|
This is going to sound ignorant, but I really don't understand Libertarianism- or at least the economic brand that Ann Rand fans seem to put across.
Which schools of philosophy or philosophers include it in their theories? With something like socialism I've been presented with endless (fairly convincing) arguments, which are underpinned by present day thinkers like John Rawls. Yet I'm yet to hear any philosopher or philosophy mentioned with LIbertarianism. Who should I read? In the British press I have read continuously scathing extracts of Ann Rand's writing, and I've never seen her referenced in academia, so I'd like to find someone else if possible.
Also, while on philosophy, what is Libertarianism's main goal? From this thread it doesn't seem to be to promote the standard of living of all (unless constant unregulated competition is their standard.) What provisions does it give for the unfortunate which makes it superior to European welfare state based economies? Are there examples of this? Aren't their serious problems with assuming a business will eventually go out of business if it treats its workers badly (e.g it will be able to do so for a long time, and in some circumstances might be able to survive)
When people put forward other ideologies, even ones I think are self-interested or stupid (Conservatism), I kind of understand them. But when someone says Libertarianism I don't quite get it.
|
On April 21 2009 09:56 Tal wrote:
This is going to sound ignorant, but I really don't understand Libertarianism- or at least the economic brand that Ann Rand fans seem to put across.
Which schools of philosophy or philosophers include it in their theories? With something like socialism I've been presented with endless (fairly convincing) arguments, which are underpinned by present day thinkers like John Rawls. Yet I'm yet to hear any philosopher or philosophy mentioned with LIbertarianism. Who should I read? In the British press I have read continuously scathing extracts of Ann Rand's writing, and I've never seen her referenced in academia, so I'd like to find someone else if possible.
Also, while on philosophy, what is Libertarianism's main goal? From this thread it doesn't seem to be to promote the standard of living of all (unless constant unregulated competition is their standard.) What provisions does it give for the unfortunate which makes it superior to European welfare state based economies? Are there examples of this? Aren't their serious problems with assuming a business will eventually go out of business if it treats its workers badly (e.g it will be able to do so for a long time, and in some circumstances might be able to survive)
When people put forward other ideologies, even ones I think are self-interested or stupid (Conservatism), I kind of understand them. But when someone says Libertarianism I don't quite get it.
Libertarianism is the idea that people should have civil liberties and economic liberties alike. Akin to the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment (see: John Locke, Mill), it advocates a minimal size of government and negative liberties, i.e. the right to do whatever you want without infringing on the rights of others.
There are many branches of Libertarianism. On one hand, you have the Objectivists, Ayn Rand's faction. They believe in Egoism, which essentially praises the individual above all else, i.e. "I will not live my life for the sake of any other man." They are very anti-welfare, but are criticized by other libertarians because they trust too much in Ayn Rand as a cult, as well as more didactic differences.
You also have the Austrian branch, i.e. RON PAUL 2012. These libertarians are bordering anarchy-they are considered anarcho-capitalist. They believe that government should play no role in anything, and that in a private, free-market (this is key) people will be able to succeed and spread prosperity, and there will not be large mega-corporations infringing the people.
You have then more mainstream Libertarians in the Chicago Branch, which was based off of Milton Friedman's theories. Friedman was very opposed to most government involvement in the economy, and also advocated (to a lesser extent) government influence in war and civil policy. This branch is the most mainstream and is essentially one of the core groups of the Libertarian party.
If you want to know the thinkers that advocate Libertarianism, the list would include John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke to an extent, Rousseau, Thoreau and Emerson, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, George Washington, Ludwig von Mises, and there are many, many other thinkers that support libertarian thought (although back then, it was considered liberalism, not today's liberalism, which is more of a progressivism/democratic socialism)
|
Libertarianism is a term used to describe a very broad range of political philosophies concerned with the maximization of individual liberty and some not so concerned with that.
:/
oh, Karl Hess is one name that hasn't been mentioned yet
and Lysander Spooner, I guess, whose stuff I've been intending to read for quite some time. :|
|
You can try going for the Austrians, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Mises. Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom is pretty good and covers a lot of what is Libertarianism. For a more hardcore libertarianism you can turn to Rothbard. These were the ones i found most insightful and still relevant decades after their major works were published.
There are plenty of Libertarian thinkers still around, but I find they really haven't been as innovative in their thinking as the ones I've mentioned.
Conservatism isn't an ideology, btw.
|
Conservatism isn't an ideology, btw.
Yes it is. See Edmund Burke.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rand is entirely irrelevant to any project of standing in political theory. maybe a boogeyman if people are convinced that its popularity is becoming a problem.
as for austrian economics, its substantial theories are fairly detached from their methodology. and it is the methodology that could still be discussed. i dont really see much going for them on that front either, since its axiomatic and simplistic treatment of human action is immediately problematic. rather ironic that mises named his book human action.
broadly libertarian ideas do have their representatives. if you want to go narrow, there is nozick. hayak's political theory being less important than his reputation in economics.
but i would consider thin contractarian theory libertarian, and this is somewhat popular as well.
spooner and stirner are not really uniquely libertarian. their concern is over the entire range of political authority. so anarchists. but libertarians would like them.
|
On April 21 2009 10:16 Caller wrote:Yes it is. See Edmund Burke.
No it isn't. See Edmund Burke.
|
On April 21 2009 10:22 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2009 10:16 Caller wrote:
Conservatism isn't an ideology, btw.
