Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[MacFall]

Have you ever read Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics? He would obviously disagree (so do I, but for different reasons, and since mine are theological I don't think an argument between us on the topic would be constructive.)

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

Have you ever read Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

I found it philosophically laughable and incoherent.

Theology-wise I'm most susceptible to ultra-Calvinism and Theonomy. I actually like Gary North's arguments for a Biblical mandate of laissez-faire capitalism. I'm just not sure how much of that I can believe anymore.

 

[MacFall]

I found it philosophically laughable and incoherent.

o rly?

Care to elaborate? I've never read it myself; I'm just familiar with the central argument of performative noncontradiction as the basis for secular ethics. Personally I'm not much of a fan of Molyneux, except I like his theory of DROs.

Theology-wise I'm most susceptible to ultra-Calvinism and Theonomy. I actually like Gary North's arguments for a Biblical mandate of laissez-faire capitalism. I'm just not sure how much of that I can believe anymore.

I like North's stuff quite a bit myself.

Mind if I ask what is causing your crisis of faith?

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

Some of the problems with UPB.

except I like his theory of DROs.

You mean the one he ripped off from Randian anarchists who published when he was a child?

Mind if I ask what is causing your crisis of faith?

It's more an apathy than a crisis. I like Calvinist social theory, but I just don't find it believable that people think the Bible was the direct work or done at the behest of an omnipotent entity who is also supposed to be the Jewish storm god. Not plausible. I tend more toward gnosticism and nihilism, metaphysically, and if the Jewish god does exist he was a psychotic bastard.

 

[MacFall]

Some of the problems with UPB.

Interesting. I'll check that out.

You mean the one he ripped off from Randian anarchists who published when he was a child?

Without clicking that, I suppose you are linking me to The Market for Liberty?

If so, I've read that, and I'm sure Molyneux was inspired by it, he being an Objectivist himself. But his DROs are much more thoroughly thought out than the Tannehill's idea, I think. That's what happens to theories that outlive their originators. We'd be in a sad place if everyone who improved or deepened existing knowledge were accused of "ripping off" their predecessors.

Unless you mean that he claimed total originality, but if he did I haven't heard about it.

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

1) there are a lot better analysis out there than Molyneux's and;
2) Trying to predict the form of a market entity in a non-existent economy is kind of asinine to begin with.

Molyneux doesn't really understand economics, he's philosophically inept and fantastically ignorant; he's manipulative, deceitful, petty, childish, rude, condescending and frankly an actor and not a thinker. He's a snake-oil salesman with libertarian boots; and most of his theories are either cribbed or crankish and absurd.

I don't only think he's a joke (like Glenn Beck), I also find him personally obnoxious.

 

[MacFall]

1) there are a lot better analysis out there than Molyneux's and;

Agreed, but I still think that his DRO concept was an improvement over the Tannehill's.

Trying to predict the form of a market entity in a non-existent economy is kind of asinine to begin with.

Theory isn't the same thing as prediction. If someone asks me "what would keep me safe/fed/employed/wearing the type of underwear I want in a free market", I don't think there's anything wrong with me offering a theory (some ideas of what might happen); a prediction would be "thus and such shall happen". And you're right, that would be absurd. But I don't see a problem with making theories. It helps to calm the reflexive fears of people who are genuinely interested in free market theory but haven't yet become brave enough to imagine a free society for themselves. And besides, it's fun.

Molyneux doesn't really understand economics, he's philosophically inept and fantastically ignorant; he's manipulative, deceitful, petty, childish, rude, condescending and frankly an actor and not a thinker. He's a snake-oil salesman with libertarian boots; and most of his theories are either cribbed or crankish and absurd.

I don't only think he's a joke (like Glenn Beck), I also find him personally obnoxious.

We can agree here. I don't like him personally at all, in fact I think that he's a danger to people for whom he might be their first exposure to libertarian thought. But he could be all those things and still come up with a few good, truly original ideas. And I think he has found a few. As did Ayn Rand, egomaniacal, hypocritical she-dog that she was. Ludwig von Mises waffled quite a bit on some of the implications of his theories. Rothbard got cozy with the politicos at some times, and he pretty much went bonkers in his dotage. I suggest we take good ideas where we can find them, give credit where it is due. That doesn't suggest we ought to revere the person, or even endorse the bulk of their work.

