Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[MacFall]

I've heard about them, but that's it. Sounds interesting from what you say. I think I'll have to look into them some more.

 

[Nilloc]

I've heard about them, but that's it. Sounds interesting from what you say. I think I'll have to look into them some more.

The other books seem to deal with other things like history and politics:

• Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today
• Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?
• Evaluating Books: What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This?
• The Clipper Ship Strategy: For Success in Your Career, Business, and Investments
• The Money Mystery: The Hidden Force Affecting Your Career, Business, and Investments
• The Thousand Year War in the Mideast
• Uncle Eric Talks About Personal, Career, and Financial Security
• Whatever Happened to Justice?
• Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? 5th Edition
• World War I: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today
• World War II: The Rest of the Story & How It Affects You Today

All eleven are available in PDF online, though they can be hard to find. I downloaded all 11 if anyone wants them.

 

[Nilloc]

I finally finished Rand's book on Selfishness (it dragged and bored me, needless to say) and wasn't impressed. Most of it I found incomprehensible and didn't make much sense. I don't know much about philosophy in general, so maybe that's why, but I didn't find most of what she said convincing. Even the parts I agreed with, like the NAP and natural rights stuff, felt elementary at best. I mean it was a good intro as to what they are, but didn't seek to prove them.

Her concept of of what altruism confused me. She seemed to say it meant caring for others needs, but then said you can care for others' needs as long as you want to. Well if I didn't want to, why would I do it? Unless she meant the government forcing you to take care of others, but I didn't get that impression.

 

[MacFall]

Like I've said many times, Rand was NOT consistent in the application of the principles she espoused. Which makes it all the more ridiculous for orthodox Randians to claim "have no ruler but reason" as their slogan.

She didn't like people asking other people for favors, so she tried to come up with a way to make it "irrational" for charity to exist. She failed at that and grudgingly admitted that purely voluntary charity is rational, but she never actually went back and revised the original sentiment. Ergo, a contradiction.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Like I've said many times, Rand was NOT consistent in the application of the principles she espoused. Which makes it all the more ridiculous for orthodox Randians to claim "have no ruler but reason" as their slogan.

She didn't like people asking other people for favors, so she tried to come up with a way to make it "irrational" for charity to exist. She failed at that and grudgingly admitted that purely voluntary charity is rational, but she never actually went back and revised the original sentiment. Ergo, a contradiction.

The most basic contradiction, or inconsistency that Rand had was arguing from an atheistic perspective.

Assuming her atheism to be correct, it is nonsense to speak of rights at all.

If there is no God, then how is man unique? Man is unique because of intelligence and the ability to use force to shape his environment to a far greater extent than other creatures. In no other way is man unique.

From that perspective it is inconsistent to argue that one man does not have the 'right' to use force against another man. It begs the question "BY WHAT STANDARD DOES ONE MAKE SUCH A CLAIM?"

'Rights' then become the whim of the man who has the most guns and controls the most force to ensure such 'rights'...and can change without notice.

Mao whatever his flaws was far more consistent than Rand when he remarked that "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."

 

[Nilloc]

Would those here that are knowledgeable of Rand agree with this?

What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand - Reason.com

 

[zoink]

An interesting situation:

Adam Kokesh Not Welcome at Ron Paul Rally

Some of Adam's responses to the whole thing.


Veterans For Ron Paul might not march on RNC - YouTube


Important Announcement About Vets for Ron Paul March on RNC - YouTube

 

[MacFall]

Would those here that are knowledgeable of Rand agree with this?

What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand - Reason.com

I don't find much with which to disagree other than what has already been discussed on this thread.

 

[zoink]

Looks like libertarian morality just had a bona fide peer reviewed psycological paper done on it.

Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians

Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes.

I'm about half way done with the article, maybe I'll submit some interesting quotes as I come by them.

The site where they gathered there statistics: yourmorals.org

 

[MacFall]

Not a single mention of aggression, force, violence, or coercion in the whole article. Considering that opposition to those things is what constitutes "libertarian morality", I don't think they really know what a libertarian is.

