Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Galaxywest]

My comment is this---about libertarianism, and any other ism or religion or political philosophy---people get stuck on it an then just follow it blindly.  Which always ends up in ridiculous problems etc.  

So, I'll take 80 % of libertarianism , but I could not live with the other 20% -- which needs common sense and flexability.

That's all

[Justin]

Yeah, it's sad when some people espouse principles and morals, and then actually stick to them.  I mean, they're like, so "extreme".   We should all be "moderate"

"-- with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privleges for the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor -- with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force -- with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery -- with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice -- with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror -- and with a "moderate" degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise."<sup>1




1</sup> Ayn Rand, "Extremism" or the Art of Smearing

[Galaxywest]

You get score of 9 for sarcasm---which takes discussion nowhere.

You assume that that those were the "moderates" I was talking about.  You just make my point stronger.  

About Ayn Rand:

I saw the Ayn Rand movie Fountainhead(?) recently. This guy pays Gary Cooper x amount of dollars to design and build a building for him. But, this guy, you paid HIS money to build the building, it was HIS building, made a few changes in the design. So, Gary Cooper blows it up. And, this is justified,  by Ayn Rand, in the book.

[Dalamar49]

Gary Cooper? Wow Fountainhead the movie is way different than the book. Yeah, I thought Howard Roark's destruction of that tenement building was a bit much.

Moderates and extremists (like myself) should all get along. Admittadly too muh moderatism doesn't get us anywhere, but too much extremism, like Roark's terrorist act, is even more harmful to the movement.  

I think you'll find that most Libertarians and such don't care if someone is a small l libertarian or a LIBERTARIAN. Sure we don't agree about all the components of Libertopia, but we still agree on the basics...which is what counts.  

[Justin]

You get score of 9 for sarcasm---which takes discussion nowhere.

Regarding the sarcasm, you are right.  I should have queried more into your comments, rather than jumping to a conclusion about your philosophy.  My apologies. I'll attempt to form a better response to your initial post.

My comment is this---about libertarianism, and any other ism or religion or political philosophy---people get stuck on it an then just follow it blindly.

Following anything blindly is a problem, I agree.  But unlike religion and most other -isms, libertarianism does not require blind obediance.  Also, please do not mistake blind devotion with commitment to principle.  The latter requires an active mind, the former the death of one.

So, I'll take 80 % of libertarianism , but I could not live with the other 20% -- which needs common sense and flexability.

What falls within the 80%/20%, and by what principle do you base the split?

I saw the Ayn Rand movie Fountainhead(?) recently.

Never saw it, though I have read the book.  This might be a case where philosophical context in a book gets lost when put on the screen.  I'd recommend the book, along with it's big brother Atlas Shrugged.

[Justin]

Moderates and extremists (like myself) should all get along. Admittadly too muh moderatism doesn't get us anywhere, but too much extremism, like Roark's terrorist act, is even more harmful to the movement.  

(Italics mine)

Dal, if you are so inclined, pick up a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (it's a collection of essays) and read over "Extremism" or the Art of Smearing.  I'd be interested to read your comments regarding that essay and how it releates to your post.
 
 
 

[maestro]

I saw the Ayn Rand movie Fountainhead(?) recently. This guy pays Gary Cooper x amount of dollars to design and build a building for him. But, this guy, you paid HIS money to build the building, it was HIS building, made a few changes in the design. So, Gary Cooper blows it up. And, this is justified,  by Ayn Rand, in the book.

The owner violated the contract with Rourk, if I remember correctly.  And the courts were not willing to uphold the contract, which specified that Rourk's design would not be adulterated.  Perhaps not legal, but understandable given a corrupt justice system.

(It has been a while since I've read fountainhead, so I might be misremembering details)

[Dalamar49]

I'll try to get around to reading that book. I've already read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and the Virtue of Selfishness, but I'll try to read the Capitalism one too.

It always annoys me though to pay like 8 bucks for a thin books like Selfishness and Capitalism.

[RidleyReport]

Galaxy:

Moderate or not....welcome to the boards (and the FSP, if you are new to that as well)!  

I always love to see new folks getting involved....and I bet our "sarcastic" faction does too

[radracer]

I think Galaxywest makes something of a good point though I'm not sure which 20% he believes may be wrong, especially when they require only common sense and flexibility??? That's what we believe people have, eh? As a long time supporter of the LP I have always held every single principle of the LP in high regard. The toughest one to get most people to accept is open borders. As only a state this one obviously won't be a problem. A side note: I just hope a bunch of reactionary Demopublicans don't decide to move in to the FSP just to thwart our every move. But my question is, are we going to try to stick exactly to Libertarian principles?

I, for one, am very much for this. I am not a libertarian I am a LIBERTARIAN, which means I believe that if I can (and I have!) drive home 1000 times above the dui level in state X without harming anyone it is nobody else's business. Should there be dui laws? I have seen several posts indicating some people believe there should be. I think not. However, as Dr. Mary Ruwart says in her book, Healing our World ONLY when others are hurt should the legal system come to life, i.e. with severe repercussions. Her book BTW shows a model for a far superior legal system where the victim is compensated (instead of ONLY punishing the criminal) thus making them no longer a victim. The criminal does this thru a "sentence of labor" or paying back monetarily to the person who was hurt. In the case of murder or manslaughter he works forever (part of the time) to pay the family who has lost a loved one. If he refuses he goes into a prison factory that supports itself by selling a product. Or his contract can be sold off for a cash settlement to another<<BTW, both the Constitution and Bible agree with this! Better still if you have insurance the insurance company pays you directly and the criminal pays back the insurance company! That way a victim isn't robbed twice, once by the criminal and again by paying taxes to support him in jail (where most criminals only learn to be more efficient/menacing criminals from the other inmates). I'd like to see her model of a legal sytem adopted.
Check it out.