Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Libertarianism and the Free Market: A Bipolar Synergy.
AnarchoJesse started a thread at another forum claiming he was the libertarian litmus test and that if he disagreed with you, then you were not libertarian (or rather supporting libertarian beliefs). For the record, I found reason to object to him, but that's not the primary reason I am posting this. The thread quickly became a deep exploration of some of the most challenging issues for libertarians. I'm posting some of my thoughts because I would love to know what you think, and whether I have sufficient and relevant material here for a Liberty Conspiracy blog post (or something else) if I were to polish this up. I have no formal college education or much 'book reading' on these subjects, so if my characterizations are coarse, please forgive me or help me improve how I express the arguments. PS, if you want to know what the the litmus test disagreement was, just ask.
BRAIN ALERT: The subject matter requires that you turn your brains on! :)
It's easy to poison the well of ethical debate by lashing out at concepts such as 'Objective Morality' without providing context to object to it. In thoughtful discussion of the problems found in practical application of libertarianism we are trying to at least have a meeting of the minds, a reasoning in order to compel one another toward more logical discussion. Let me first discuss the 'objective' nature of the universe:
A supposed view of an objective nature to the universe sits in stark contrast to the philosophical world of individualism, however informative such constructs may be in theorizing the nature of the world in which we live. Individualism, ethics, logic, and the other sciences are valuable to individuals, either through experiencing their effects or consideration and application of the concepts therein.
As individuals, it is a supposition out of practicality that our ability to understand the nature of the world we live in is finite. From this statement, we can deduce that all knowledge is gathered empirically, because...
It is within our own minds that we define what 'beings' are from non-beings... animals from the inorganic. The conscious from the perceptibly unconscious. Personally, I believe it's a matter of degrees and not absolutes. Anyhow, I hope you can appreciate why this type of discrimination is informative to individualism. Perhaps it stems from a desire/necessity for morality and eithcs, as opposed to beating one another over the head with rocks and believing in imaginary powers, but nevertheless it is a process of reasoning which is vastly more developed amongst your average human than it is amongst animals.
There are different ways in which the term 'objective' is defined. Perhaps 'Objectivism' is interested in a 'non-colored' fact based observation of reality for the direct benefit of individuals, but as I have just argued, all experience is empirical, so this clearly cannot be the case as it cannot be achieved with omnipotent clarity (though certain scientific studies may have a high degree of precision within the scope of study). There are indirect benefits, but one must not assume absolutes.
Analyzing the world in terms of an 'objective' state of the world versus a subjective one is informative to an extent, but I discuss such concepts as a way to approach the ontological questions of existence and consciousness, and to reinforce the fact that amoral non-individualistic observations can never be beneficial to individuals as a means to settle ethical matters in and of themselves.
For a more down to earth example, someone who believes in the political 'green' ideology may argue that there is a 'balance in nature' that has been disturbed, but what is it they are actually saying? They're claiming that nature (this thing that we all exist within), is somehow flawed (from their perspective), and therefore (dot) (dot) (dot)...
What such adherents are often doing is trying to justify a scheme of political control over other individuals. What they either believe they are doing, or are trying to fool you into believing is that they are making an ontological argument, but that would be completely illogical. It is also immoral, or rather amoral considering you and I could argue the same exact argument and use it to 'justify' COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things.
I hope you can appreciate the interplay between objective vs subjective here. Supposing an objective state of the universe is not a detriment to individualism, rather they REINFORCE one another. Advocates of socialism will go so far as to corrupt the sciences themselves in order to set an agenda, which is the very nature of mysticism itself, and rejects science as a foundation for their beliefs.
Defining the state of the universe is separate from using it as a justification for x. Keynesians cannot in one breath claim to define what economics is and then impose a scheme of central control over it. It is hubris. It's basically saying 'economics doesn't exist unless Keynesians are there to tell you it does'.