EDIT: I spoke too soon regarding the content of the article.

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

I just never read anything in Molyneux that I didn't see better from someone else. Combine that with my personal distaste for the man and I have steered clear of FDR.

To change the topic, what do you think of Anthony de Jasay?

 

[MacFall]

I've read Against Politics and Before Resorting to Politics, though it has been a long time since I read his stuff. I had actually started reading The State once, years ago, and got distracted (thanks for reminding me; I'll have to start reading it again). If what I've read is indicative of the rest of his work, he's definitely one of my favorite nonfiction writers. I'd put him in my top five.

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

Likewise. Ever heard of Lon L. Fuller?

 

[MacFall]

Yes, but I don't think I've read any of his work.

 

[Cute Tink]

Are there any books that you think are so good they shouldn't be passed up?

I haven't read anything that really guided me to these ideals, but I might find it interesting.

 

[MacFall]

Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

Frederic Bastiat's The Law

Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty

Robert Murphy's Chaos Theory

Mary Ruwart's Healing Our World

All of the above are available for free online, with the exception of the last in audio as well as text formats.

 

[Cute Tink]

Great! I'll track them down and put them into queue. Thanks.

 

[lmd0137]

Hi all, just thought I'd introduce myself. My name is Lauren and I identify myself as a Libertarian. My main goals and beliefs are to restore this country back to her founding principles. I believe firmly in the American dream, and the original intent of our founding documents. I believe in small government(though the government is necessary for some things) maximum freedom, and tolerance and unity even among those who disagree on some issues.

I enjoy watching the Glenn Beck program. Does anyone else here watch it??

 

[MacFall]

People like Beck use the term "libertarian" to attempt to distinguish themselves from neoconservative Republicans, but libertarianism isn't the same thing as "Old Right" conservatism or even classical liberalism. Libertarianism is a distinct ethical philosophy, and Beck doesn't subscribe to it. He's better than most of the talking heads, and he certainly has some good things to say (especially regarding the Federal Reserve), but I don't agree with him on enough of the issues to watch or listen to his show. I used to, but I stopped when he was part of the establishment Republican gang-up against Ron Paul during the Republican primary. And even though I guess they're on friendly terms now, I'm still not a fan.

I will watch if he has any people on of whom I am a fan, though. I'd love to see him and Andrew Napolitano talk about civil rights. That would be an interesting discussion.

 

[lmd0137]

Glenn Beck is not a neo-conservative. It bothers me that so many people even Libertarians listen to the garbage other people say about him. Please if you do not watch the show, read his books, or listen to his radio program, do not make assumptions. It is playing into the hands of the socialist/progressive left. I also think it is a shame that the libertarians on here are classifying themselves as this kind of libertarian or that kind of libertarian. I believe you are all missing the point. Libertarianism is about maximum freedom, and following the original principles of our founding fathers, not agreeing with everyone on every issue. You are dividing yourselves. You should look for the principles that unite you not the differences that divide you.

I believe many people classifying themselves as "libertarians" are extremely closed minded and are therefore causing strife. Just because you agree with some issues but not others does not mean you should dismiss another "libertarian" as not enough or too much libertarian. You must find the principles that unite you even when you may disagree on some issues.

BTW, Glenn has done several shows with Judge Nepalatano(sp?) where they discussed liberties and the constitution. It was very interesting. The judge also subs in for Glenn when he is sick or on vacation.

I think that the main issues of the show that Glenn has been focusing on fit right in with libertarianism. His main focal point for a while now has been the values of Faith, Hope and Charity. He discusses smaller government, lower taxes, power of the people, self-regulation, responsibility, accountability, "firm reliance on the protection of divine providence", freedom of religion...and I could keep going. These are all things I believe are important to libertarians in general.

One other thing, I think there seems to be some confusion between anarchists and libertarians. Has anyone else been seeing this??

 

[MacFall]

Glenn Beck is not a neo-conservative.

I didn't say he was; I said that people like him use the term to distinguish themselves from neoconservatives. But they're still not libertarians. Again, libertarianism is a specific ethical system. It is possible for someone to be "libertarian" on some issues without embracing libertarian ethics, but someone who doesn't embrace libertarian ethics is not a libertarian.

It bothers me that so many people even Libertarians listen to the garbage other people say about him. Please if you do not watch the show, read his books, or listen to his radio program, do not make assumptions.

I'm actually going on the five or so years during which I did listen to him, ending some time last year. If he has changed a lot toward promoting greater liberty in the last year, then I'm glad to hear it.

Libertarianism is about maximum freedom

Yes.

...and following the original principles of our founding fathers

...and no. Libertarians are not constricted to the views of the founders, some of whom had some great ideas, and others of whom were authoritarians in sheeps' clothing. The more radical founders (those in Jefferson's camp) were classical liberals - not libertarians. There were a few genuine libertarians among them, but they don't get much press.

You should look for the principles that unite you not the differences that divide you.

That's a good idea, but an examination of the principles by which libertarianism is defined will inevitably exclude many of the people who use the term to describe themselves. That doesn't mean we can't be friends and allies, but it's easy to call yourself something without having any idea of what the word is supposed to mean, and in any political ideology or movement, you'll find a lot of people to be in the habit of doing that.

Just because you agree with some issues but not others does not mean you should dismiss another "libertarian" as not enough or too much libertarian. You must find the principles that unite you even when you may disagree on some issues.

What if a Marxist called himself a "libertarian" because he believed that the state shouldn't regulate things like drug use? I've met such people. There are some issues which define the term, and being on the wrong side of those issues makes one definitively un-libertarian.

BTW, Glenn has done several shows with Judge Nepalatano(sp?) where they discussed liberties and the constitution. It was very interesting. The judge also subs in for Glenn when he is sick or on vacation.

They must have been recent, because when I listened to Glenn's radio show he thought Napalitano was crazy. But that's a good sign that he's making progress in the right direction.

I think that the main issues of the show that Glenn has been focusing on fit right in with libertarianism. His main focal point for a while now has been the values of Faith, Hope and Charity. He discusses smaller government, lower taxes, power of the people, self-regulation, responsibility, accountability, "firm reliance on the protection of divine providence", freedom of religion...and I could keep going. These are all things I believe are important to libertarians in general.

Those are all things I believe are important as well - but not all of them are libertarian issues.

One other thing, I think there seems to be some confusion between anarchists and libertarians. Has anyone else been seeing this??

It's not confusion, because a consistent application of libertarian ethics would lead to a condition that can be described as "anarchy" - but in a sense wherein individuals are sovereign within their own property; which is distinct from the idea of "anarchy" as indicating a lack of rules and the social structures to enforce them. So it is quite possible to describe one's self as a libertarian and an anarchist, as I do.

However, the word has a lot of baggage, especially being associated with nihilism and collectivism, so if someone objects to the term being associated with libertarianism I'm not going to put up a fight. Other terms also apply: voluntaryism, autarchism, or autonomism, just to name a few.

 

[lmd0137]

Wow totally missing all my points. I think you may be confused or very extreme and set in stone on what you believe libertarianism to be, especially since you are policing other people's libertarian values on this forum. Libertarianism in most people's minds at least is not synonymous with anarchy. I think you are extreme. Which is fine, you have every right to believe what you believe. But please stop telling everyone else they are wrong about what they believe to be libertarianism because it is not as extreme as your views.

I believe government to be a necessary evil, and that its power should be limited, but there is a need for some laws and some regulations. I also believe firmly in the system that was originally put into place in this country, even though it has been exploited and corrupted. I am a libertarian. (limited government, not no government.) I believe libertarians need to unite in order to help restore this country, not argue over who is too extreme and who is not extreme enough. Obviously there are certain basic principles you must agree on, but small differences are always going to happen even when you agree on the basics.

 

[MacFall]

This forum is not meant for debate, so I will only say this in response: I am not applying my own, special definition to libertarianism. I am insisting on the actual, objective definition as established by the ideology's founders and shaped by the implications of its central premises.