Philosophy And Libertarianism

A discussion on why the libertarian movement needs a strong philosophy.

Based on a blog entry: http://rationalanimal.net/2008/06/06/philosophy-and-libertarianism/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• libertarianism
• philosophy
• ethics
• Ayn
• Rand
• Murray
• Rothbard
• Stefan
• Molyneux
• Roderick
• T.
• Long
• happiness

[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?

[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 ;)

[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.