Difference between Libertarian and Objectivist?

Posted by JoshA95 12 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
222 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

What is the difference (if any) between Libertarians and Objectivists besides that one is a political party and the other is not? I've been wondering this for a while.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A bit of info about people like me

    I had a homosexual roommate in college. Great guy, we hung out and drank together often as well as shared a dorm room. He taught me how to look at poetry. I only knew he was gay because he shoes to tell me. It didn't matter one way or another. It wasn't until he and partner decided to flaunt it publicly that shit hit the fan in the dormitory. He chose to move out when people asked if I too were gay.

    I've known and continue to know many gay people, men and women, in my life. I don't give a rat-ass if someone is gay as long as its not worn as a star of david placed over their zippers. As far as Uganda and Russia...not my concern, nor should it be - I don't have a voice there.

    If we in the US weren't constantly dividing people for political gain according to superficial differences we wouldn't have to worry about becoming like those places.

    Content of character.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When it's an issue that involves human rights, percentage of agreement is no longer relevant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Eloquently said, WinterWind! That last paragraph exemplifies Shakespeare's "Brevity is the soul of wit."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, that was too easy. On the other hand, the arguments that the O's use that this life form is a parasite that the mother can decide to eliminate at any time up to and including the instant just before birth are fallacious as well. They actually consider pregnancy to be "slavery."

    1) I cannot accept that a voluntary action with known consequences entered into willingly by the participant can result in "slavery."

    2) That there evidently is some miracle that occurs as the being traverses the birth canal that bestows "personhood" and causes the ability of the entity to at one instance have no rights and mere moments later to have full rights is irrational. (just to be clear, there is a miracle that occurs in traversing the birth canal, just not the birth itself - ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you've got your definitions wrong, and certainly your evaluation of various entities wrong.

    I'm not sure how you get that Fox News is pro-R. From what I see, they present both sides of issues. It is merely that few if any other news sites present both sides that makes Fox seem to be pro-R.

    Not sure how you come to the conclusion that modern R's are more moderate than a TEA party person. I guess you would need to say in which respect you find them moderate, and what you think "moderate" really means. Most of those who consider themselves part of the TEA party would espouse smaller government, less restrictions/more freedom, and lower taxes. Those are also libertarian and Objectivist principles but not necessarily those of the R or D parties.

    AC and RL both have espoused support for R's, but have also expressed disdain for some R's, so I don't think that you can just place them in the R camp. It depends on the R that you're talking about. Neither of them, nor most Objectivists or libertarians for that matter, would have much support for many D's or progressives as they are nearly universally collectivists (and there are some R's in that camp as well).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can usually separate the sheep from the goats with a simple question-and-discussion that goes something like the following.
    First, I believe that you [that is, each person] should be allowed to do anything you want as long as it harms none. The fact that I may find some things on your list distasteful is irrelevant.
    Second, do [that is, each person] you believe the same, even when something on my list offends you?
    If we agree there, we are on the same side, whatever we call it.
    If we don't agree there, we are NOT on the same side; how far apart we are depends on what you are willing to do to stop me from doing whatever it is that you dislike.

    Many people in this sort of discussion want to bring up their favorite issue [for or against], but I try not to let them. The particular issues are actually irrelevant, it is the "harm none" part that really counts. After long years of dealing with 13-year-olds, I'm really good at not being sucked into a specifics tornado. I just keep saying "Is anyone harmed by the openly admitted fact that I like to eat grass? [using a silly example also helps] Who is harmed, and how?"

    The rest is easy. I think Objectivism is how you run your life; Libertarianism is how you would like a society to run. Both are based on the principle illustrated in the preliminary sort.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What would be the incentive to invest significant resources in inventing if the ability to recoup that investment is not protected?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, to be accurate, even with a draft they cannot make you go and fight - I submit Cassius Clay as evidence, among others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why do so many get wrapped up with the issues where there is not 100% agreement, instead of those where there is?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If they weren't persecuted, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to parade it. What people like you often fail to realize is that thrusting the issue into the public view is a form of defense against persecution. Visibility raises awareness, and awareness reduces persecution. You know that old saying, out of sight, out of mind? Without visibility, the general public would become disinterested and indifferent to the plight of the LGBT community.

    There are people in the United States who are literally trying to pass the same kinds of laws that Uganda and Russia now have (in fact, they're actually the very same people who got those laws passed in those countries). People in the LGBT community HAVE to be incredibly open and loud about the issue. Otherwise the bigots will stomp all over them.

    You say you don't want it shoved in your face? Well guess what? The LGBT community is tired of getting their faces beaten in. Silence is death.

    God Loves Uganda:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_hKv4p...

    Russia's anti-gay law:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8P9jWcg...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They usually don't talk about it, as their primary talking points usually revolve around Obamacare and taxes. But if you ask them directly, most of them typically don't support equal rights for LGBT people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, I have not read that. I do not want to start my own thread regarding why I think a belief in god is the logical result of objective reality. Belief in god is the result of some historical evidence plus a leap of faith for those who decide to make such a leap. Agnosticism is the logical result of objective reality. The one problem with objective reality is that there are things that humans just cannot explain or understand yet. Agnosticism does not force one to make any illogical leaps of faith. Atheism does, because it cannot be proven that there is no god anymore than that there is one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Have you read "Atheism: the case against god"? It does a good job explaining the Objectivist's position on Atheism. They agree that with no information, agnosticism is the result, but the concepts of god being contradictory leads one to be a "hard atheist," as they say. Do you want to start your own thread as to why you think a belief in god is the logical result of objective reality?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello sjatkins,
    I understand completely. Since Rand has passed, he has become the anointed one! I often make reference to his material for those interested, but for myself I am not doctrinaire. I refer to myself as a student of Objectivism, not an "Objectivist." I want people to appreciate the most important parts of the philosophy, which for me are the recognition that A is A, the individual is sovereign, paramount, self interest is good/essential, and the emphasis of Capitalism as the only just economic system.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While I cannot speak for the political or moral leanings of the others around me, I was travelling to Arizona a few months back. The speed limit on the ex-urban interstate was 75mph. And that's what most people were driving - rarely were people going faster, and just a few slower. That seems to be a "natural" speed for many drivers, as I see the same general speed on the interstates nationwide, regardless of the posted speed. So, I would say that people drive what seems reasonable, and 75mph seems to be that speed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dave says that Libertarians exceed speed limits merely to be able to exceed speed limits. You find that analysis "refreshing." I asked you if you find an analysis that basically says that people who believe in liberty will break laws merely in order to break them rational.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Freedom2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, I agree with Goldwater and challenge your open rejection of extremism, as EXTREMISM in defense of liberty and freedom is GOOD [GIVEN that the case of freedom/liberty is CLEAR]. That said, your statement certainly makes islam;s threat clear as it specifically puts down reason/facts/science/the individual/freedom/liberty and alternative feelings to the prime control of islamic BELIEFS, thus again, Libertarians/Objectivists/individualists MUST be 100% against islam and for its elimination. Further, although I would still object to forced military service, even libertarians recognize the appropriateness of destroying those who have clearly said they intend to abuse, attack and destroy them!
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo