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 7.
  • 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.
    Rothbard was a creature of his time. His views were formed in the early to mid 20th century. There is much that he had right with respect to women entering the workforce - I saw just recently a quote that women gained not just the right to work, but now the necessity.

    As for Islam, Rothbard was anti-Zionist and supported Palestinians. While not specifically denouncing the militancy of Islam, he was certainly an advocate of non-aggression and I believe would be very much against the current situation of militant Islam.

    Besides, nobody is perfect. Overall his thoughts on liberty and Austrian economics are some of the best that I have studied.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "block their way" well inventors filing for a patent have the burden of proof. They have exhausted their area and if there are papers or publications, trust me, they look for them before they move forward. This is another myth. Patent owners wanting to bully the little guy "innovating" out in his tool shop. MOre often, the case is, somebody has created a fix, did not decide to file for ownership and has no way to prove his tool came first. IT happens and that's inefficient. He loses out (potentially) on making the money for it, and someone else gets the patent to start manufacturing. In the old days, that inventor, if he could proof it, could contest the patent. Because inventor means first. Today, the law is first to file. whomever invented it first has no claim if they weren't the first to file for the patent. The fix is in for big companies like Apple.
    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.
    Oh, I disagree. To be libertarian, you really need to believe in both social and economic liberty. I would agree that there are varying degrees of Conservatives and Liberals, but if you are libertarian, you really need to believe in overall liberty. That's not to say anarchy, which is a political philosophy/structure (or lack of, as the case may be).
    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.
    And you would be correct. The curious thing is that Conservatives more readily accept alignment with libertarians than do Liberals. I take this that C's are much more open to full liberty (including on social issues) than are L's open to economic liberty. That's why you see many libertarians and conservatives aggregating in the Tea Party and virtually no Liberals (progressives).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    this is how you get inconsistent planks in the platform-not having philosophical underpinnings. For instance, Conservatives are definitely for smaller government yet are for the war on drugs. How about Libertarians on the environment? Does this seem like less govt to you?
    "Johnson has stated that the best environmental practices are due to a good economy.[7] He says "America needs to be a land with a clean environment," and supports "clean-air and clean-water action and believe[s] in conservationism." He cites the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of good government.[14] Johnson has stated he agrees that human carbon emissions do impact the climate." Wiki, Political Positions of Gary Johnson
    Objectivisim would not support these contradictions
    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.
    No. Conservatism encompasses control of social issues, of which libertarians do not agree. And since Conservatism permits a theist basis, the Venn diagram of Objectivism is at best partly overlapped with C'tism.
    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.
    But notice that Rozar used the small "l" libertarian - which I would count as a philosophy.
    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.
    Freedom requires the mind. Otherwise, you're not free, just unbound.

    I am a student of the world - faith, politics, economics, engineering, statistics, the female form, etc. When one stops growing, one starts dying.
    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.
    Most innovators create an innovation to solve a problem. They may search for a solution, but oftentimes they don't know a solution until they innovate the solution. Thus, how can you search for something that you don't know? And after the fact, why would I need to search for whether someone else created that item, 'cause I just did, and solved my problem.

    Yes, there are some that are doing research for research sake - but very few. Nobody has the capital just to do undirected research.

    And don't confuse patents with innovation. Most innovation is never protected. The costs/effort to do so has become quite onerous and only those truly seeking to block others from the technology spend much on patenting their ideas. Most of them merely publish/document the innovations so that if anyone comes knocking to try to block their use they can demonstrate prior art.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you have to know what's out there so you don't risk wasting valuable energy on repetition. If you didn't have some idea what was out there, you wouldn't know you were truly creating something new.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yet another strawman. I haven't done the things you claim that I did.

    As to your analysis: If words held no meaning, I could understand why you posted what you did.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by g4lt 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is the fact you're looking for: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/... It is part of the Constitution. Plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEAR YOUUUUU" won't change that. BTW, you're also wrong as to when income tax first existed, the sixteenth amendment is a response to _Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co_ from 1895, wherein the Congress was noted to have the power to tax incomes, it's just that the 1895 tax wasn't apportioned back to the states properly, the 16th removed that necessity. So, in a nutshell, I'd already checked my history, you seriously need to, and you're no Constitutionalist because you're trying to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you'll accept.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben45 12 years, 2 months ago
    People are libertarians if they accept the non-aggression principle (NAP) no matter how they justify the morality of it.
    There are two types of Objectivists - those who only believe exactly what Ayn Rand said, and those who believe they can think for themselves based on what they understand to be derivable from Rand's writings. The first type would say that Objectivists are not libertarians because Ayn Rand said so. The second type understand that Rand's non-aggression axiom is the same at the NAP, and therefore believe that all Objectivists are libertarians even if they deny it.

    In short:
    All Objectivists are libertarians
    Not all libertarians are Objectivists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can't have a political platform without some sort of philosophical backing. I would say that if you are objectivist, you support the broader category libertarian. This could of course be on a type of chart describing the philosophical backgrounds of the libertarian political party, but you couldn't place objectivism in any other political party, especially if you classify objectivism as solely a philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Everyone's somewhat libertarian. Well, most people. If you view it on a line you get more libertarian and less libertarian on a spectrum.
    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.
    I wouldn't say that. Many conservatives embrace ideas which are totally contrary to libertarianism, while many liberals may share some of the more social aspects of libertarian ideals.

    The way I break it down is this:

    Conservative: economic freedom
    Liberal: social freedom
    Libertarian: both economic and social freedom
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ joy-123 12 years, 2 months ago
    Pretty sure many of us have heard of Gary Johnson! It's hard to define political views because I know a lot of Republicans who are very Libertarian leaning. They too want to go back to the Constitution. Many of them are Tea Party Republicans. It is true that many Republicans and Tea Party people push the social agenda, but we don't all do that. Many Libertarians and Tea Party and Republicans would agree with much of the Objectivist philosophy except for the atheism part.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think Miss Rand would tell you that a pure eroticum says nothing about the character of those taking part in it, or what they're trying to accomplish. Recall Francisco d'Anconia's theory of sex:

    "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his opinion of himself."

    Does AS have some erotic elements in it? Sure. But that's not all there is to it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Freedom2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rothbard REJECTS the value of FREEDOM and Liberty for ALL, I do believe and ignores the islamic menace to civilization. I am NOT saying that a Libertarian MUST join an army and fight, BUT a Libertarian MUST reject the very nature of islam that puts the individual and reason BEHIND belief and the maniacs involved in this POLITIAL, not religious doctrine. VERY SHORT SIGHTED and counter productive.
    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.
    Hogwash. Happens all the time.

    The internet is a relatively new phenomenon, but even so, not everything innovated is readily nor easily identifiable. And if I were to create something "new," why would I even attempt to research whether it ever existed? I created it.

    No, stealing from my neighbor is clearly wrong. I stand on my original example. Two can clearly create the same IP totally independently and both should have the ability to "own" same. I just don't know how to do it. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Heyyy, nobody said anything about porno!
    Ha!

    No, really though, what's wrong with Playboy?
    Erotica is OK, right - just not porn?

    Not that I care one way or the other - of course...
    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.
    You seek to undermine other groups due to inconsistencies and then state that therefore O is superior. I can say that all Christian sects agree on all Key issues. Heck, I can say that all libertarians agree on all KEY issues.

    You identify several supposed philosophical groupings, only O's of which do not espouse altruism.

    As for those that believe in a system approaching anarchy, are called ANARCHISTS. Regardless of what they choose to call themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo