Why I am not a libertarian

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Articles: Why I'm Not a Libertarian

Interesting take.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Yes, it was an interesting read.

 

[Trooper]

I believe that my reaction to Mises' work underscores my particular problem with libertarianism in general: the fact that it has little to no soul, reducing man to a rational, pleasure-seeking animal. The central premise of Human Action, the basic theory of Mises' praxeology, is that all men are united by one logic, one universal bent toward happiness, which they seek in the most advantageous way possible. In short, man, though capable of making poor decisions, will even in failure choose the most logical poor decision known to him; he furthermore always desires one object more than everything else at any given moment, and the object of his desire is revealed only by his logical action.


Read more: Articles: Why I'm Not a Libertarian​

I agree with the idea that libertarians focus too much on their own pleasure (hedonism), forsaking a disciplined lifestyle (lack of exercise, eating too much, too given to drugs and alcohol, etc).
​

 

[ViperJock]

I think it just shows how wide the range of libertarianism goes. I align most closely to Libertarian thinking with belief in small government and civil liberties. I am however dedicated to personal responsibity and am anything but hedonistic. Libertarians range from that to anarchists who pretty much believe they should be able to do whatever they want; anyone else be damned. I think this is largely why they can't play on the national stage except as spoilers. A lot of conservatives who aren't thrilled with the GOP won't make the leap because they know a libertarian who is a wack job. And don't know any "normal" ones because the normal ones tend to fly under the radar.

 

[hornadylnl]

While I have not read all of Human Action, I've read several of his other works. The author of this article could not beamy more off base about Mises.

 

[level.eleven]

While I have not read all of Human Action, I've read several of his other works. The author of this article could not beamy more off base about Mises.

This piece is nothing more than a religious screed.

 

[Expat]

I think it just shows how wide the range of libertarianism goes. I align most closely to Libertarian thinking with belief in small government and civil liberties. I am however dedicated to personal responsibity and am anything but hedonistic. Libertarians range from that to anarchists who pretty much believe they should be able to do whatever they want; anyone else be damned. I think this is largely why they can't play on the national stage except as spoilers. A lot of conservatives who aren't thrilled with the GOP won't make the leap because they know a libertarian who is a wack job. And don't know any "normal" ones because the normal ones tend to fly under the radar.

That and whenever a Libertarian that seems more normal (to us conservatives) comes along, we hear from the chorus, he isn't now nor has he ever been a true libertarian.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, because governing based on emotion has worked terribly well so far. Let's not govern based on logic. What a silly notion.

What we need to focus on are high ideals like Patriotism, Compassion, Glory, and Romance.

I'd expect to read similar tripe from Pravda.

 

[rambone]

If this author is going to make statements such as this one, it would seem appropriate to include at least one single solitary quotation to back it up.

Where are Mises' statements about "Pleasure"?

In a statement almost too ironic to bear, Mises himself stated that his philosophy accepts all religions -- but only insofar as they bow to the golden goddess of libertarianism: Pleasure. Those whose purpose in life contradicts the sacred unity, overseen by Her iron gaze, needn't feel too comfortable; they are technically enemies of the state. Like to Daniel, who refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue under penalty of death, libertarianism grants all the hand of friendship, provided they acknowledge their supreme lord and master.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While I have not read all of Human Action, I've read several of his other works. The author of this article could not beamy more off base about Mises.

Examples?

 

[rambone]

This is not the first anti-libertarian piece I've read from American Thinker.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ts_to_make_a_case_against_libertarianism.html

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This piece is nothing more than a religious screed.

Because the author happens to base his morality on his faith in an almighty God (and his teachings) rather than a man-made concoction of morality?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is not the first anti-libertarian piece I've read from American Thinker.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ts_to_make_a_case_against_libertarianism.html

Yes, they are not a Libertarian echo chamber.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because the author happens to base his morality on his faith in an almighty God (and his teachings) rather than a man-made concoction of morality?

