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

Part 1 of 3. A response to aaron0883's comments concerning Ayn Rand and her views on libertarianism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Objectivist
• libertarian
• libertarianism

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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?

[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.