Pages: 1 2 3 4  Next -- Posted by Bud2400 at 8:19 pm on June 12, 2008 Note: The kind of libertarians I'm speaking of are not left-libertarians, but rather, more along the lines of the US libertarian party (sort of Ron Paul-esque libertarianism, but don't be mistaken; Ron Paul isn't entirely libertarian). So the question is are libertarians inherently selfish? Are their beliefs rooted from their selfishness? And if so, is this kind of selfishness different from people of other political ideologies? And moreover, if they are selfish, what is it about their beliefs makes them selfish? -- Posted by greatescape at 8:21 pm on June 12, 2008 I had always considered myself a left-leaning Libertarian......  I don't know though. -- Posted by Porcelina at 8:25 pm on June 12, 2008 I don't think they're any more inherently selfish than any other party. On a rando note, one of my biggest peeves is hearing how I should've supported Ron Paul being a libertarian and all. -- Posted by Elm at 9:02 pm on June 12, 2008 No.  If one choose the third option I need to point out the way the question asked rules this out as an answer since one cannot base generalizations on individuality - that answer would be best acknowledge as "No". Libertarianism is almost the polar opposite of selfishness for the most selfish thing to do is to mandate one's own beliefs on others via force.  Libertarians don't want to enforce morality in the bedroom or the boardroom on others they simply want to live and let live with the protection of the defense of their own and other's rights in place. -- Posted by neverjeeps at 9:54 pm on June 12, 2008 i think that their views may seem more self-centered when other parties are too, just not as blatant. -- Posted by Power Girl at 12:12 am on June 13, 2008 Selfishness is a basic human trait so I doubt even socialists are less selfish than libertarians. In fact, judging from the lessons of history in many socialist countries, socialism often encourages greater selfishness simply because quite often people resent being forced to share profit and wealth. Now if you ask whether liberarianism encourages or celebrates selfishness in general, I would say that this may be true but it misunderstands the manifestation of selfishness in every person. If individualism and a fierce demand for pesonal freedom is selfishness, then yes this may true. The question is, is this really always rooted in selfishness and does it always mean the abandonment to the needs of a community? -- Posted by Bud2400 at 12:34 am on June 13, 2008 Quote: from Power Girl at 12:12 am on June 13, 2008 In fact, judging from the lessons of history in many socialist countries, socialism often encourages greater selfishness simply because quite often people resent being forced to share profit and wealth. Of course, this is more of a by product of socialism rather than something which socialism advocates, so I wouldn't consider it fair to say that socialists are selfish for that.  Just as I don't think it's fair to say libertarians are selfish because there may be starving homeless people on the street as a result of no welfare as a result of an entirely libertarian system of government.   If individualism and a fierce demand for pesonal freedom is selfishness, then yes this may true.  The question is, is this really always rooted in selfishness and does it always mean the abandonment to the needs of a community? If anything, libertarianism advocates for a stronger local community and a weaker statewide or national community (generally the higher up it is, the less power it should have). When I composed the question, I've noticed many people saying that libertarians only care about themselves.  They want to withdraw all of the US's overseas bases because they don't care about the rest of the world.  They want to get rid of welfare and all these taxes because they want to keep their money.  Things like that which libertarians advocate. The way I see it, libertarians are not necessarily selfish.  Trying to uphold freedoms for everybody is certainly not selfish.  Although I will admit some taxes, especially flat taxes, are less fair to the poor than they are to the rich.  A larger portion of a poor person's income will go to paying that tax than a rich person's income. At the same time, a flat tax could be argued to be fair because it taxes all individuals in the same exact way.  It's honestly a tough call. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 12:39 am on June 13, 2008 Quote: from Elm at 9:02 pm on June 12, 2008 No.  If one choose the third option I need to point out the way the question asked rules this out as an answer since one cannot base generalizations on individuality - that answer would be best acknowledge as "No". It's certainly possible. Personally, I don't think upholding the kind of rights that libertarians advocate is selfish, but there may be selfish reasons for wanting to advocate for those rights. Libertarianism is almost the polar opposite of selfishness for the most selfish thing to do is to mandate one's own beliefs on others via force.  Libertarians don't want to enforce morality in the bedroom or the boardroom on others they simply want to live and let live with the protection of the defense of their own and other's rights in place. Agreed wholeheartedly, although remember, people can support these things for more selfish reasons. For example, I don't want to give any of my money to anyone, so I'll advocate for less taxes. It's ironic when you think about it - supporting unselfishness for selfish reasons.  But then again, that is that person's right, is it not?  But does that mean that it's not selfish? Of course, I doubt very many libertarians actually support libertarianism for that reason, so it wouldn't be fair to take that generalization and apply it to all libertarians like so many have. -- Posted by jennay at 6:20 am on June 13, 2008 Realistic, if anything. -- Posted by tkster at 6:33 am on June 13, 2008 Quote: from Power Girl at 2:12 am on June 13, 2008 Selfishness is a basic human trait so I doubt even socialists are less selfish than libertarians. In fact, judging from the lessons of history in many socialist countries, socialism often encourages greater selfishness simply because quite often people resent being forced to share profit and wealth. I'm not a 100% sure I agree with your sentiments.  