it has been usurped by randism which is, in my view, diametrically opposed to humanism, which i think the most just and moral social phlosophy of all.[/quote
Randism is simply the objectivist philosophy, which defines ethical egoism as the supreme virtue of humanism. Whether you'd like to agree or not, objectivism is a study and/or philosophy under humanism. Humanism is a pretty broad term. Why then, do you consider objectivism as diametrically opposed to humanism, simply because it favors rational self-interest over sacrificial altruism? Rand believed that all human beings share a harmony of interest so that a moral agent could not rationally harm another human. It's not my exact cup of tea, but I recognize the merit in such thought. The idea that you must live for the sake of others is dubious, imho.
It is this pretense of 'classical liberalism' that really chews my ass and caused me to reject the party. it is nonsense. aside from the fact that there is nothing 'classic' about it, it is untrut e to the liberal tradition. Libertarians have appropriated certain of the rhetorical stances of Locke, Mill, Bentham et al, but in fact, reject most of the real liberalism of these folks that contemporary liberals continue to pursue, if ineffectually, specifically the well being of ALL the people.
John Stuart Mill changed his economic views considerably, over time. This is why you have both libertarians and socialists being influenced by his work. But where do you get this idea that libertarians reject the well being of all people? If our goal is to empower each individual with dignified rights and personal responsibility, whose to say that is rejecting their well being?
Also, where is the evidence that Libertarians pervert any of the work by Locke, Mill, or Bentham? You didn't use the word 'pervert,' but you certainly implied that if Libertarians of today do not follow the ideals of these three men to the purist extreme, then they can never be considered classical liberals. These three men had a great influence on the libertarian movement, in more ways than one. But does that mean all libertarians must agree with everything Lock, Mill, and Bentham said in order to rightly consider themselves 'classical liberals?' Of course not! I would like to note that these great thinkers championed for individual liberty and social contract- both of these concepts are openly embraced by the libertarians of today. I'm personally influenced by many of the ideas originating from these men, but this philosophical triangle is not the all-inclusive circle of classical liberalism. What about the ideas of Max Stirner, Frederic Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, David Ricardo, Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Milton & Anne Friedman, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, etc.?
Granted, not all the above names are 'classical liberals,' but each have directly influenced the ideas of modern libertarians in one way or another(and I'm speaking from experience).
conservative economic policies do, in fact, produce huge disparities in economic class. Even Smith did not intend that.
But Ricardo did. The only cases in recorded history where the lot of the ordinary man has been able to rise out of grinding power is where you had largely free trade, and the ablity of individuals to specialize in a trade, profit from that trade, and to acquire private property so that he or she may develop a grounded identity. You cannot develop your own, unique identity if all you are is just another ant in the ant colony. Capitalism and free trade are by far from perfect, but it's the best system, so far conceived.
yes, the freeing of property was essential to freeing citizens but it was a step, not the end objective.
Of course it is not the only freedom, but it is certainly the most fundamental of ALL individual liberties. Why? Because individuals need to be free to develop their own sense of identity, and you cannot develop an identity if you are restricted from acquiring any sort of hard material possessions, or are required to serve others (or the state) instead of serving yourself. If the individual is forced to rely on the state for his/her earthly possessions, then it becomes apparent that the state is obligated to develop the character of the individal, and therefore the individual has not been freed from collective supremacy.
libertarians are republicans in drag when it comes to fashioning moral and effective economic policy.
I don't appreciate that statement. And if anything, you've got it backwards. When conservatives look towards an academic economist for answers, they rely on the conclusions found and research conducted by prominent libertarian economists.
one of us has a misunderstanding of that term, i think. what you describe is "trickle up".
When I think of "trickle down," I automatically think of money being dispersed at the highest level of authority (the federal government) with the intention of traveling down towards the common individual. I do not think of it in the same sense that most people understand the concept. On the other hand, "trickle up" conjures up the image of grassroots development, where money and trade circulating at the very basic level of human interaction facilitates with the building of an entire community, from the bottom-up.
