Philosophy And Libertarianism

[jordanjcm]

Is he reading all this ? It is freakin me out. What if everyone spoke this way? What a scary thought. Chill out man. You are trying WAY WAY too hard.  You may be in the middle of a full blown "manic episode"

[XOmniverse]

@jordanjcm I wrote it and read it. So?

[katrudy7]

No political party is a monolith; arguing that there are varying denominations of Libertarians is a moot point.

I really dig this vid! :)

[bhigr]

Here comes the Kantian twist:

"...as in all other cases, this law, namely, that he should promote his happiness not from inclination but from duty, and by this would his conduct first acquire true

moral worth."

Food for thought! Mrs. Rand didn't really understand Kantian ethics very well. This is the impression I get from all the objectivists who know Kant from Ayn Rand.

[bhigr]

Your problem appears to be that universalisability is the basic premise of the categorical imperative, i.e. Kantian ethics. This is not antithetical to your own happiness:

"To secure one's own happiness is a duty, at least indirectly; for

discontent with one's condition, under a pressure of many anxieties

and amidst unsatisfied wants, might easily become a great temptation

to transgression of duty...." From the metaphyisics of morals...

[fede2]

i'm sick of arguing with people who brush off philosophy as irrelevant gibberish or word-play, etc. they don't realize that without a basic philosophical synthesis one cannot even begin to talk about politics or even legitimize science.

[Rose0883]

Absolutely, I think that the pyschological reasoning behind a person actually believing in or upholding a philosophical idea depends fully on incentive (explicit or not), which ultimately boils down to happiness. It seems like arguing and being able to convince others of long-term gain is the difficult part- everyone is down for happiness, but much of the time people are convinced that certain paths will make them happy, when it really only keeps them comfortable in the short-term.

[Freecell5671]

What is it about Libertarianism and genius level IQ?

[katrudy7]

@Freecell5671

Smarter people have an absent sense of entitlement, and heightened senses of responsibility, accountability, and integrity ;)

[tumbleweedjoe]

...individuals to use "society's property" in a particular way? Second question: You say a liberal socialism could exist in which "everyone" owns the property in common, but when society acts with "it's" property, who specifically is acting (assuming the members of society are not drones thinking identical thoughts and performing identical actions)?

[tumbleweedjoe]

...Aristotilean/Thomist moderate realist framework. As far as modern philosophers and metaphysics goes...it depends where you go and who you talk to. The younger generation of philosophers seems to have cast aside gross materialism and it would be hard to find a "real" philosopher today who embraces a rude logical positivism. But the old attitudes are still ingrained in many places as far as I can tell. Quick question: in your understanding of socialism, would "society" be permitted to force...

[tumbleweedjoe]

And no, "libertarian socialism" is a contradiction in terms, since socialism denies property rights, hence it denies liberty (the flourishing of the human person in conformity with his nature). The basic philosophical assumptions of libertarianism (whether consciously explored by the austrolibertarian or not) are totally at odds with any kind of socialism or collectivism.

[teaparty111]

I play with Aquinas because they had to cut an arc out of his dining table so he could eat at the thing. And European Libertarianism has a different meaning than the American definition so it is not a contradiction. It holds the American freedoms of choice but does not demand ownership to be in the hands of individuals but groups who profit in the same manner; hear Chomsky on the youtube discuss it--he does well. Amer.Libertarians are purely capitalist-not so in Europe-many know this.

[tumbleweedjoe]

I am familiar with Chomsky and have one of his books "The Chomsky Reader". I'll grant that "libertarian" like "anarchist" (or conservative, liberal and on and on) can have different definitions. I'm more interested in the content of the legal and social doctrine which is broadly "liberal" of men like Acton, De Tocqueville, Juan de Mariana, Bastiat, Albert Nock, Mises, Rothbard etc. Philosophically I'm attracted to the Christian Personalism of Husserl, Jean Luc Marion grounded in a basically...

[tumbleweedjoe]

...and they do not generally feel a need to establish a philosophical basis for the underlying assumptions of the scientific method . That work was done for them hundreds of years ago by the Scholastics and they now take the rationality and orderliness of the universe (as well as the reliability of logical rules, parsimony in the universe etc.) for granted. A side note: Aquinas life and astounding body of work have earned him the nickname "The angelic doctor". "Fat bastard" seems rather snarky.

