Agnostic.com

2 3

The problem with Libertarianism is a question of motivation and intent. The question arises,"Why would anyone want to be selfish?", the primary tenet of Libertarianism.

The "selfishness" as espoused by Objectivists is unfortunately based on specious premises. It asserts that if everybody operated on their selfish intetests economically (laissez faire) that the system would equaluze itself and operate to the benefit of society.

The problem with this premise is that it assumes that all persons involved in the system will play by the rules. Futhermore, individuals will not attempt to manipulate the system behind the scenes to their own benefit and detriment of the overall system.

If nothing else, trump's Presidency is a standing refutation of Libertarianism. trump claimed to be working on Libertarian principles when he to refused to implement the DPA. (Defense Production Act) this last March and April. He claimed the market would solve the problem because companies would compete freely and meet the demand. It never happened, PPE never met demand needed (and it is still lagging in some places).

In my experience most Libertarians are the type of people who never liked sharing their toys. The type that would take their ball and go home in a huff because they couldn't get their way. They are people who despise accountability and hate to have to consider anyone else's feelings or property. They tend to be legends in their own minds and generally come up short in the empathy department (no wonder trump was the darling of Libertarians).

Libertarianism as espoused by Ayn Rand is short sighted and not a system that looks into the future long term. It is a get in, take what you want now and not worry about the overall health of system in which you are operating. Afterall, it will continually seeks its natural level.

If someone wants to really understand how "selfishness" is a natural condition in nature, but operates to the benefit of the group first, ones needs to look to evolutionary biology. The group (species) is more important to any one individual. This is anethema to Libertarians. Read Stephan Jay Gould to understand how selfishness operates positively in nature.

t1nick 8 Dec 31
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

You may enjoy "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America" by Nancy MacLean

0

Agree with all of that good post. But sadly the biology is a little off, the idea of species as an evolutionary unit demanding sacrifice from the individual, is long since discredited. Family or clan is the largest unit, and even that is biologically much weaker than the family.

Not true. May be true at the macro-ground level, but is the general operating premise overall. All the way down to the cellular level.

@t1nick Je. Where are you getting your information from, not an out of date populist like Gould. Do please buy a good up to date text book.

@Fernapple

This is a new one on me. "Gould" as a "populist"? Its hard to be a populist when the majority of the population can't comprehend what he is discussing most of the time.. Having followed Gould closely for at least 30 years, I trust his intellect over yours anyday. Especially since your challenged my statement, but provided no references or sources to back up your contentions.

@t1nick Read Richard Dawkins on Gould, or Simon Conway Morris. Don't get me wrong I love reading Gould, he writes wonderfully well, researches deeply, and his essays are amazing. But It may be a trans-Atlantic thing, he is treated very critically and does not get the prophet like reverance this side of the pond, that he does in the US. And you can hardly regard any of his more widely published writings as textbook.

@Fernapple

Many of my original comments included Dawkins writings as part of my background thinking.

@t1nick Sorry. I have reread and rethought your post, and think that I may have misunderstood it. But I think that it would be better to use the words, species, sub-species, race, rather than the vague, group, and evolved, rather than benefit.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:564949
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.