IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 1 - Libertarianism

[Kikarok]

There's a metaphor I like to use in regards to the hierarchal reversal:

The political principle is but a branch of a philosophical ash tree. People treat this branch as if it were a root (axiom). They tear it from the tree and plunge it into the ground, somehow expecting it to grow and flourish. It may look somewhat good on the surface for a short time, but the end result is that it withers and dies, leaving the field clear for weeds (brutes, etc.) to take over.

[Aliothemage]

(continued)

In the same way, a Minarchist and an Anarchist can collaborate on who they will vote for in order to reduce the scope and power of government as much as possible. Neither has to sacrifice their principles in order to work towards even their differing goals. Eventually they may have to part ways, but not in the foreseeable future. Also, modern anarchist often do not call for NO govt, they are calling for no initiation of force through the government. They are misunderstood.

[Aliothemage]

Also, just because Ayn Rand understood the Libertarian party to be anti-capitalst or Anarchist doesn't mean that it was or is today. The Libertarian party today holds nearly the same principles Rand did. Also, you are making far too much of your collaboration argument. Two mothers might have different basic principles on how to raise children but they can still agree and collaborate on other subjects, such as who they will vote for in the coming election. (continued)

[Aliothemage]

Setting the the non-aggression principle as an axiom doesn't Make it metaphysical. It is just simply agreed upon. We might come to that conclusion in differing ways, but none of us disagree with it. Once a consensus is achieved the principle can be used WITH REASON as an axiom, having nothing to do with metaphysics. Just like your example with the color green. Everyone agrees on what the color green is so even though we dont specify WHY it is the color green it be said to be self evident.

[PhatBrady1017]

I would consider the non-coercion principle to follow naturally from the belief that every individual has entirely equal right to protection under the law.

[ammonjerro47]

It must give you such satisfaction to spend your time pointing out what you consider to be flaws in other people's arguments.

[eiendeeai]

Five stars for your logic.

[olvew]

I agree with your critique of the libertarian motivation, however, Ayn Rand still fits the definition of libertarianism.

[saint27573]

dude all iknw is the democrat want to raise taxes on me , and to me more taxes means the government is my slave master . instead of working for myself the democrats want me to work for everyone else . im supposed to work long hours for thoses that that want to work at all .that is slavory . i pay taxes to groups that dnt support my values that taxation without representation. i want freedomm !!!!!!

[Entropy56]

Today is March 13 2009. Exactly one year since this video was posted. Yet there are only 4,047 views. Why?

[drzzt300drdn]

I think that you've mistaken the purpose of Libertarianism, and have established it in your premise as being its own philosophical framework. It is, however, only an extension of objectivist philosophy in the form of political theory, and is thus limited in its definition to just that: political theory. It is a political party, running on political platforms, not metaphysical-philosophical platforms. It may use objectivist philosophy (and its subsequent sub-philosophies: metaphysics,

[JLCMJelly]

But that is the exact problem with libertarianism. It is like a football(american) coach advocating running on 3 and short not because in reality that is a good way to get a first down, but because he just happens to like to run on 3rd and short, regardless of the reasons behind it.

A person who wants to abolish the forward pass, a father of the running back who wants his son to get more carries, and a fullback who wants to kill the linebacker may all advocate the "strategy" of........

[JLCMJelly]

.....of running on 3rd and short, even though they have totally different reasons for it. One wants to destroy the game, one wants to have his son succeed on the expense of others, and the third has a lust for blood. All advocating the same strategy, all for totally different reasons.

But the rational philosophy underlying the strategy of running on 3rd and short is "it is a good way to get a 1st down", and if that is not at the root of advocating the strategy, the strategy is useless.....

[1emart1]

Great analogy. I was recently informed by a friend that some of the objectivist political ideas I was expounding seemed libertarian. After looking in to it, I found that there indeed did seem to be quite a bit of overlap. I will likely use your analogy to explain the important distinction.

[franks2732]

Libertarianism, Economic Jesus Freaks

"The Church of Scientology" of the neoconservative geopolitical fringe

[0lord0kinbote0]

I've asked this question so many times. Why do those that promote Libertarianism always leave out details of natural law while claiming to adhere to it.

It really sounds like 'faith' based thought. The idea that desires can be met with no realistic mechanism or basis on fact.

[acousmas]

wouldn't this apply to all political parties?

[olvew]

Yes, because all parties consist of irrational dipshits.

[figgypower]

Regarding the Mugged vs. Mugger comment... the Mugged needs to commit violence in order to keep their private property from being taken. The ideal of non-agression does not mean one cannot attempt to maintain law and order in self-defense, otherwise, you're back to anarchism.

