Milton Friedman Explains what a libertarian is

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Milton
• Friedman
• Libertarian

[bodinian]

A Libertarian is a Classical Liberal. Ayn Rand, for example. A modern Liberal is simply called a Liberal, Franklin D. Roosevelt for example. Amazing how a name tells nothing about the actual values a party holds over changing times. What makes people think they can blindly vote a person in based on the Label they put on themselves as a party member without the need to truly dig into what that person stands for? The party system does not serve the people well.

[rugbyguy59]

@HisokanoOkami No, you're right. I meant classical liberal as in Locke. Damn these 500 character limits. Their ideas were closer to libertarians but were not libertarian which I find an important difference. They lived at a time where government had meant oppression and they did have the illusion of endless bounty. But as Jefferson said don't treat men of the past as if they were gods. They're people of their own age. Live in yours. (That is a major paraphrase. I do have original if you want)

[HisokanoOkami]

@rugbyguy59 I don't think you're correct when you refer to the Founding Fathers being liberal in the sense that Rawls is liberal. The founding fathers may not have not believed in the sort of Libertarian ideals espoused by the likes of Nozick, but there is no denying that they borrowed heavily and pretty much exclusively from the philosophies of Locke.

Their ideas were closer to those of Nozick than Rawls, though, that much is for certain.

[rugbyguy59]

@HisokanoOkami Also while the land was great, the land was not unclaimed. The US certainly used coercion to keep the land supply going.

[rugbyguy59]

@HisokanoOkami The Locke limitation you point to is a big reason why libertarianism can't work. But I also don't think the United States was founded on the principles espoused by libertarians. The US Constitution was a compromise worked out amongst men with varied points of view. It did espouse individual freedom and sought to limit government's power, which given the nature of the time is understandable, but in a liberal more than libertarian manner. But either way it isn't 1787.

[HisokanoOkami]

@rugbyguy59 I agree with you, but I won't say that they're necessarily wrong. If there were, as Locke put it, as much and as good land for everybody, that would be a fine philosophy to which to adhere. There isn't, we have to make due with a shrinking resource pool, and a rising population.

At the birth of this nation, though, our founding fathers enjoyed a land where much of it was great and unclaimed, so for good reasons our nation was founded on such principles.

[rugbyguy59]

@HisokanoOkami I agree that you have identified a key element of libertarian philosophy and it would largely mean government, in libertarian thinking, can't do the things you identify. Do you think that is a sensible state though? It supposes an autonomous human for which there is no precedent in history and relies upon a type of behavior as unrealistic as Marx's classless society. Humans do crave freedom but absolute autonomy is an illusion. Social animals must to an extent work for the group.

[HisokanoOkami]

Central to this idea is the idea of self-ownership, the idea that you alone are the sole owner and proprietor of yourself, you cannot be coerced in any way, because something about you is so special that it cannot, and should not ever be used toward an end. This idea would preclude the end of society.

We cannot have a society that taxes people for the public good, that jails or executes people who are a threat to the whole, or that protects people from their own ignorance under libertarianism.

[rugbyguy59]

@diilijethro And private companies don't work to delete competition? Study of Canada's public health vs America's private found public to be more productive. Less duplication of service for one, but also because American hospitals are looking for competitive advantage and profit they keep innovation to themselves whereas public shared the knowledge leading to improved performance. Public isn't always better but neither is private. It depends.

[rugbyguy59]

@diilijethro But while people are free to spend their money as they wish, they are also obligated to pay taxes to maintain the society that allows them this freedom. No one ever likes everything their taxes get spent on but we have elections to help decide that and how much.

Libertarians remind me of communists. Not the specific beliefs but their view of human nature as only having a single aspect that is valuable while the other side is evil. I only suggest 2 sides for simplicity.