Yes it is. See Edmund Burke. No it isn't. See Edmund Burke.
Depends what you mean by ideology. But that's didactics and i suck at those.
|
|
|
On April 21 2009 10:13 warding wrote:
You can try going for the Austrians, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Mises. Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom is pretty good and covers a lot of what is Libertarianism. For a more hardcore libertarianism you can turn to Rothbard. These were the ones i found most insightful and still relevant decades after their major works were published.
There are plenty of Libertarian thinkers still around, but I find they really haven't been as innovative in their thinking as the ones I've mentioned.
Conservatism isn't an ideology, btw.
Agreed. Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard are probably the conerstones of modern Austro-Libertarian thought.
The real irony is that detractors denounce them as simplistic, but Human Action and Man, Economy, and State are both enormous tomes. Personally, I don't think many detractors have actually read them, lol. The sad fact is that most libertarians haven't even read them because they're such dry and heavy volumes.
I highly recommend them, at any rate. Whether one wants to agree with it or not they are certainly worthy of reading. I consider myself an Austrian, but I've read Marx, Keynes, Smith, and others as well, similarly - I think one needs all perspectives to make sensible thoughts about things.
|
On April 21 2009 10:22 oneofthem wrote: and it is the methodology that could still be discussed. i dont really see much going for them on that front either, since its axiomatic and simplistic treatment of human action is immediately problematic.
If you're interested in the methodology, Hans Hoppe has a good lecture on the topic.
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Praxeology: The Austrian Method
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1079797247947962124
I might ask how you feel the treatment is, first, simplistic and, second, problematic. In what way do you mean?
|
i read it ninth grade and got hella bored
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a priori principles of human action is a simplifying abstraction. the axiomatization is dogmatic.
|
On April 21 2009 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
a priori principles of human action is a simplifying abstraction. the axiomatization is dogmatic.
That wasn't really the question and it's not really an answer. I was hoping for reference to specifics.
Consider some statements :
Humans action is an actor's purposeful pursuit of valued ends with scarce means.
Satisfaction of a given valued end is prefered sooner over satisfaction of the same end later
A good consumed in the present cannot be consumed in the future
Are these simplifications? Abstraction? Are they dogmatic, or apodictic? Why or why not?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that humans act by strict rational principles is already a dead horse. nevermind that people do not act with rational consideration most of the time, their working rationality is not even as simple as welfare maximization. let's say we have a theory in which time is irrelevant and one in which time is relevant. someone with time discounted utility would be treated as irrational in the first, and rational in the second. this classification of the observed subject is the expected theoretical move, rather than the sensible adjustment of the very standards of rationality, expected of an empirical exercise. the difference here is our theoretically constructed rationality, and the difficulty is in how this should be adjusted. if it is adjusted without empirical research, ie taking the actual behaviors of people seriously and as basis for the theory, then it is called axiomatization.
now, this is a concrete case of abstraction and axiomatization in theoretical development. i could throw the book of philosophy of action at you, but that is not directly relevant.
and it is suspicious as to why these principles are chosen. they are elementary assumptions of axiomatic classical models. it seems like a post hoc exercise, kind of like a foundationalist gesture in economics, mimicing projects in math and logic that were influential at that time. but the complexity of human behavior does not allow this kind of axiomatization. if you are really interested in human action, take up behavioral and empirical economics. you will find that theory plays less of a role there than in austrian stuff, which should be ironic.
you seem genuinely interested in the subject. i would suggest wider engagement with contemporary political philosophy and political science. reading classical works will not be enough as the perspective you take on them will most likely be deficient. i had my starter in this stuff from libertarianism as well, but looking back now, it was a deeply flawed way of thinking about society.
|
On April 21 2009 13:44 oneofthem wrote:
that humans act by strict rational principles is already a dead horse. nevermind that people do not act with rational consideration most of the time, their working rationality is not even as simple as welfare maximization.
Who said humans act by strict rational principles? What does it even mean, a "rational principle"?
This is a strawman - your statement, not mine. You've constructed a refutation to something I have not presented. What about the statements I offered as examples?
take up behavioral and empirical economics
i would suggest wider engagement with contemporary political philosophy and political science. reading classical works will not be enough as the perspective you take on them will most likely be deficient
I'm quite broadly read, fear not. I'm paid to be an empiricist, in fact, albeit in a different field. There are innumerable reasons why economics is a poor discipline to tackle with empiricism. I call it the "school of infinite excuses". Empiricism is a tool for finance, not economics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
eh, those statements are rational principles acknowledged by austrians. if you are read in the relevant stuff, i find it puzzling that you don't see a problem with this way of doing things. it would at least strike one as dated.
|
They are apodictic truths, not rational principles. You're not being very clear. Why should I see a problem? Can you point one out?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
eh. they are the principles that agents in the austrian model follow, and this is called 'rational' by shorthand categorization. i've already outlined why this is problematic in the first paragraph of the big post
|
But in the Austrian view human action is always "rational". This is a different thing entirely from saying that humans follow strict rational principles, which they do not. You are interpreting statements incorrectly, I think. Again, I quote Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. The term “rational action” is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaning-less.
To challenge this, you must present an example of human action which is not "rational", or, in other (better) words which is not purposeful pursuit of valued ends using scarce means. I propose that there is no such action outside of cases such as people in vegetative states or who are mentally ill to the point of being incapable of processing and interacting with the world around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
