...since the Libs are against government, a dictatorship is always in the making. Besides, a dictator is merely asserting his "freedom" to rule others. > Tom: Yes, but more fundamentally The moral tenants of dictatorship means that someone must set the terms, since the Libs don't, well, someone will. hi all hi, debi The basic moral tenets of libertarianism state that one should do whatever he wants. So, if one wants to be a dictator, it is proper for him to do so, according to the Libertarian viewpoint (by implication). Wright: They have no means to say why some particular system is better than a dictaorship. Since they have no ethics. gilles: isn't this more the view of the anarchist? > Johnk: The Libertarians are essentially anarchists, but we'll get to that johnk: Well, if they uphold no morality, then they can, in fact and practice, have no politics. Wright: have we answered your question? Wright: continue, please > Yes.. Let's move on... > Various Libertarians have supported leftist guerrilla in El-Salvador, and the "rights" of the > members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association to have sex with young boys. > What is the source of these opinions? Given the tenents of Libertarianism, are these > positions natural conclusions? Johnk: I guess you're right about that. But since the Libertarians are amoral, or polymoral so to speak, it amounts to the same thing as "do whatever you want." in regards to H.U.P., they are assuming the validity of science, while denying it. H.U.P.? Wright: These follow naturally from them not ahving an explicit morality. I understood that a subset of Libertarians subscribed to the anarchist ideal Fredrik: sorry, wrong channel. :^( > Johnk: We'll cover that in the next question if philosophy is non-essential to their political view, how can they judge those? (they can't) Wright: Libertarians simply don't like absolutes: be they absolute principles, absolute governments, absolute anything. If some government tells a given group that it can't do something, the Libertarians rise up against that government. Sometimes I think that Libertarianism is the acting out of a particular psychological problem. Theirs is an essentially negative philosophy. > Betsy: Please elaborate Betsy: it's called rampant subjectivism. Betsy: what do you think the problem is? El-salvador gurilla is fighting the state, so its natural fore them to endores such activitets. Man boy love I say no, since its force involved. Fredrik: Not so, they think even youngsters have a "moral" right to do whatever they feel like doing. Fredrik: what if the boy consents? (concept drop) > Fredrick: The support for NAMBLA is a documented fact.. they assume boys have the capability to "consent" to such things Libs are anti-authority, anti-limit, anti-identity. When kids are two year olds they have to deal with the idea of limits. If they don't learn it then and reinforce it in their teens, they end up as anti-limit "rebels". Ghaki: TomM: Ok given non-reason a boy can concent, so its natural for them. Betsy: they wish to be "free" to defy reality? > Betsy: interesting...So they have the psycology of a spoiled brat? Subetai: Yes, indeed...taht is their biggest "freedom"...of course, this means someone else will pay for it. Basicly a case of arrested development -- in the "terrible two's". > psychology > Okay, anything further before we move to the next question? TomM: And themselfs will pay for it, all awake hours. Fredrick: That too ;) > Okay.. let's move on.. > Why is anarchy an essential component of Libertarianism? Hm, what does the Libertarian party program say about it? Odegard: about what? Anarchy of course. Odegard: it regards it as optional. it says *where* governments exists they should be ... Because the the Libs are for rights -- they're for "freedom". So they don't say whether a government is necessary or not? Anarchy is directly implict in their non-morality approach to lfe...as is dictatorship. > Why is it essential *regardless* of what their platform says? life The state is there sworn enemy, so then anarchy(no state) must be utopia. besty: Ok I mean the Libs are NOT for rights So Libertarianism does not allow protection against the initiation of force? > And freedom in their context means...? I think that anarchy is essential because the foundation ob Lbtrism is subjectivism--if anything *could* be right, accrd to some subjective truth, then anarchy is the ultimate result; there is no way of coming to ultimate terms. Having no morality means they ahve no basis for a government (hence anarchy)...no morality menas *someone must tell them waht to do (hence dictatorship). To a Lib "freedom" means freedom from limits -- that's what's essential. Betsy: So the premise is that a government is something that by its nature inhibits freedom? means * Odegard thinks the Libertarian idea of 'freedom' seems pretty essential in this context Odegard: You got it. > Frode: Yes, because they define freedom as a lack of all restraints Odegard: Depends on the Lib. Some feel it does ... some feel it doesn't. Betsy: my point exactly. > And under their subjectivist philosophy, they're all right What does the Libertarian party program say about freedom? Wright: right! Freedom as in ' a hungry man is not free'? not a politicall concept. > Fredrik: Such a view would not conflict with libertarianism Odegard: In writing, it may seem to be OK...but it ain't in fact. TomM: What's the data we judge the movement on? I'd assume it would be the writings of the founders and the actual party program? Observe that in David Kelley's speech on why health care is not a right, it was _very_ much like Peikoff's speech on the same subject _except_ wherever Peikoff spoke of "rights," Kelley spoke of "freedoms." > All right.. does everyone see why anarchy is an *essential* part of the Libertarians Odegard: Oh, it is, it is...read up on their founders some day. Betsy: *shudder* > ' philosophy Fred: for a Lib freedom = absence of limits. Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess Jr. started the movement. they both did their best to push the philosophy at the New Left. The Platform is at times better than the people in the party. Betsy: As in your 2-year crises? philosophy != Libertarianism (sorry) I missed the beginning of this discussion due to technical problems> Are we restricting the definition of libertarianism to memeber of the Lib party? > Ghaki: Everyone has *some* sort of philosophy JonG: yah, yah, wrong window. Fred: Right. That's the issue a two-year-old has to face. john: We mean by Libertarianism, that mode of a-political thought that says everyone has the freedom to do whatever he wishes. > Not necessarily he's accusing Rand of cribbing her philosophy from Aristotle and Lock. (arg! sorry.) > Okay.. it's getting close to midnight, so I'll go ahead with the final question for the evening > Finally, does the "average Libertarian" support the views of the leadership? Does his > opinion even matter in the determination of the nature of Libertarianism? Wright: Possibly, to the first; and no to the second. > Tom: Explain, please. Wright: No, that would 'limit' the lib. Wright: As with any "movement" the rank and file is not as important as the primary spokes persons for that "movement". If you mean the movement that started in the late 1960's as a parasite of Objectivism, it was defined by its leaders, especially Rothbard, who were anarchists. and whgat they are saying is what we discussed above. Wright: no, because they all sanction the people who do believe in the really weird stuff by agreeing that they are allied in the fight for freedom. Tom: David King writes "In political issues Objectivists are promoters of the libertarian ideal" - I'm confused johnk: You are supposed to be confused...unless you know that Libertarianism ahs nothing to do with Objectivism. There are Libs and there are Libs. I sort the good ones from the bad ones with my "standard qestion for Libs." who is David King? What's that, Betsy? "Why are you a Lib rather than an Objectivist?" And they say: "what's an objectivist?" Sub: That's a good answer. Libertarians **hate** the moral certitude of Objectivism. > Betsy: And a bad answer? Wright: What's Libertarianism? ;) daniels: author of a book on objectivism > Tom: Because they are amoralists Wright: Because the real evaders refuse to identify what it is. Writght: "Who does [ Objectivist authority figure } think he is telling me I can't lie, cheat, steal, and smoke dope. Wright: Of course (I've said that) ;) LOL David King! He's almost as mentally disorganized as the Neo-Techers. Noe-hecklers. I've never even heard of him myself. oops...neo-hecklers > Okay, on that note, I'm going to end tonight's formal discussion, and turn off the log. You may continue to discuss the topic, of course Session Close: Sat Oct 28 00:05:14 1995