[terraindrain2]

McKeever must be a lackluster lawyer, with no business to attend to if he all this time to ramble on with endless conjecture.

[melnick1985]

or a man with a strong conviction

[neutrinoide]

duuuh, like ancap doesn't know the influence Ann Rand had on libertarian (called post-objextivist). She realy help philosophy in general. I never saw a new libertarian denying this. oh and you are wrong about all libertarian doesn't follow ethic from first possible. Big fat dishonest strawman you are making here Mr. McKeever.

[neutrinoide]

..first principals... I comment for the readers and not to debate btw. Beause it is clear you are a lost cause...LOL. and you are far to be the main problem in my next futur, because I will take an Objectivists government now, then to continu living in that nightmarish socialistic province I live in.

[dcc543]

yeah, what can i say? i am a big fan of humor, i guess.

as for "watching" your videos? yeah i would not really go that far.

[dcc543]

Paul, I really like the way you move around to different parts of the public library and change your hairstyle and dress.

It really does not make the moronic tripe that comes out of your mouth any better, but it is the only worthwhile perspective in your youtubes.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thank you for watching, and for commenting upon, so many of my videos.

[elar4563]

Paul,

I like your vids as they are very informative.

What was your philosophy before you discovered

Ayn Rand?

[PaulMcKeever]

It was a bit of a dogs breakfast, but I would have to say that I had become an agnostic, moral subjectivist (politically, a "libertarian"). In short: it was loathsome.

[MillionthUsername]

I do see part of your point about territory in that it certainly makes a lot of sense for law to be as uniform as possible in a given place for all who live there. But if that is the best system, then wouldn't the market tend in this direction anyway? Wouldn't local groups insist that their values in law be preserved? I mean, in a true anarchy they can just form self-governing communes similar to the first North American colonies if they wanted to, and then form alliances with other groups.

[PaulMcKeever]

See my response to BinaryT in part 2 of this video.

[MillionthUsername]

Please explain why objectivists, in order to be consistent with their philosophy, need not argue for one world government? It seems that they must since anarchy is intolerably "irrational" and yet the relationships between and among nations is anarchic by definition. Thanks.

[PaulMcKeever]

The issue isn't the existence of multiple governments, per se. It is the existence of multiple governments over the SAME territory. Freedom requires a person to be governed by ONE system of objective law: such is not possible with multiple governments in a single geographic region.

Relations between individuals living in different jurisdictions is normally handled by a field of law named "Conflicts of Laws", which takes into account such things as international treaties.

[PaulMcKeever]

And, by "multiple governments", I am not referring to federal systems, or to the existence of municipal governments. In those instances, jurisdiction is split according to topic (e.g., criminal law, highways, weights and measures, monetary policy, etc.). Therefore, there is not normally a duplication of laws in a single geographic location.

[MillionthUsername]

Your objection is multiple systems "over" one area, not multiple systems or multiple areas, right? So why can't you envision a rational decentralization to where larger areas are not countries as we know them but federations of smaller sovereign entities. Now, how far can you go? Town by town? One housing development? Why can't we devolve power to the smallest units in a network of cooperation to protect our freedom? I don't see the obstacle here except the fear of the unknown.

[MillionthUsername]

Why is territory the key to your argument? If you can have Canadian, American and Mexican citizens all living on the same street somewhere but having different "home countries" (systems of law), why can't you conceive of 2 "Canadians" living on the same street but having different systems also even though they're neighbors? Each person would still be governed by ONE system of objective law amidst multiple systems. If we are sophisticated enough to do it now, what's the conceptual problem?

[PaulMcKeever]

Law governs relations BETWEEN people. If we want justice between neighbours A and B, it is of no use to have neighbour A governed by one system of law and neighbour B governed by another system of law. There's nothing "objective" about such a situation.

[MillionthUsername]

I think the examples of foreigners living abroad adequately demonstrates our ability to apply law objectively where multiple competing sovereign systems are at play. Law governs *between* foreigners when their respective gov'ts agree. Most work this out in advance for good relations and trade. It is likely that any stable, mature anarchic system would work similarly. The fear of the unknown is very potent, but I can't see yet why it *couldn't* work, except that it's just so different.

[grantsinmypants2]

I support one world government. But I also support the complete absence of violent crime. In the mean time, I support the right of one group of people (a nation) to act independently, in their own defense, against another group of people (another nation) committed to their destruction for the sake of some irrational belief.