What you should draw from this is that libertarianism is not utopia, nor is nature meant to give you nothing but solutions. Any ideology worth its salt must be open to self critique in order to advance the ideology or better its adherents, and ought not dictate some specific predetermined agenda to be pursued without question. Libertarianism can provide a moral compass, but that is only one half of the equation: supporters of liberty must have faith in its principles in order to find solutions in the free market. Moral solutions depend upon having liberty. Otherwise you have a world based on brute force, mysticism, or a combination of the two (human sacrifice, etc).
John A
Pep
__________________
Vigilia Pretium Libertatis
BRAIN ALERT: The subject matter requires that you turn your brains on! :)
I will explore this later. Right now, my brain is turned off to launch a first of it's kind political campaign.
It's a wu-tang clan themed run for secretary of the Salt Lake County Republican Party. I think you just have to go with your gut, and keep the brain off, if you are engaged in that sort of thing.
Excellent article, Pep.
Before I knew anything much about politics or philosophy - or, should I say, before I cared enough - I would, generally, have called myself a liberal - believing it suited my ethics, best, ar at the very least the ethics I sought to hold dear.
Nowadays, if you state you are a capitalist, it is immediately taken that you are some/ all of the following:
1) Selfish
2) Materialist
3) Monarchist
4) uncharitable
etc.
For me, libertarianism makes the most 'common sense' and seeks to treat the societal impotence with which the nanny state has rendered many individuals.
Yet, one can also feel that they are socially conscious, as well as philosophically shrewd, with a libertarian mind-set. Libertarians are fully free to be as charitable and socially active - in fact the anarcho-capitalist non-agression principle would put many lefty-pascifist-wannabes to shame...
Again, no critique - just a little comment on how the article made me think...
This is a very rich line of inquiry, Pep. Good stuff...
In explorations such as this, I see two matters as essential. First, I like to consider how philosophy has, through the centuries, been an attempt to reconcile what we think and believe, with that which we see. The best philosophy is that which utilizes deductive logic based on empirical observations of the universe around us. Whereas Kant might have argued that one cannot ever be certain that there IS a concrete, real universe acting on our senses, and Rand would have called him to task for such claims, I simply believe that -- whether that question can be answered or not -- it is functionally productive to use deductive reasoning based on empirical observations of what look to be the closest things to reality we have out there (Zaphod Beeblebrox might see it differently, especially after a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster!)
That said, we then encounter the second important phase in the beginning of this process: the definition of terms. The key here is "morality". What does one mean when he says "moral"?
For many, this is often rendered down to "that which promotes life and does not destroy life". It is often defined as synonymous with "that which is good".
I believe that one can reach the conclusion - through empirical observation -- that man generally likes to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and effort. Man also recognizes that others try to do the same. Thus, when coming into contact with one another men will, generally, begin to work out interpersonal actions that respect the reciprocal nature of their desires to be free of pain and strife. Thus, through social interaction, a series of societally created rules grow, rules that are akin to "natural law" without the laws being codified by government. The market is such a creation. The very existence of money as a means of exchange means that government laws are unnecessary. Humans will spontaneously create their own rules for what is "moral" based on the natural tendencies of man.
More to come. I really like your post, dude, and great responses!
G!!!!
On reflection, my starting arguments are really kind of sloppy. I'm going to improve on this, since most of what I wrote was cut and paste from another conversation, and i KNOW I can make this more concise....
HOO-HAA, I very much agree. Thinking of Rand, these three points come to mind:
1. They drop context in favor of generalizations: "Everyone who is rich must be taking advantage of someone who is not", which connects to...
2. They view the world in terms of scarcity. Yet somehow they believe one group of selfish people are somehow magically able to 'responsibly' govern other people in order to eradicate fraud and the 'selfish' boogeyman.
3. The combination of these two leads to arbitrary law and government. And to question government is to question what they call 'logic and reason'. Yet they do not allow individuals to dissent on a voluntary basis, nor do its individual adherents readily consider ideas which challenge their world view, thus making them believers of mysticism. Somehow the system works, but they pay little attention to moral hazards and invisible hand... production never to realize itself due to the truly destructive forces of violence and coercion as dictated by the few.
