Looks like the buyer would basically get a defence of Nozick and Hayek. This is not very interesting, inasmuch as the core of their theories is a eulogy of freedom to be selfish, while the fundamental theist/Christian ethics has an emphasis on the virtue of being unselfish.

lmao
 

Why do I have to teach you how to conduct a discussion?

The topic is "I hate libertarianism", on the example of Ayn Rand's objectivism. The task for libertarians is to change the OP's mind or correct his opinions.

We got so far as to agree that Ayn Rand is "BS". But without Ayn Rand, what is libertarianism and who is libertarian? No explanation thus far, except that we should read Eric Mack's recent book.

We are on a theistic forum. Why should I pick up a theistically irrelevant, or perhaps even detrimental, book? Convince me that it's worth it. If the ideas in the book cannot be summarised and defended, or any other thesis of libertarianism stated, then there simply is no discussion to be had.

Seigneur,

You made some strong, very controversial assumptions without unpacking or defending them. It's up to you, but you won't win anyone over or make a meaningful contribution to discussion that way. I am not a libertarian, so I'm not here to defend libertarianism per se or that particular book, but there are worthwhile ways of criticising libertarianism and classical liberalism and less worthwhile ones. Collapsing classical liberalism and libertarianism into Objectivism is not accurate or helpful, when classical liberalism clearly predates Ayn Rand by centuries and even in the post-war revival of strands of classical liberalism, known as libertarianism, Rand was one amongst a host of figures, from Albert Jay Nock to Murray Rothbard. Nor is making the hugely simplistic comment that libertarianism is selfish and Christianity unselfish, therefore they must be incompatible, likely to add much to meaningful debate. There are all sorts of issues that would need addressing to conclude that, as Daniel touches on, like what policy best contributes to human welfare and what is the moral role of the state compared with the role of the individual (after all it is very simplistic to just equate state action with the individual virtues).

seigneur wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

I take Libertarianism alone as an economic policy. Thus libertarian Christians and other non-objectivists would argue that it is the economic system that promotes the greatest social flourishing given the average of human nature. Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted. 

Exactly. To repeat, "Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted."

If libertarianism is so non-specific that it is interchangeable with Communism or perhaps common sense that everybody could easily agree to, then why call it libertarianism? Unfortunately, this kind of formulation of libertarianism does not even define libertarianism, much less defend it.

Libertarianism would be defined as minimal state intervention (or the non-aggression principle as the basis of civil law law). What the definition alone cannot tell us is whether such a proposed really does provide the greatest social flourishing - that still remains to be argued for.