In some ways, I think humans are basically symbiotic but the problem is that financial systems that we have in our world encourage the self-fulfilling prophecy of selfishness.  The human desire for interaction even in our society tells me that our happiness is more than just ourselves. The trouble with measurement is it becomes more relative and it would be hard to compare a non-financial system (where oh where) to the financial systems of the world. tk -- Posted by Power Girl at 8:03 am on June 13, 2008 Quote: from tkster at 6:33 am on June 13, 2008 I'm not a 100% sure I agree with your sentiments. In some ways, I think humans are basically symbiotic but the problem is that financial systems that we have in our world encourage the self-fulfilling prophecy of selfishness. Certainly. However, selfishness in and of itself can also be seen as a trait necessary to survival in certain circumstances. I was deliberately exaggerating here in any case to make a point that even socialism is not devoid of selfishness in practice. Eventually there needs to be a balance between what we may view as "selfish" interests" and the need to share resources and skills within a social group. The truth is we as humans cannot always be completely devoted to the demands of a social group. The other truth is that we cannot be completely independant from it either. In fact, even the fiercest of libertarian individualists recognizes the benefit of using the resources and assistance from a community. They just would prefer that assistance to come from people they know than from a governmental authority, an anonymous body which divulges assistance and favors based on impersonal and sometimes inadequate considerations. The trouble with measurement is it becomes more relative and it would be hard to compare a non-financial system (where oh where) to the financial systems of the world. tk Of course! -- Posted by Power Girl at 8:48 am on June 13, 2008 Quote: from Bud2400 at 12:34 am on June 13, 2008 I wouldn't consider it fair to say that socialists are selfish for that. Hey, as I said I was deliberately exaggerating to make a point!   If anything, libertarianism advocates for a stronger local community and a weaker statewide or national community (generally the higher up it is, the less power it should have). Yes this is what I noted in my response to tskster. I think that this form of policy works best in areas which are sparsely populated and well-contained. In urban settings the distinction between local interests and federal interests becomes more blurred. Another point which must be made is that in some cases, federal overview is necessary for the well-being of all members in a community. One of the limitations of systems favoring local interests over national interests is often in the treatment of those who fail to fit in entirely within a given community. People of an ethnic minority for example, or who various reasons have become pariahs or detached from a community often suffer disproportionately because they might not always be seen as fulfilling the requirement or the interests of that community. Locally based systems sometimes suffer from a bit of short-shightedness when it comes to dealing with minorities, foreigners, outsiders or simply those who fall on hard times and cannot contribute. Federal systems take care of those local "outcasts" and makes sure they are seen as contributing and valuable members of society at a more general scale. Yet another reason for the need of federal systems is the sharing of resources and labor beteen different communities for the benefit of all. They want to get rid of welfare and all these taxes because they want to keep their money. Things like that which libertarians advocate. I think part of the fault for this misunderstanding comes from some individuals who claim to be libertarians and declare that they would rather keep taxes for their own purposes rather than share with others. Those who say they want to keep their money to buy one more toy rather than use the pool of money for healthcare for example. There are many people here on this forum who have themselves contributed to this image unfortunately. If more libertarians pointed out the need for actual greater sharing at a local level and explained the disadvantages and limitation of federal welfare systems rather than go into petty considerations about saving a few tax dollars, more people would see what true libertarianism can be all about. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:34 am on June 13, 2008 It definitely depends on the person, but I wont beat a dead horse. I see this topic has gotten somewhere. I would suspect the OP who created this topic understands that those opinions they've heard on Ron Paul's proposed Foreign Policy is just that, an opinion. I can go into detail as to why that doesn't make Ron Paul selfish, but I wont. (Oops I lied, I will.) I'll only say he's strongly connected with the "Zeitgeist/Loose Change"-Movement. And by his understanding (Whether movements are justified or not) he would be returning freedom and control to the Citizens who's rights he is responsible for. Is that Selfish? Well, it could be, depending on his Motive. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt, and say that it's a benevolent notion. Libertarians are selfish in a sense that they want it all. The Advantages of Left winged ideals and the Advantages of Right winged Ideals. No down sides. Libertarians could be described as idealists, you could say. While I believe that anything is possible, including the installment of a Government that propels the Average Citizen forward in his pursuit of happiness (instead of only granting him the Right to that pursuit) I am not Idealistic in my belief that this change will not be made in my life time. Yes, Libertarians are selfish, but they are selfish for everyone's right to be selfish, flourish, prosper, and gratify that selfishness. -- Posted by jakelong at 1:18 am on June 14, 2008 i dont know about libertarians but cnservatives are the most selfish fucks around yeah. -- Posted by Kokasion at 6:19 am on June 15, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 1:18 am on June 14, 2008 i dont know about libertarians but cnservatives are the most selfish fucks around yeah. I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 7:56 am on June 15, 2008 yes, they're selfish selflessness i find immoral and retarded though -- Posted by Kokasion at 1:29 pm on June 15, 2008 