[nbke5vz]

Libertarianism and Pure Capitalism preach about limiting government to establish liberty. This idea of limiting a DEMOCRATIC government in turn limits the people's voice and the enforcement of their rights. Anarchy has the same problem. When libertarians talk about limiting government they mean government rep's actions. DONT VOTE FOR THEM! IMPEACH! Don't limit government, limit the access for fascist to become elected. If your a libertarian it's a bit fascist in nature as well, think about it.

[PaulMcKeever]

Democracy does not mean "majority rule". "Demos" = "people"; "kratien" = "power".

Demo-cracy = "People power".

This is to be contrasted with such things as:

Theo-cracy = "God power"; or

Auto-cracy = "Self power".

Democracy means that the SOURCE of a government's power is the power held by an individual governed person. In other words: no group of individuals, performing the task of governance, has powers that an individual lacks...(cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

"Power" in this context is a reference to: what may and may not be done.

It is wrong for you to take control of another person's life, liberty, or property without his consent: it is wrong for you to murder, enslave, or steal from another person (as examples).

In a DEMOCRACY, it is ALSO wrong for the government to do those things.

In contrast, in a THEOCRACY, it is not wrong for a government to do ANYTHING that an alleged god allegedly may rightly do, including...

[PaulMcKeever]

...murder, slavery, or theft. Witness, as examples, the conduct of various theocracies around the globe.

In an autocracy, the government claims that it got its power from itself (usually, by using military force). Just as in a theocracy, an autocrat can do anything, including those things that governed individuals cannot do: murder, slavery, theft.

Democracy is about the SOURCE of power. It is not MAJORITY RULE.

[PaulMcKeever]

...and: capitalism, which involves a government having limited powers, is consistent only with DEMOcracy.

[nbke5vz]

You are half way correct. You are correct in saying Democracy means people power, and the distribution of power. It's the notion that the public are not members of government which is our difference. Limiting the government limits the people, period. Your long winded attempt to believe in capitalism as a componant of democracy is ludicris. Capitalism promotes selfish greed and individualism. "together we stand, divided we fall" ever heard of that moto? cont...

[nbke5vz]

When you limit the governments ability to check the corporations, the externalities of every industry will pour over everyones civil liberties...much like now. Ford doesn't care about it's car's exhaust, but the EPA does, RX could be more dangerous then ever with out oversight, thank goodness for the FDA. Without these checks and balances between industry and government the public stands no chance of protection. Exploitation of labor standards caused numberous schisms of civil societies....

[nbke5vz]

just remember when your house is broken into where those taxes go, or when your leg is broken and you visit a hospital where that money came from to build the hospital, or if your house is on fire...taxes are good, conservative politics is dangerous.

[figgypower]

If my house is broken into, the police only react after the fact. Very, very seldom do the police catch a house break-in and almost never do they catch a break-in during planning stages. Private entities such as ADT provide protection for house break-ins; my taxes paying for police do not. Combined with my individual ability to bear arms, I'm far more defended then the tax based system, which provide little to no relief in house break-ins.

[figgypower]

Many hospitals are built with strictly private financing, and public financing by itself would not be able to build hospitals to sufficiently meet demand. If you don't believe this, PLEASE feel free to visit countries were hospitals are only public financed.

[nbke5vz]

This is true, but hospitals are totally regulated by the local and state governments. The governments allot a certain number of hospitals to a certain range of each other based off of population statistics.

[figgypower]

Before I lived in MI, me and my parents lived in Southern OH. What a mistake in regards to hospital care.  Government cannot be all knowing and seeing; the PEOPLE need to voice their opinions on how many hospitals THEY need. This is not just one example, but is very common, because situations and circumstances change. The market system is NOT perfect but it is far better for certain things.

[figgypower]

My house being on fire, again is partially defended by private entities like ADT and private products like fire extinguishers and alarms, but fire protection may be beneficial (at least from an economic perspective) to be communal in nature. Before tax funded fire protection, there were private firefighting entities, but that was mostly impractical due to externality issues. Don't be confused nbke5vz, the government does not provide NOR help, it only limits -- the PEOPLE provide and help.

[nbke5vz]

That is completely bullshit. ADT only contacts fire departments, they do not put fires out. Fire extinguishers even say they only put out fires of a small size. Fire protection is beneficial to be communal, and so are law enforcement, and other industries we rely on for safety. Water, housing, food, education, and health care are also in that realm of being necessary to ensure "the general welfare and domestic tranquility."

