The Higher Morality of Libertarians: part 3

I promise to “give it a rest” after one last look at the “Marxism of the right”.

Libertarians of all persuasions and Objectivists have the right to urge us to make the world a safe place for free market capitalism.  It’s in worse shape than Polar Bears according to the oligarchs.

“No rules, just right”.

I mean, what would the free market do? That is the highest morality. … You have the right to disagree with libertarians and Objectivists but remember, they took a course in economics once.

A pivotal part of libertarianism is EVERYTHING must be owned because all “rights” are defined by ownership. Rothbard declares dependent children to be “owned” by their parents. You can kill them if you like. It’s in his book. He doesn’t advise it, but says you have the “right”.

The concept of “commons”? GONE. It is the only way of making the philosophy consistent and these folks love pounding square pegs through round holes. Muir Woods now has an owner who calls all the shots. If she wants to bulldoze it, what business is it of yours? Passing a law requiring her to preserve ancient redwoods would violate the non aggression principle.

Image

Here is how that works:

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

* Source: “Q and A session following Ayn Rand’s Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974”

She was a peach all-righty.  At least she cannot be faulted for not wanting to protect children:

“I do not think that the retarded should be allowed to come near children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they’re interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something they have to live down to.”

– Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981

No wonder she is Paul Ryan’s inspiration.

Under the new morality everything must be owned and anything compulsory is aggression.

Unless of course you don’t want it that way. Objectivists have no problem with “pre-emptive strikes” or either war in Iraq. So taxes are a violation of the non aggression principle but carpet bombing is not…  (confirmation is a quick “google” away).

The truth is we have laws mitigating capitalism because they were needed. I won’t argue those laws are perfect. They aren’t. I will argue that if libertarian principles were self evident and a higher morality …  there might be one nation in the world who had ever tried them.

And I would miss the hell out of Muir Woods…

We are 7 billion people now and technology has made workers super productive. At a time when more labor is available than ever before and less needed we are told that if the boss says go back down in the Carlsbad Nuclear Waste Site (now leaking but under libertarianism it would be privately owned) you can quit, ask for a raise or just do it. It would be a violation of the non aggression principle to ask for laws forcing that boss to do anything at all. Like full disclosure or safety gear. Oh, he could if it was voluntary and he felt like it…

And what is in that food you eat? If people die from eating, the market will self correct and that business will go under. Forget required food labeling. I have been told eat organic rather than place the burden of regulation. Really? Without regulation I have a cub scout’s word the food is clean.

Rah, Rah Rand and Rothbard!

gorelibertarian_zps4d419bc6

 

I have been immersed in Libertarian and Objectivist polemics for 3 weeks now and I feel dirty.  I am off to take a shower.  I would like to leave you with a question.  Is ibertarianism/Objectivism “a few caves above” social Darwinism?  The Von Mises Institute doesn’t think so.  They have an entire paper out defending Spencer as a misunderstood good guy.  Who was Spencer?  The “father of Social Darwinism”.

Update:

Libertopia is a far off future.  It is  more instructive to know what policies they support in the here and now and who they are.

Charles and David Koch are the two most powerful plutocrat libertarians in America.  They founded the Cato Institute (originally called The Charles Koch Foundation).  They have recently reasserted control through a law suit/purge.

In 1980 David Koch ran as the vice presidential nominee on the Libertarian ticket.  Please read the platform he supported:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

 

 

Next week I will invite you on a dog walk with pictures… It will be more fun than an old man’s rant.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Passionate Politics, Stuff and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Higher Morality of Libertarians: part 3

  1. osolynden says:

    I “get it”. Libertarians and libertarians and Objectivists come in different flavors and disagree radically on what the new world they want should look like. Chances are Libertopia won’t happen. But never mind… if they can’t have their new perfect world they will vote to end the vote and to squelch the unions. Libertarians are GOP thugs and want the same “liberty”.
    http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-obnoxious-libertarian-oligarchs-who-earned-fortunes-government-theyd-destroy

  2. osolynden says:

    I will not be able to lay this to rest until I add this. It is a copy paste from a libertarian who uses Alternet comments to preach:

    “Morality can not be based on subjective ideas. 
Islam says that stoning your daughter to death if she lusts for a man out of marriage is morally good. Some groups within Islam say it is wrong. Some Christians say drinking coffee is immoral, while others have no issue with it. These are all subjective ideas based on non-facts.
    Morality must come from a universal law in order to be applied to all people. That law is the law of self-ownership. I do not yell at my feet in hopes that they move in the correct direction. I simply will them to move with little effort. In this same sense, I can not yell at a man to do a task against his will and expect it to be done every time, because the act of my yelling solidifies the fact that I do not control his actions. Each individual has their own body and life, of which they are in control.
    Morality is best defined by the non-aggression principle: The initiation of force is always wrong. So long as people are interacting peacefully and voluntarily, you have no right to interfere and force them to adjust their behavior. Only until the actions of another individual become hostile, and break the code of morality, should self defense be used, or anything else deemed socially acceptable.
    A well observed peaceful solution to adjust unwanted behavior from individuals is social ostracism. Assume a business owner refuses to provide services to people based on their skin color or gender; members of society who disagree with such behavior would refuse to do business or associate with the owner. They can form consumer advocacy groups and inform others about the unwanted behavior. Either way, the business owner is missing out of profits he could gain by simply accepting business regardless of skin color.
    And if racists all collect into one society and manage to live together, so what? They are in their own society away from you, having nothing to do with your life. How is that bad?”

    This guy makes me nuts. First he compares apples and oranges and declares HIS morality a universal law. He then defends the libertarian lock step about racism.

    Boycotts are rarely effective and need to be sustained and have a vast majority of the community on board to have an effect. Has there EVER been a racist community that had no effect on the lives of the people they hate? Has there ever been a racist community where all members were in 100% agreement?