 

[Nilloc]

An interesting situation:

Adam Kokesh Not Welcome at Ron Paul Rally

While I do like Adam Kokesh, I don't blame the Paul campaign for doing that. The way he conducts himself has gotten worse and worse. He can be quite full of himself and has fallen into the unfortunate AnCap trap of calling all other libertarians statists, which annoys me to no end. The way that he has treated Rand Paul and Jack Hunter infuriates me as well. I'm not happy with Rand's endorsement of Mittens nor Jack's defense of it, but it's obvious that Kokesh went overboard with an emotional tangent, something he does often.

Adam Kokesh punches Ron Paul - YouTube

 

[zoink]

Not a single mention of aggression, force, violence, or coercion in the whole article. Considering that opposition to those things is what constitutes "libertarian morality", I don't think they really know what a libertarian is.

They don't really understand libertarianism that well but I think that doesn't have much bearing on the goals of the study. The quoting of Rand is a good example, and they seem to be using a different understanding of altruism then many libertarians would.

Definitions are subjective so they base the study on how people describe themselves. Anything else and it's no true Scotsman all over the the place.

As far as I know there have been very few peer reviewed psychological studies on libertarianism. Particularly, with the purpose of this study, they were attempting to compare libertarians to conservatives and liberals. They already had a large data set from previous studies on conservative and liberal morality. In order to use that data they have to use similar questionnaires. It does no good to compare how libertarian feelings on aggression compare to conservative and liberal feelings on aggression when theirs no data on it.

The study is not trying to define libertarian morality but understand/predict someone's affinity towards self described libertarianism based on responses to established studies like the MFQ (which they altered slightly specifically for libertarians since they were coming up as amoral), SVS, IRI, Disgust Scale, Cognitive Reflection Task, Empathizer-Systemizer Scale etc.

As one can see from this quoted text they are comparing libertarians to "traditional morality"

This result is consistent with our findings on the MFQ and Schwartz Values Scale measures, in that libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., altruism, respect for authority) are not assigned much importance.

In the end as the abstract would indicate it the study found that libertarians lack empathy

low levels of empathic concern indicate lower levels of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others, which may underlie libertarians' lower scores on the harm foundation of the MFQ, and their general rejection of altruism as a moral duty.

libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing.

But are the most cerebral.

This pattern is consistent with the libertarian valuation of logic and reasoning over emotion. Libertarians may enjoy thinking about complex and abstract systems more than other groups, particularly more than conservatives.

The cognitive reflection task provides a behavioral validation of the hypothesis that libertarians have a more reasoned cognitive style. In our dataset, this measure inter-correlates with both Need for Cognition (r = .30, p<.001) and Baron-Cohen Systemizer (r = .31, p<.001) scores, with libertarians scoring higher than both liberals and conservatives on all three measures. Taken together, a convergent picture of the rational cognitive style of libertarians emerges

**********

He can be quite full of himself and has fallen into the unfortunate AnCap trap of calling all other libertarians statists,

Do they not support a state?

Adam Kokesh punches Ron Paul - YouTube

If they aren't anarchists how are they not statists? Seems like an accurate description.

I'm not sure what RepublicRebels is referring too. What attacks on the Paul family? When did Kokesh imply that the movement can't survive without him and claim to be the leader of the libertarian movement? What's with the consequentialst questions rhetorically posed at Kokesh? Kokesh is a deontolgoical libertarian...

Also: "Peter Schiff Confirms Jesse Benton Paul Festival Sabotage"

 

[Nilloc]

Do they not support a state? If they aren't anarchists how are they not statists? Seems like an accurate description.

I'll refer to a post MacFall made way back in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7343710-23/#post60031908 That's basically the way I feel now.

Kokesh is basically a Molynoid, and like the Randriods that they emulate, they do a horrible job relating and working with those whom they disagree with. Rothbard was very chartiable to non-anarchist libertarians. He talks of the early Jeffersonian and Jacksonians as heroes of liberty; he didn't call them statists constantly and accuse them of dividing the movement (like Kokesh, in extreme irony, did of Jack Hunter).

I'm not sure what RepublicRebels is referring too. What attacks on the Paul family? When did Kokesh imply that the movement can't survive without him and claim to be the leader of the libertarian movement?