[figgypower]

Feel free to look at the economic and sociological research regarding cost and benefits. You're right that law enforcement and fire protection, even water can be far more efficient being communal. That is NOT a guarantee. Education, health care, and housing are definitely NOT beneficial being government owned. I would know -- go visit a ghetto sometime, all government owned housing. And health care? Give me a break -- there's a reason Canadians are "visiting" my current state, Michigan.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Okay, so Rothbard was wrong in saying it was an axiom? Who the hell cares? That's nit-picking.

[PaulMcKeever]

Advocates of libertarianism don't care. To them, it appears as mere nit-picking.

[qtronman]

The reason it matters is because it's extremely important to know WHY you hold your beliefs. It's tantamount to believing in something like the 10 commandments. "Liberty" is just something like "Don't kill"--it's just an arbitrary thunderbolt out of the blue.

[DackBev]

You neglect we libertarians who do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Aren't you quite the walking contradiction?

[DackBev]

No, I'm not a contradiction. There are two kinds of libertarians. I'm the other kind, a "consequentialist." We believe that maximizing liberty leads to good consequences and most of us believe that maximizing liberty requires some initiation of force. Rand may have even been a consequentialist under the guise of a deontologist, which would help explain her apparent inconsistency.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

So would it be more immoral to provide healthcare or weapons through taxation?

[DackBev]

Not if doing that provided more liberty than less.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Ahhh... Dogma.

[DackBev]

No, it's rationality. I don't really subscribe to the idea of "morality." I just look at what I want and determine what system to advocate, which if adhered to by others, is best at allowing me to get what I want. Simply egoism. I think that a society that grants a lot of individual liberty is conducive for my ends.

[PaulMcKeever]

That's an inversion of the philosophic hierarchy. Liberty doesn't give rise to morality/righteousness. The reverse is true.

[PaulMcKeever]

Sorry about that. Yes, I'm quite sure that many libertarians do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Some may also be completely unprincipled. Most even.

[qtronman]

Great job, again, Paul.

That quotation from Rand on anarchism as the "most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement" captures the essence of a socialist-anarchist like Noam Chomsky.

[nine9s]

I found this much more persuasive than Peter Schwartz's article on libertarianism. You've won yourself a convert.

[PaulMcKeever]

That's quite a compliment. Thank-you.

[Moragauth]

Taking the non-aggression principle as an axiom is misguided, IMO. Although Kantian transcendental arguments can be used to attempt to prove this, I think the neo-Aristotelian approach to natural rights is still superior.

[aaron0883]

I actually fully agree with you, and Ayn rand on these points. I didn't desire to disagree with ayn rand in this realm. I was using a different, and likely incorrect definition of libertarian. I wish I would have used the term minarchist. I offer no support and have no hope for the libertarian movement. Thanks for the response.

[PaulMcKeever]

Hi Aaron. Actually, I think I do use the term "minarchist" at one point during the vid.

Cheers,

PM

[Sam26100]

I would like to see somebody explain a specific example of how libertarians evade rationality. In this video you make that supposition, but you don't give any examples.  Makes it more difficult to agree with the case you're making.

Just a thought, I do like objectivism very much but I still fail to see the difference with libertarianism. How are they being irrational?

[attackdonkey]

I think this non aggression axiom is both founded on, and strengthened by the idea that we own and have a right to our own lives and bodies... and logically following our property...

now if you disagree with this, then you are at least consistent, but if you agree, that you have a rightful ownership in your own body and property, then you must, by default accept the non aggression axiom as being rational.

If not then where do I err?

[Sam26100]

Hmm perhaps. I guess my main issue is that since libretarianism is an actual political movement, that is in it's values of market principles, and political principles very much the same as objectivism, though not in ethical principles, then as an objectivist I can still call myself libretarian can't I?

What I mean is simply that I can support the political movement while being an objectivist myself. Heck, Leonard Peikoff supported John Kerry in 2004. He ain't exactly an objectivist

[davidngo4415]

I just realized the end alludes to "anarchism part II", so I hope this will answer my question of what is an objectivist's argument against anarchism/elimination of the state.

[davidngo4415]

Hi Paul. Great video again. The resolution is quite good in this one. Whatever video-editing algorithm you did with this one, keep it up.

I have a request. Can you make a video discussing further the Objectivist view on Anarchism? I know "stefbot" on youtube combines many of objectivist principles with anarchism. Focusing on this "non-aggression principle". What is the philosophical/rational argument against anarchism or the elimination of the state?

[XOmniverse]

Stefbot's ethical theory (as he presented it in his book Universally Preferable Behavior) is ethical intrinsicism to the highest degree and is most certainly not grounded in anything similar to Objectivism (or in my opinion, reason).