Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / I hate libertarianism

**Posted by seigneur** 1/03/2019 3:20 pm

UGADawg wrote:
But Paul Rand, Ted Cruz, etc. are passionately in favour.

Interesting, didn't know they were atheists.

I did not say they were atheists. I said they were in favour of Ayn Rand. Ted Cruz recommended Atlas Shrugged in a speech in Congress, in fact used it as an argument against Obamacare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBjFf0gCV4

Maybe Ayn Rand's (virulent) atheism slipped their mind or something. Happens often that people take some ideas from someone, such as cowboyish individualism from Ayn Rand, begin to promote it and either forget or are uninformed about the rest.

Last edited by seigneur (1/03/2019 3:44 pm)

**Posted by UGADawg** 1/03/2019 3:56 pm

Ah, when you implied Cruz, Paul, etc. were unable to distance themselves from Rand's "atheist self-fetishist libertarianism," I took you to mean that they were indeed atheist self-fetishist libertarians. My mistake.

**Posted by Due_Kindheartedness** 1/03/2019 9:22 pm

UGADawg wrote:
What are three major points where classical liberals & libertarians disagree with objectivists?

Your question is not well-formulated, as you're confusing a position in political philosophy with a position in ethics (presumably, assuming you're not talking about Rand's metaphysics etc).

But many libertarians are highly critical of objectivism, e.g. see the libertarian philosopher Michael Humer's criticisms here.

I'm confused. Which is the political philosophy? Which is the position in ethics? If you could please clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate that!

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 1/03/2019 9:37 pm

I presume you mean Rand Paul.

I don't think either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are strictly what yanks call libertarians. Ted Cruz certainly isn't, but even Rand Paul is more like a libertarian conservative than an actual libertarian.

**Posted by John West** 1/03/2019 9:48 pm

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I presume you mean Rand Paul.

It's not UGADawg's fault Mr. Rand writes his name backwards.
(In the spirit of a bit of comic relief.)

**Posted by seigneur** 1/04/2019 2:57 am

UGADawg wrote:
Ah, when you implied Cruz, Paul, etc. were unable to distance themselves from Rand's "atheist self-fetishist libertarianism," I took you to mean that they were indeed atheist self-fetishist libertarians. My mistake.

Yes. Politicians (certainly these named ones) are hollow inside, but you thought they had principles or a philosophy or a coherent world view. The fact that they rely on Ayn Rand for philosophy proves that they don't.

They are politicians who borrow whatever seems to help make a momentary point for them. Their mistake is to associate themselves with no deeper clue of what they are associating themselves with.

**Posted by seigneur** 1/04/2019 3:04 am

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I don't think either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are strictly what yanks call libertarians. Ted Cruz certainly isn't, but even Rand Paul is more like a libertarian conservative than an actual libertarian.

Whereas Ayn Rand would be "strictly what yanks call libertarian"?

Is there any definable basis to the distinction of "a libertarian conservative" from "an actual libertarian"? Do both of these camps have actual people who represent them?

In my experience, every person who called himself libertarian fell apart within the first few sentences they uttered in the proclamation of their creed. I find libertarians indefensible, each of them I ever encountered.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 1/04/2019 4:02 am

Yes, Objectivism is generally considered a sub-set (and just a sub-set) of classical liberalism and libertarianism.

It often isn't easy to be exact a about where one ideology ends and another begins. But that doesn't mean there aren't differences between ideologies, such as conservatism and classical liberalism. Libertarian conservatism, being an amalgamation of different ideologies is bound to be imprecise and idiosyncratic. Cruz is most certainly no libertarian, by the normal use of that term in America. Most libertarians wouldn't call consider him one. Rand Paul is a little more problematic, but he is considerably more conservative than many libertarians, not just personally, but politically.

By the way, who says these two rely on Ayn Rand for their philosophy? I would like to see proof of that.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 1/04/2019 4:52 am

Due,

I think that there is something in what you say, though I'm not sure I'd put it in quite that way. Still, to play devil's advocate, I think a libertarian might respond in two ways. If the libertarian holds to something like the harm principle or self-ownership as a deontological principle, then he would no doubt suggest you have a right to use your own liberties and property, and most of the externalities in question can't deprive a man of these freedoms. A libertarian might also suggest that externalities are myriad and even recursive - in the sense that government intervention to solve them create their own externalities - so it would take practically unlimited government action to truly do away with them (if it were possible at all), and any attempt would be fatal to liberty.

**Posted by UGADawg** 1/04/2019 6:26 pm

To get past all the BS on Ayn Rand, I'd recommend the new SEP article here. I'm not defending her (I'm nowhere close to an Objectivist), but it's well worth a read. Many people focus on her egoism and ignore the fact that she was a certain kind of virtue ethicist.

@ Due,

If you're sincerely interested, as I mentioned before, I'd recommend Eric Mack's recent book. It's cheap and it's probably the best introduction / overview of classical liberal / libertarian philosophy I've ever read. Here it is.

Mack usefully breaks up the ethical positions for libertarianism (and classical liberalism, hereafter just libertarianism) into three categories: (a) natural rights (think Locke, Nozick); (b) cooperation to mutual advantage (think Hume, Hayek); and (c) some sort of indirect consequentialism, e.g. rule or institutionalist (think the early JS Mill and many other political economists). Naturally, how those roads lead to libertarianism, and how they deal with the usual objections, vary.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.