[teaparty111]

I studied Aquinas in Seminary before I became a freethinker--about 20years ago. He has a few good secular writings in his summa--like on truth and lying-if I remember correctly. I also studied Mises&Rothbard (ME&state) etc. I was just curious if after Praxiology and Cruesoe Econ--one could take off into Libertarian Soacialism--I think it possible listening to Chomsky discuss the morality behind distribution of scarcity. I am not a Randian and hate such love of greed-I see past that-were better.

[tumbleweedjoe]

(cont)...about it. Also, praxeology is essentially the method used by St. Thomas to arrive at his ethical system (although it wasn't called that then). I agree that Libertarianism needs a firm metaphysical and ethical grounding, but I also think that if it is possible to show that the libertarian methodology is correct and consistent in its area of focus (civil life, markets, the coercive nature of the state, etc.), then it can be regarded as at least empirically correct, even if needing more.

[teaparty111]

Hey--was praxeology coined by Ludwig Von Mises in the early 20th century???? Yes--St Thomas--that fat bastard did use that method--a very aristotelian and dry nuts and bolts--almost rigid instyle. Does not almost anything need a metaphysical and ethical grounding--plus I think Libertarianism has so many meanings to so many--it probably does. DO you think that Austrian Economics can be easily converted to libertarian socialism?--I just wondered what an expert thinks?

[tumbleweedjoe]

teaparty111,

I didn't completely understand your reply to my comment. I think the "dryness" of the scholastic method rewards extensive study, after which it seems a lot less dry and quite dynamic. I am simply agreeing with Xomniverse that the austro-libertarian method, while it can be applied profitably in its proper area of study (like physics or chemistry) does require an firm metaphysical grounding. So do the sciences, but scientists are usually content to note that their methods "work"...

[teaparty111]

I enjoy scolasticism for what it is worth. To me it is a sort of Baltimore Chatichism or the like. FOr metaphysics I go more toward Spinoza. Question: do philosophers today (21st cent) continue to, on the whole, disreguard metaphysics as a waste of time and go more toward epistomology and ethics--etc. Or has this reversed? Also--I reguard economics as Smith to be very moral - Do you really believe that next to no state and all business will truely help the poor? I doubt it-juggernaught baby

[tumbleweedjoe]

Thank you for your thoughts. I am libertarian Catholic and a Rothbardian for the most part. I have noticed the same problem in Rothbard's writings, although I would simply note that Rothbardian libertarianism seems compatible with an Aristotelian or Thomist approach to truth and happiness, given it's emphasis on natural law and Rothbard's tendency to focus (in a broad way) based on the "nature of things". He will ask "What is the State" and then show that what it is, is not what is claimed...

[0lord0kinbote0]

Wait! I know! universal morality is self evident!

lol.

[deadwildcat1]

So, I guess that's that for UPB.

[deadwildcat1]

The untangled version of this would be "if rape is good" (and by "good" we mean good for everyone) then "the state of rape is good", which includes the victim being involuntarily forced (this means this is good for the victim and everyone else). If the victim is not involuntarily forced, no rape has taken place which is bad.

[deadwildcat1]

If "rape" = "a victims state of resistance against force" and a victim is "resisting" a "rape" (in the sense used in the logical structure of this argument) one is "resisting their own state of resistance against force" (which enables the state to take place in the first place) which is actually a double negative and translates more purely as no resistance at all and no rape. In both instances no rape would have taken place.

[Agnotio]

Thanks brainpolice2 for defending my argument somewhat. I agree with you that the "Objectivist position ends up being utilitarian in a sense, with it's emphasis on survival and happiness functioning as assumed ends of utility." The key word there being assumed. From what I can tell, Moragauth is right too about my original mistake, although I find it hard to follow the conservation without the requisite philosophical background.

[zombiechaddy]

Thanks for your thoughts. I recently finished my first Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged, and have been searching for more insight and criticisms pertaining to Objectivism and Libertarianism. Your channel acts as a great resource for me - thanks!

[TruthHidden]

There is a strong need for a single philosophical belief within libertarianism. Logical and rational evidence is the only way to spread the proof that the Non Aggression principle is objective and undeniable, so much agreed there.