    I was around and aware in the early 60’s and racism was an enforced policy in certain communities and it didn’t always flow from government and law.

    Make believe worlds easily run smoothly like all of libertarian and Objectivist predictions.

    Current government law does not forbid being racist, it forbids acting on that attitude in your dealings with the group (s) you hate. Like maybe refusing to allow them to eat in your restaurant. Why isn’t harming others a violation of the non-aggression principle? As long as you are not HARMING the people you hate he is right, who cares? I have never seen it work that way in the real world.

  3. You leave me with nothing to say since I agree with your position and anything I could possibly come up with to post here would be redundant.

    I do have a question though….Is that you perched on that tree root?

    • osolynden says:

      In three brief writes I hit a fair amount of my objections to them that has it all worked out in imaginary reality.

      So I am thrilled you recognized me in the photo. Hitchcock always appeared in his films and I still think stole that bit from me.

      Of course that is me in the photo. I was still such a sprout I wasn’t even in big boy pants yet. That photo almost didn’t happen. A fog had rolled in earlier in the day from the ocean and even then the paparazzi hounded me. Only one had managed to keep his powder dry and that moment could have been lost to history.

       photo Flashmanw046_zpsde55ece9.jpg

      Imagine my first socialist tree hugging moment lost to posterity?

      I shudder just considering it.

  4. Well, anyone who has even glanced at recent news knows that things lately are a lot different in our Washington State version of Oso Gazette, than in the New Mexico version.

    (Hint for Dear Readers: Huge landslide in Oso, WA. Similar to the electoral landslide for Ronald ‘I will balance the budget by the end of my first term. NOT!’ Reagan’s re-election.)

    My views on libertarianism continue to evolve, with you playing no small part.

    My current view of democracy is written by H. L. Mencken: “Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

    Along with some positive aspects, my current view of libertarianism: “Libertarianism is the pathetic belief in individual ignorance.”

    Humanity needs something closer to an intellectualocracy.

    Some great points you’ve posited here, including “…EVERYTHING must be owned…” and ‘The highest morality is the free market’.

    Warm regards, my friend;-].

    • osolynden says:

      Yes, heard about the mud slide. A tragic loss of life and homes for the survivors. Terrible. Under libertarianism these folks were stupid to have built on unstable land and maybe the church will send some food baskets?

      I am pleased if I have pointed to information worth your consideration.

      I know pollution is a concern for you? Here (once again letting them speak for themselves) is Rothbard hosted by the Von Mises institute explaining why EVERYTHING BEING OWNED will solve that problem through property rights and law suits. Please note that libertarians stress the theory of “self ownership” (elsewhere) perhaps so the poor can (philosophically) be said to have rights too:

      http://mises.org/daily/5978/The-Libertarian-Manifesto-on-Pollution

      right from the horses… er… mouth? I see no mention of how the largest most complex court system ever envisioned would be funded under minarchism or what body of law they would use in their adjudications. Does the property owner need to establish harm has been done? These activist ideologues offer a scant skeleton of utopian predictions.

      Menken has some interesting quotes. I suspect Baltimore couldn’t afford a real Ambrose Bierce and had to settle. His definitions are not exactly “Devil’s Dictionary”. I find sarcasm and witty disdain humorous on occasion but is that all Menken offers?

      His contempt for the average man and democracy remind me so much of Mitt Romney’s (not meant for broad consumption) 47% speech in the last presidential election.
      Any utter remake of society needs to factor in reality. If the average are (gasp) average then that needs to be factored in to the utopian scheme. The newly popular old idea that democracy restrains our betters and the rabble vote themselves cake may be an appealing simplistic notion but if true why does America not have the socialized medicine (medicare for all) the rest of the industrialized first world nations have? It may be more complex and less bumper sticker glib?

      Put me down as an anti dogmatist pragmatist and smart enough to run from those who know things absolutely.

      “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
      Bertrand Russell

      Hope your new mattress is giving you wonderful dreams. 😉

      • It just hit the market a few weeks ago, and they say it is the best mattress Beauty Rest makes. I frequently drive not far from the factory.

        Sales staff also say it will take awhile to break in. So I toss and turn, as it is only medium-soft. I need extra soft.

        Should have just found a foam manufacturer and had it cut to size, and put a few layers on the floor and probably been more comfortable and saved money.

        Guessing beds are made firmer to be able to offer a 15-year full warranty against sagging no more than 1.5″?

        You seem more reverent of humans than Mencken and I. For now, I’ll stick with his “The cynics are right nine times out of ten.”

        Later;-].

        • osolynden says:

          What you call “reverent of humans” I would characterize as accepting the realities of our nature and in spite of it wishing others well. I don’t consider humanity more special than animals or trees. I would rather use my intellect to understand who we are rather than railing against those who don’t live up to my standards. I fail miserably because I too am human.

          So… it pleases me that you and Menken think my cynicism of libertarianism and Menken’s usefulness as a pundit stands a 90% chance of being dead on…

          As to the bed? Rent it by the hour to the sex trade. The incessant pounding will soften it in no time.

  5. Just recently on Facebook, out of the blue a lady friend-ed me because I was a member of a group she liked. She then few weeks later sent me a invite to another group called “Libertarian Women”. LOL…I deleted her!

    There are many out there who are confused what a Libertarian really is yet call themselves one!

    WELCOME TO LIBERTARIAN HELL……….
    http://progressiveslogans.blogspot.com/2011/08/50-reasons-libertarians-are-crazy.html

    • osolynden says:

      A very amusing link and thank you. 😉

      Will be updating these blogs (all three) to show what libertarians support in the here and now. The Koch brothers are the two most prominent and powerful libertarian plutocrats in America. Ugly…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s