There are many vectors from which I would attack the rejection of materialism, one namely being that we can't make matter not exist, second being that only individuals can make value judgments: You can't do anything about the first, and you can't create wealth by taking materials from one person and giving them to someone else. We can all raise our standard of living without having to harm others.. it can happen, but not through insane wealth redistribution activities.
BTW, the debate at the other forum is still going. Myself and one other individual are debating against someone who believes in 'objective reality'. The argument I present boils down to this:
An individual's perspective is at best subjective, but not absolutely as in nihilism/relativism in which there is no meaning or value attached to things (that would contradict everything we appear to know about reality as individuals, assuming we agree with these conceptualizations). Subsequently, proving for objective reality to an absolute degree is not possible either. We as individuals try to make sense out of a perceptibly uncertain world in which our scope of influence is indefinitely certain, but assumably limited. Further, while someone may be able to validate your perceptions through communicating about their own experiences, that does not mean these shared conceptualizations are 'objective truth'. The pursuit of appreciable/informative knowledge is the economization of rational thought: At best, 'objective ethical truth' is common to the degree in which others can recognize and agree with these sapient considerations (as you percieve them). We live our lives constantly making value judgments and reducing complex ideas into more informative conceptualizations. Economics and Ethics help give meaning and order to our lives. A belief system, whether or not it is derived logically, is ultimately made a rationalization out of economy.
I know that's missing a few things, but it's a quick wrap up. The article will be better once I do some editing and revision.
Thanks for the feedback, HOO-HAA, Gard.
This is a very rich line of inquiry, Pep. Good stuff...
In explorations such as this, I see two matters as essential. First, I like to consider how philosophy has, through the centuries, been an attempt to reconcile what we think and believe, with that which we see. The best philosophy is that which utilizes deductive logic based on empirical observations of the universe around us. Whereas Kant might have argued that one cannot ever be certain that there IS a concrete, real universe acting on our senses, and Rand would have called him to task for such claims, I simply believe that -- whether that question can be answered or not -- it is functionally productive to use deductive reasoning based on empirical observations of what look to be the closest things to reality we have out there (Zaphod Beeblebrox might see it differently, especially after a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster!)
This is how I view the issue as well.
Rand had her flaws (never rejecting the state), but she made many great points which reinforce the voluntarist view. Also, I believe Mises did the most in modern times to address economics as integral to morality/ethics, and while he was a pragmatic critic of empiricism given its history of promoting (epistemological) nonsense, I believe that the ontological debate has advanced since his time and if he were alive he would be receptive to it.
The case against (absolute) objective truth appears now valid, without undermining the brunt of Rand's work cautioning against mysticism, and while avoiding the pitfalls of empiricist relativism that Mises warned against (again, mysticism).
Stefan Molyneux, who debates issues in the context of 'objective truth' seems to have some understanding of what is going on because he argues that he would resort to empiricism where rules (laws) fail.
That said, we then encounter the second important phase in the beginning of this process: the definition of terms. The key here is "morality". What does one mean when he says "moral"?
For many, this is often rendered down to "that which promotes life and does not destroy life". It is often defined as synonymous with "that which is good".
I believe that one can reach the conclusion - through empirical observation -- that man generally likes to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and effort. Man also recognizes that others try to do the same. Thus, when coming into contact with one another men will, generally, begin to work out interpersonal actions that respect the reciprocal nature of their desires to be free of pain and strife. Thus, through social interaction, a series of societally created rules grow, rules that are akin to "natural law" without the laws being codified by government. The market is such a creation. The very existence of money as a means of exchange means that government laws are unnecessary. Humans will spontaneously create their own rules for what is "moral" based on the natural tendencies of man.
More to come. I really like your post, dude, and great responses!
G!!!!
Right you are! Libertarianism by extension advocates that one 'minimize' harm where it cannot be avoided, though the ideal is to do no harm in the first place.
As an individual, I hold my own biases, but they appear to sync up with what others believe, thus validation of perceptions about reality, economics, and ethics are forged.
This is all a necessary preface for explaining the debates, which I'll try to shorten for the sake of time in another post. Suffice to say, there were some heated accusations thrown around and I was accused of discarding ethics altogether (but that's a matter of context, which I tried to explain. :P ).