Quote: from Apotheosis at 7:56 am on June 15, 2008 yes, they're selfish selflessness i find immoral and retarded though Immoral, if you have a family maybe? But yes, definitely retarded. -- Posted by jakelong at 6:20 pm on June 15, 2008 its not selflessness vs selfish There's something in between the 2 choice unless you a retard -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 6:45 pm on June 15, 2008 Humans in general are inherently selfish -- Posted by Apotheosis at 7:08 pm on June 15, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 9:20 pm on June 15, 2008 its not selflessness vs selfish There's something in between the 2 choice unless you a retard i'm against actions motivated by anything but self-interest -- Posted by mikeg80 at 7:14 pm on June 15, 2008 Yes, libertarians generally ARE selfish; however, "selfishness" is NOT synonymous with "immoral" or "evil" as our teachers, professors, politicians, etc., would have us believe. Consider the following, taken from the introduction to Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness": "There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see 'The Objectivist Ethics'). "If it is true that what I mean by 'selfishness' is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man--a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites--that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men--that it permits no concept of justice." As this passage applies to your question, libertarians ARE selfish in that they desire to create, and profit from what they create. They ARE selfish in that they do NOT believe that one is entitled to the fruits of another's creativity or productivity. The socialist (or communist, fascist, statist, or virtually any other "-ist" EXCEPT the individualist or egoist), on the other hand, regards the fruits of OTHERS' creativity and production as being in the socialist's self-interest, and belonging, to a certain extent, to the socialist. The socialist believes that the producer has an obligation to sacrifice the fruits of his production for "the common good," thus putting the producer on the level of a slave or a sacrificial animal, subordinate to the "master." Libertarians view those of this "entitlement" mentality as robbers or parasites. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 7:19 pm on June 15, 2008 fuck yeah for ayn rand -- Posted by nocturne20 at 9:03 pm on June 16, 2008 "Libertarianism is almost the polar opposite of selfishness for the most selfish thing to do is to mandate one's own beliefs on others via force.  Libertarians don't want to enforce morality in the bedroom or the boardroom on others they simply want to live and let live with the protection of the defense of their own and other's rights in place. " Agreed. Many libertarian policies result in more personal freedom, less use of governmental force against the non-consenting, but also improves society as a whole. How functional is something like the drug war, incarcerating 2.1 million in the US, spending billions per year, making drugs less safe AND not changing the illegal drug supply or lowering drug use? How functional is governmental laws requiring businesses to give health insurance, health care specifically in the form of insurance? Does making prostitution illegal really protect women and men, or does it make them more subject to hate crimes because the police won't protect them (this is especially important since many hate crimes against women are done against prostitutes/sex workers)? Making things illegal doesn't necessarily eliminate them, it can also makes things worse. Libertarianism recognizes the problems that overimposing government bureaucracy and inefficiency has on not only individuals but also society as a whole. Live and let live - if it doesn't hurt anyone else, why is it in anyone's business to make others unhappy and therefore increase dysfunction and crime? -- Posted by iconoclast at 9:42 pm on June 16, 2008 Really depends. To be realistic, people are too stupid to take hard capitalism and absolute libertarianism right now. Until they can get smarter, libertarianism pertaining to personal decisions combined with regulated capitalism or quasi-socialism is the only way to go. Realistically, if pure libertarianism took hold now, a few would just seize power, and keep everyone even more stupid. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 5:28 am on June 17, 2008 Not really. The stupid would end up starving to death. -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:22 am on June 17, 2008 Quote: from Apotheosis at 5:28 am on June 17, 2008 Not really. The stupid would end up starving to death. YES! Plleeeaaassseeee! -- Posted by MarkHi88 at 9:00 am on June 17, 2008 I suppose libertarians are selfish, in the same way breathing is selfish. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:03 am on June 17, 2008 That's MY AIR! -- Posted by finchmiester at 4:39 pm on June 17, 2008   the libertarian party of america and those around the world are constantly in strife with themselves, from abortion to welfare to social security to isolationism, but they all agree on one thing live and let live. Libertarians are at there heart selfless so selfless that they in fact may be seen as selfish. They dont care what you do how you do it or why you do it as long as it doesnt cost them anything. That is not selfish it is selfless, all are free to do as they will as long as others are not harmed. Now the severity of those freedoms are argued on in the party but for the most part it is a party that demands personal responsibility over forceful repression which leads many to see selfish reasonings while it is only hopeful freedom. This may seem selfish as it seems they only care about there own rights but in fact they care about everyones so much that they are unwilling to force anything on anyone. No one who lives by a code of live and let live can be considered selfish as it merely hopes for equality without force, not forceful equality for the benefit of so group.     Welfare is a failed system but like so many failed systems it should not be scraped but revised, which is a point many libertarians disagree upon. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 6:39 pm on June 17, 2008 finchmiester, that's not selfless, that's one twisted representation just to avoid the word selfish like an ultimate evil selfishness is good man Pages: 1 2 3 4  Next