I'm sure you know what he's said about Rand Paul. He says Ron Paul has abandoned the grassroots just because he doesn't want Kokesh there. As I said before, Kokesh can be quite full of himself. Knowing what I do about him, I have no problem concluding he is thinking more highly of himself than he deserves.

Also: "Peter Schiff Confirms Jesse Benton Paul Festival Sabotage"

Peter Schiff? That statist!? Kidding, kidding. I don't know anything about Jesse Benton, so I can't say what I think of him.

 

[zoink]

I'm sure you know what he's said about Rand Paul.

The whole blaming Ron for raising him wrong was a weird but his assessment of Rand overall seemed fairly accurate.

He says Ron Paul has abandoned the grassroots just because he doesn't want Kokesh there.

I haven't/missed that part.

Peter Schiff? That statist!? Kidding, kidding.

He fits my definition of a statist.

I don't know anything about Jesse Benton, so I can't say what I think of him.

He is the head of the Ron Paul campaign, who Kokesh seems to primarily blame and take issue with.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Would those here that are knowledgeable of Rand agree with this?

What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand - Reason.com

I think I have a pretty good knowledge of Rand. And I think the article is a fair and accurate assessment.

 

[Noxot]

i love Adam Kokesh, if ron paul is jesus then adam is paul the apostle.

adam has a good heart imo.

 

[Nilloc]

The whole blaming Ron for raising him wrong was a weird but his assessment of Rand overall seemed fairly accurate.

As I said, I’m not happy with Rand endorsing Romney. But Kokesh, like he does with a lot of things, blew it way out of proportion.

Like Robert Murphy said: “Holy cow, the people on FB and the blogosphere in general are going absolutely nuts over Rand Paul killing all those Girl Scouts with a 5 iron. Ha ha not really, all he did was endorse Mitt Romney. But the reaction was about the same.”

No, Rand isn’t perfect; neither is Ron, Peter Schiff, or even Murray Rothbard for that matter. Kokesh like many Molynoids has this kind of unwillingness to look past or even forgive peoples faults.

He fits my definition of a statist.

I know. He just doesn’t fit mine. I just thought it was funny we were talking about whether minarchists are statists and then you reference Schiff.

He is the head of the Ron Paul campaign, who Kokesh seems to primarily blame and take issue with.

I do know that much. I just haven’t looked into Benton’s supposed problems enough to have an opinion one way or another.

i love Adam Kokesh, if ron paul is jesus then adam is paul the apostle.

adam has a good heart imo.

Despite my criticism, I like Kokesh as well. He just frustrates me because he’s obviously driven by his emotions more than he would like to think and can be pretty arrogant as well.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

As I said, I’m not happy with Rand endorsing Romney. But Kokesh, like he does with a lot of things, blew it way out of proportion.

Like Robert Murphy said: “Holy cow, the people on FB and the blogosphere in general are going absolutely nuts over Rand Paul killing all those Girl Scouts with a 5 iron. Ha ha not really, all he did was endorse Mitt Romney. But the reaction was about the same.”

No, Rand isn’t perfect; neither is Ron, Peter Schiff, or even Murray Rothbard for that matter. Kokesh like many Molynoids has this kind of unwillingness to look past or even forgive peoples faults.

I know. He just doesn’t fit mine. I just thought it was funny we were talking about whether minarchists are statists and then you reference Schiff.

I do know that much. I just haven’t looked into Benton’s supposed problems enough to have an opinion one way or another.

Despite my criticism, I like Kokesh as well. He just frustrates me because he’s obviously driven by his emotions more than he would like to think and can be pretty arrogant as well.

Kokesh is a young person who is in need of adult supervision to shepherd him through his moments of "foot-in-mouth" disease.

He'll grow out of it. Most people do.

 

[Nilloc]

My dad and I were fortunate enough to attend the last two days of LPAC. Got to meet Jack Hunter, Julie Borowski, and best of all, Ron Paul!

 

[zoink]

Is Julie known in the libertarian movement now? She used to post her videos under the name HayekWasRight on reddit quite a quite awhile ago. I thought she was just one of the well known poster's girlfriends. She'd be standing in front of this redish pinkish wall.

If a girl puts her arm around your back to take a picture it's completely acceptable to do the same.

Also do you want us knowing your full name?