[stratvic]

If happiness is the ultimate aim then why poke around with elements of our lives when we know that hapiness is experienced by the brain when we elevate the level of seratonin. Why not take a pill and be done with it? The reality is that activity that increases our levels of seratonin are good for us, we have evolved to want to do more of them. Happiness is a primitive signal, one that we can improve of with rational thought. Happiness is not the ultimate aim it is merely a primitive marker

[stratvic]

You have again misstated the intended use of UPB. It is not intended to determine moral behavior it is intgended as a method to test statements of morality. The similarity is in comparison to the scientific method which is similaraly not useful in detecting microbs for which we use a microscope it merely outlines the method by which we test information and findings.

[XOmniverse]

At the beginning of the book, Molyneux claims to have "slain the beast of ethics" and that all prior philosophers had failed to do this. This strongly implies that he has solved the problem of ethics, which is more than just a method of testing ethical theories.

If he can't give a good answer to the question of "Why should I follow UPB if it won't make me happy?" then he has completely failed as an ethicist.

[stratvic]

So based on the introduction to UPB your assumption of what slain means and refers to causes you to ignore the body of the work? Which clearly sates the use of UPB.

Its like you are saying the scientific method can't detect microbs therefore it is of no use to science.

[XOmniverse]

What are you, Context-Drop Man or something? I said that UPB fails to have "slain the beast of ethics", which implies it provides a full ethical system or at least a means to acquire one.

I never said it was useless. I said it's not an ethical system, and has not "slain the beast of ethics." And people DO treat it like it is, like it's somehow scientific proof of libertarianism, which is nonsense.

[SlaughterAnimal]

Philosophy is not needed for libertarian world if it was anarchistic, primitivist, simplistic and individualistic. having 'sovereignty' over ones own life and rights and moral do not exist outside the self.

[XOmniverse]

I don't see the value of primitivism, nor do I think there is anything intrinsically valuable about simplicity.

[SlaughterAnimal]

Why would you say there is no value in primitivism? or simplicity for that matter.

[XOmniverse]

Technology has extended our lives and made them more convenient and less painful. Why would anyone not be in favor of that?

[zenguin13]

wow. someone needs a hug here and it's not me.

um, i don't care if you copy the manga carta and try to pass it off as your own.

Could it be that I touched a nerve here?

[XOmniverse]

You're a troll and I'm done with you. I won't be responding to any more of your comments.

[zenguin13]

still the "ownership of people" doesn't sound moral, philisophical or libertarian does it?

And I only hear the "fuck you's" that count. I would never say that to you, however people of your ilk find it so easy to do so.

You'll learn better as you fall under the grinding wheels of your own particular petard.

[XOmniverse]

You accuse me of plagiarism with absolutely no evidence, and then try to act like you're better than me?

Seriously, fuck off and die.

[chapaev36]

Dude - you acted like an asshole and now you're holier than thou? XOM's a bright guy who's a dedicated reader and thinker. This is pretty petty and classless on your part.

[BinaryT]

I think it's time to move away from the whole idea about "objective" rights (no-one has been able to prove them ever, and I doubt anyone ever will).

It's time to embrace ethical nihilism, and thus - instead of getting into discussions of whether or not objective rights exist - talk about happiness and the greatness of letting everyone live their own lives.

[brainpolice2]

I met him on MySpace and correspond a bit with him at the Mises forums.

[zenguin13]

I would tend to believe you more if this didn't sound like you reading your homework assignment.(that you probably bought online)

[XOmniverse]

#1 - Even if someone else had wrote it, the arguments would be the same, so it shouldn't affect how convincing it is.

#2 - I wrote it and linked to my blog in the description, so fuck you.

[BWF89]

I'll check out some of Long's stuff on the Mises institute...eventually

[D4Shawn]

If we assume that voluntarism is truly the universally best thing, then it's quite possible that all approaches will lead us to that conclusion. It may be, that accepting your own position, also means accepting stef's. It might be that if one assumes from a biological evolutionary point of view that the point of ethics is survival and replication (rather than happiness or freedom), one might also come to voluntaristic conclusions (if voluntarism is in fact the way, the truth, and the light).