Many others, though, have a real sense of commitment to the people they represent and work hard for their benefit. The best realize that benefiting one group while harming another is NOT the best way to better things. not many of those, though.
Just remember that politicians are in the business of telling you what you want to hear, not necessarily what is good for you or for society, as a whole. All persons seeking political power must be scrutinized to an unreasonable degree.
well, there is something in THAT. but, the alternative is every man for himself and even pretending that we are all moral, just caring people we are also mostly ignorant about money past paying the rent. We have others looking after our interests at our behest and at our instruction in most of our lives. to negate the value of doing so when attempting to run a nation would be ridiculous. the disquieting strain of anarchism in the Party is enough to turn most folks off.
This is not "every man for himself." Very few men and women are out there, completely isolated from everyone else. Nearly the entire majority of citizens are not in this world by themselves. They have themselves, their family, their friends, and their closest neighbors. These connections help each of us succeed in life. Libertarians are not anarchists; they are minarchists and there is a fundamental difference.
taken by force? by whom? the faceless gummint? the government is not faceless, it has millions of faces including yours.
You will never see my face representing the mob that disregards the rights of any minority. The smallest minority is the individual, and you cannot claim to be a supporter of minority rights if you reject or sneer at the concept of individual liberty.
what exemptions? personally, i think most exemptions are not much good. even for children, to tell the truth. it is time that we stop encouraging people to add to the already excessive numbers of humans.
Such sentiments are an open invitation to eugenics and other means to "decrease the surplus population." If you're so worried about the population bomb, then what are you doing championing for a welfare state that struggles to alleviate the pain of overpopulation. If overpopulation is really your main concern, then are you relieved when x number of people die from a natural and/or man-made disaster? After all, under the prediction of a Malthusian catastrophe, it would be better for a grand number of people to die from some disaster than it would be to allow the population bomb to force all humankind into subsistence-level conditions. "Are there no work houses?! Are there no prisons?!" Personally, I reject the catastrophic theory as another doomsday prediction (and a very dated prediction at best). I strongly believe that human population levels are already kept in a natural check because necessity is the mother of all invention.
a flat wealth tax and acquisition (sales) tax could work. wealth, not income because wealth is power and we should have to pay for the power we wield over others.
Have you ever researched the effects of a luxury tax in this country and elsewhere? In Norway, the purchase of chocolate and cars are considered a luxury. In Ireland, some hygiene products are considered a luxury.
you assume a correlation between a business saving money and that money making it back out into the population. i do not see a lot of evidence for that. a tax break on monies that have been shown to been used so would be a good thing.
Given that a business is an association of individuals pursuing their own common interest, I don't see why that is not "making it back out into the population." If money is power, then let's give each individual the ability to reap more benefits from their own labor and their own ideas. Individuals are far smarter with their own money than politicians on the other side of the country who only manage to frivol away other people's money (and not just other people's money, but the money from their unborn children and grandchildren).
what social philosophy is more specifically "moralistic" than Objectivism? Rand was as tightassed a moralist as any religious zealot.
Sure, Ayn Rand had morals, and so did FDR. The difference was that Rand was not willing to shove her morals down your throat.
majority? can you show that to be true? even a 50% plus income rate is still not the majority of an individual's wealth.
I was referring to the example of the 200,000$ earner and the impoverished, starving individual. What I said was that if you took 50% away from the rich man's annual salary in order to finance a decent lifestyle for the homeless person(s), it is not justified. And you responded by saying 50% of a person's income is not 50% of their wealth, implying that more should be confiscated for the good of the colony.
yeah? who has gone? last i looked, m. Gates was still behind his gates.
Is it so surprising that those with money and ideas wish to immigrate to America, the ideal place where you can reap what you sow? Last I checked, the richest men and women in America weren't even born in America.
ANY nation that can show much prosperity has had considerable tax.
And how are you able to prove that the former was a direct result of the latter? I beg to differ. Free trade is the only sustainable avenue towards national prosperity, not taxes.
