[Syph]

Is the (free-market) libertarian agenda selfish?

I was talking to fellow family members (Labour supporters) about the role of the state in life. They kept mentioning the titular phrase as a tenet of those supporting low taxes and a reduction in public services.

There main argument was:

Libertarianism benefits only the rich and exploits the poor as wage slaves. Lowering taxes will make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Taxation is a way of contributing to the improvement of society and successful people should repay society for being lucky to provide compensation the disadvantaged.

I started thinking deeply about human nature and came to the conclusion that we are more altruistic than we give ourselves credit. During times of disaster, such as Japan, people band together for no reward to help others. This seem contrary to the selfish man portrayed in the media who rapes and loots when disaster strikes.

Is this purely for an ego-boost or a moral imperative?

Does libertarianism have a positive or negative view of human nature?

I'm torn about this issue as I wish to be positive about human nature, however, this seems to undermine the "dog eat dog" foundation of both capitalism and libertarianism. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[grassroots1]

That doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck, maybe you just realized that capitalism and the dog-eat-dog mentality actually run contrary to human nature, which can be unselfish and kind (and I think it is most comfortable that way).

[eugenekop]

Libertarians believe that people should associate with each other voluntarily, and not through coercion, I simply can't take seriously any ideology that is based on the application of violence.

Libertarians don't believe in either selfishness or altruism. This value judgment is not in the realm of the libertarian ideology. Libertarians only believe in your freedom to do anything as long as you do not harm another individual or his property.

Sure people will help others voluntarily. This happens all the time. Charity was and to some extent still is a cornerstone of the American culture and the entire western civilization.

[Wolfman]

Is the (free-market) libertarian agenda selfish?

I'm not even going to bother reading anything else in this thread. That statement is a fallacy called an ad hominem. Go correct yourself.

[grassroots1]

It's not a statement, it's a question.

Oh, and what is up with the title of this thread?

[Cartertonian]

That statement is a fallacy called an ad hominem. Go correct yourself.

Wolfman, what the Donald Duck are you talking about?

An Ad Hom by definition has to be an attack on a person.

"Wolfman, you're a complete waste of rations..." is an Ad Hom.

"Is the (free-market) libertarian agenda selfish?" clearly is not.

[Syph]

I'm not even going to bother reading anything else in this thread. That statement is a fallacy called an ad hominem. Go correct yourself.

Eh, get your head out of your ass and answer my question. Oh, and please read a dictionary before you use latin words you don't know the meaning of. It doesn't make your disingenuous assertions sound any more intelligent :-P Cheers.

Oh, and what is up with the title of this thread?

It's a phrase from the Thatcher era.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/I'm_all_right,_Jack

[Cartertonian]

The word 'Jack' is also used alone, as a follow-on to the 'I'm all right, Jack' phrase, to indicate selfishness, particularly in the military.

Thus, for example, if in the workplace you go off and make yourself a cup of tea and don't offer to make one for your colleagues, that would be a 'Jack brew'. Selfish behaviour itself is therefore often referred to as simply 'Jack'. So, hearing that somebody had been on a 'sticky run' (trip to the shop to buy snacks/sweets) and not told anyone or offered to get/got anything for anyone else, one might comment, 'that was a bit Jack...'

[Wolfman]

An Ad Hom by definition has to be an attack on a person.

An Ad Hom can also be used to attack a group. Such as the general ideological group called 'Libertarians'.

[Headache]

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

[Wolfman]

I'm not sure which part of that you're intending to be main point.

[Headache]

It's just the definition of an ad hom. Which doesn't specify the target (rather a gereral opponent) because the target doesn't matter. It was basically in support of what you were saying.

[Syph]

An Ad Hom can also be used to attack a group. Such as the general ideological group called 'Libertarians'.

I am a libertarian, wolfy. I'm just not sure that I'm a hardcore libertine, I question my conduct as a libertarian.

I'm not sure which part of that you're intending to be main point.

...

Wolfy, an ad hominem attack would be something like "Wolfy is illiterate and an idiot, therefore his objection is a load of bull" I don't make those types of arguments. I'm all ears to why you think libertarianism is unselfish etc.

I asked a simple question, is the foundation of libertarianism selfish? I did not say libertarians are wrong because they are selfish, I just wondered if libertarians on the board would admit/deny that selfishness is a foundation of libertarianism.

[Wolfman]

I am a libertarian, wolfy.

Irrelevant, the question is a fallacy, regardless.

I'm all ears to why you think libertarianism is unselfish etc.

My opinion of Libertarianism is irrelevant. If you said that everything Stalin did was wrong because he had a mustache, my saying that isn't an argument doesn't mean that I think that Stalin was right on anything, just that what you said is fallacious.

I asked a simple question, is the foundation of libertarianism selfish?

It doesn't matter, because even if it was true, that does not inherently mean that anything that Libertarianism says is wrong because of it.

[Social_Critic]

OK, so when do we get to legalize marihuana?

[Syph]

Irrelevant, the question is a fallacy, regardless.

Why? It isn't ad hominem, so what is your objection? I believe that the answer would have implications on the behaviour of human beings in an anarchic thought experiment.

OK, so when do we get to legalize marihuana?

Freedom of speech is a bit higher on my list.

Music is my pot, anyway. Altering my brain chemistry is not on the cards.

[Wolfman]

It isn't ad hominem, so what is your objection?

Because even if you were insulting yourself it is still an Ad Hom.

[TropicalK]

Is the (free-market) libertarian agenda selfish?

The libertarian dogma is that people are selfish under all systems. Libertarians typically acknowledge that people are predominantly selfish, as do most people. If you create an entire political/economic philosophy around people doing good by default, then you are bound to be disappointed.

Libertarians do not try to promote selfishness, despite popular belief. All successful political philosophies will take people as they currently exist-selfish people, and build around that. I would also say that the armchair philosophizing human nature as either positive or negative to be a worthless endeavor when an alternative approximation of behavior can be used.

Libertarianism benefits only the rich and exploits the poor as wage slaves. Lowering taxes will make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Taxation is a way of contributing to the improvement of society and successful people should repay society for being lucky to provide compensation the disadvantaged.

How would you know this? I would argue that the government is in fascist cahoots to swindle the public and give that money to big business. Libertarianism means that big businesses lose their government protected barriers to competition and subsidies. This is a two way street. Also, the concept of a citizen's dividend (in my opinion) works seamlessly in a libertarian property rights framework.

[Drlee]

Eh, get your head out of your ass and answer my question. Oh, and please read a dictionary before you use latin words you don't know the meaning of. It doesn't make your disingenuous assertions sound any more intelligent :-P Cheers.

Nor does ending a sentence with a preposition.

But a wise man said, "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." So you get a pass while Wolfman goes down in flames for his abuse of latin.

cave canem