[Moragauth]

I think your purpose would more readily be achieved by noting that libertarians tend to dismiss individual morality altogether, as this is what you mean by 'happiness', which more properly construed means 'flourishing' or 'the examined life'.

[brainpolice2]

I think the problem is that while liberty is a necessary condition for happiness (and survival), it does not gaurantee it. You could be free and simultaneously be miserable, poor, starving, unhealthy, unhappy, and so on. Furthermore, happiness is a fairly arbitrary term in the first place. A psedo-masochist DOES achieve happiness through pain. And it seems absurd to tell other people what makes them happy against their protests to the contrary.

[Moragauth]

You're thinking of utilitarian definitions of happiness. They're not the same as the Aristotelian one.

[brainpolice2]

I think that the Objectivist position ends up being utilitarian in a sense, with it's emphasis on survival and happiness functioning as assumed ends of utility.

[Moragauth]

Yes, it is a bit too consequentialist... but this is one of those areas in which it diverges from Aristotelianism.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I have to agree with you completely. Objectivism and egoism doesn't solve the problem of statism.

[XOmniverse]

I should note, for the record, that I am somewhere inbetween the Objectivist and Aristotelian positions, moving towards Aristotelian.

[avalonfae08]

You're right, the whole libertarian and anarchist movement can at times overlook the importance of happiness. I think we understand that the goals we're working toward would create a happier world full of happier people, but we don't discuss this aspect enough. Ayn Rand certainly goes a long way to remedy this problem- Anthem is a good example. For those interested in sci-fi, Robert Heinlein is another good source of optimistic libertarian literature.

[Austrolibertarian]

Wouldn't Rothbard's approach be philosophically valid because a rejection of self-ownership can be dismissed via reductio ad absurdum, i.e. it is logically incoherent?

Also, what does happiness have to do with anything? What about the lowly masochist that values pain over happiness? The non-aggression and self-ownership axioms allow even such people to pursue their own course.

[brainpolice2]

Or the pacifist who chooses not to defend themselves or not to prosecute against their aggresors. As I understand it, the NAP is neutral to such a choice.

[Moragauth]

Pain is constitutive of their happiness...

[Austrolibertarian]

Happiness is such an emotive term. That's the sense I was using it in. I prefer to speak in terms of "value" instead of "happiness" when evaluating things people desire. But, yeah, I know what you're saying.

[daPawlak]

Oh, that's the biggest sin og ethic in modern philosophy, reducing 'happiness' to 'mere emotion', happiness is a state of mind, the most desired one, by anybody. And it don't necessarly means desiring any values.

[XOmniverse]

What does happiness have to do with anything? What are you living for, exactly, if not for happiness?

[stratvic]

If happiness is the ultimate aim then why poke around with elements of our lives when we know that hapiness is experienced by the brain when we elevate the level of seratonin. Why not take a pill and be done with it? The reality is that activity that increases our levels of seratonin are good for us, we have evolved to want to do more of them. Happiness is a primitive signal, one that we can improve of with rational thought. Happiness is not the ultimate aim it is merely a primitive marker.

[XOmniverse]

Happiness is not "levels of seratonin." Pleasure maybe, but not happiness.

[stratvic]

Aren't you just redefining happiness to fit you argument?

Whats the difference between pleasure and happiness?

[XOmniverse]

I'm not going to get into this in comments because it would take too long, but if you honestly don't think there is a difference, I'm curious why you DON'T just take some pill to elevate your seratonin.

[stratvic]

I don't take a happy pill because happiness is not as you claim the ultimate aim of man and nor is it mine. We seek other things that we hold in higher regard such as truth and meaning. To be genuinely but synthetically happy violates our need for truth and lacks meaning and therefore is not satisfying. From this we should conclude that truth and meaning are higher values than happiness. i.e. I take choose red pill, not the blue.

[XOmniverse]

I think you and I don't mean the same thing by happiness. If you don't feel "satisfied" by taking a "happy pill", then you're not happy. Simple as that.

[stratvic]

Are you defining happiness as synonymous with satisfied? I think they are different things. I think we pursue our own purpose not our own happiness. I don't deny that they can be one in the same at times but at others they can be the opposite of each other. Think of the marathon runner breaking through pain barriers with determination, they do not consider it a pleasurable or happy experience as seen in their faces, but they do find it satisfying in that they are pursuing their purpose.

[XOmniverse]

I would say that happiness, in the sense that I mean, is satisfaction with one's existence. I'm using the word in an Aristotelian sense.

You define happiness to mean physical pleasure.

[stratvic]

Aristotle's happiness is interesting because it is more encompassing than most but is ultimately dependent on virtues which could be interpreted as a life lived for the approval of others.

I don't define happiness as physical pleasure. Seratonin results from physical and non physical stimulus including from human interaction, dreams, music, etc. It is the chemistry behind the emotion from a stimulus that can be physical or mental in origin.

[teaparty111]

Yes--but truth and knowledge or meaning brings someone a certain level of happiness; epistomologically our level of attainable knowledge is not much and we do tend to seek happiness--we avoid extremes and go for tasty food and watch videos and such for entertainment--which brings us back to going toward happiness (psychological hedonism). PEACE----TEA.

[tumbleweedjoe]

Austro,

The issue isn't that Rothbard's approach is philosophically invalid, in fact it's very good as far as it goes (I'm relying on the essay "Justice and Property Rights" which I think you allude to), it's just that it doesn't go all the way to establishing positively the existence of natural rights as moral imperatives (he may do so elsewhere, i don't know). His arguments for property rights are comparative. They assume a larger moral framework as a referent. Great videos by the way.

[franz9z]

Murray Rothbard wrote-"Mention Libertarian economics" to a public they identifies it completely with the name Friedman.However, instead of the common response of "If hes so devoted a libertarian,how come hes a favorite of the Establishment?An advisor of Richard Nixon and a friend and associate of most Administration economists,Friedman has, in fact, made his mark in current policy,and indeed reciprocates as a sort of leading unofficial apologist for Nixonite policy."

[tumbleweedjoe]

Yes,

It's amazing how far Friedman is from an authentic philosophy of liberty. He's really served only to make the government more efficient at being tyrannical. In a way it's a blessing that the Statists suck at economics and do not understand people. They might destroy themselves without knowing why.

[Agnotio]

I like the video, but not how you assume that happiness is it's own monolithic value. That view is rooted in utilitarianism, the idea that humans act in a rational manner to increase pleasure and avoid pain. Unfortunately, this is not the way the real world often works. People do not always behave like rational actors towards their own happiness. That's a challenge that objectivist and utilitarian models of society must always deal with, and one you should address as well.

[Moragauth]

You're conflating utilitarianism with Aristotelian teleology. They're not the same, and the latter does not rely on homo oeconomicus. Aristotelianism is a perfectionist form of ethics, after all.

[cozmikzen]

great video! i do think that stef promotes personal happiness. but i do agree happiness on a wide scale would make this more desireable. im anarchist...different than most. but i gotta say, thumbs up for happiness!!

[Rorshak1313]

I've been listening to Roderick Long's "Foundations of Libertarian Ethics" and so far it's some good stuff.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I'm having trouble seeing a difference between universal ethics and a mutual ethics between two individuals. What's the difference, if in order to propose a universal ethics you have to agree to abide by certain rules to do so--and what better rules than logic and science? Since there is no compunction to be logical or scientific, why can't two individuals be a starting point for ethics, since anyone who disagrees must also abide by logic and science, or otherwise contradict their own premises?

[XOmniverse]

It can be a starting point, sure. But demonstrating mutual agreement between two people does not, in and of itself, prove that the same principle is universal. There is a gap there to fill.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

We're assuming that the mutual understanding begins with logical first principles, such as those of self-ownership? If the mutual agreement is not logical and starting from first principles, then it's just an agreement on opinion with no objective verification. That there is objective verification and any attempt to dispute the objective verification self-detonates unless the objection is more valid and more objective.

I don't see what would make an ethic universal in the first place.

[XOmniverse]

The fact that, as human beings, we share certain traits is a good start for universal ethical principles.

[Moragauth]

Science and formal logic are both very poor starting points - all they are are attempts at relating one thing to another. Logic in a looser sense might be appropriate though. I think argumentation is about the only worthwhile common starting place I've seen proposed as a starting place for ethics, aside from Aristotelian teleological theories.