Mises says that man will act in their own self interest. He doesn't dictate what that self interest is, only that man will act on it. He doesn't say that that interest is pleasure for everyone. For some, it may be. But others, it may be doing charity for others. And yet others, it may be accumulating wealth.

I'm not the most charitable person in the world but I do get a sense of satisfaction when I'm able to help others. When it comes time to act on a decision, I will balance what is most important to me. For this $100 bill, I may get the greatest sense of satisfaction out of giving that money to a bum, a church or other organization. Or for that same $100 bill, I may get the most satisfaction by buying a trinket, a hooker, blow, or booze.

To describe Mises' philosophy as hedonism is pure bunk. I'm hoping Fletch will see this and post his thoughts. He's far more versed on Mises than I am.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Mises says that man will act in their own self interest. He doesn't dictate what that self interest is, only that man will act on it. He doesn't say that that interest is pleasure for everyone. For some, it may be. But others, it may be doing charity for others. And yet others, it may be accumulating wealth.

I'm not the most charitable person in the world but I do get a sense of satisfaction when I'm able to help others. When it comes time to act on a decision, I will balance what is most important to me. For this $100 bill, I may get the greatest sense of satisfaction out of giving that money to a bum, a church or other organization. Or for that same $100 bill, I may get the most satisfaction by buying a trinket, a hooker, blow, or booze.

To describe Mises' philosophy as hedonism is pure bunk. I'm hoping Fletch will see this and post his thoughts. He's far more versed on Mises than I am.

I'll admit I have not read any of this (Mises) work. But in reading your comments, I'm inclined to see that you have substantiated the author's (in the OP) writtings.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Because the author happens to base his morality on his faith in an almighty God (and his teachings) rather than a man-made concoction of morality?

I can not see how libertarianism and religion can't square with each other.

I have no issue with doing it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I agree with ATOMonkey on this... lots more thoughts on it - but no time to punch them out right now. I have zero problem squaring them.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll admit I have not read any of this (Mises) work. But in reading your comments, I'm inclined to see that you have substantiated the author's (in the OP) writtings.

By all means, don't read Mises' works to see what he says. Take a single editorialist's word for it.

 

[downzero]

The person who wrote this article, while obviously intelligent, is economically illiterate.

The idea of value, and the reason why market exchange, rather than force, leads to the "most desirable" results is because you know your own values, and how you "value" something isn't subject to the whim of other people. As a result, whether you choose to do nothing all day or work 20 hours a day to "produce," that is your choice, and in a system of voluntary cooperation, it is up to you to decide if you'll work 8 hours a day or 8 minutes.

Similarly, "pleasure" is not a static concept. It means whatever the individual wants it to mean. If he wants to sit around and smoke weed all day, that's fine. If he wants to give his life to charity, that's fine, too. Or if he seeks to become the CEO of Disney or Microsoft, by God, it allows or that, too. The mistake is believing that "pleasure" is a collective concept. It's not. Pleasure is inherently based on your individual views, thoughts, values, experience, and humanity. It isn't something we measure objectively other than by observing the preferences that you make under the assumption that you best know your values.

I teach economics to college students, so while I don't exactly expect everyone to have a fundamental understanding of this material, I do believe that everyone who graduates from high school should know enough about economics to understand these basic concepts. It's an honest shame that economic literacy isn't required of everyone in our society. It may not seem important, but the incentives of a market system drive almost everything around you, from where you are, to what computer you're reading this on, and how you got your internet connection to read it, etc. The fact that our children are not learning this is a real travesty, and I would argue, perhaps the worst bias our government schools have imparted into their students.

This can be summed up in two words, "MARKET VALUE." If you can't explain or teach someone else what market value represents, then you should learn about it. Basic microeconomics is not hard and is useful for every day life.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

I agree with ATOMonkey on this... lots more thoughts on it - but no time to punch them out right now. I have zero problem squaring them.

Make me #3 with being able to square the two of them.

When I read that article, I'm reminded of the scolding people get when they look askance at someone who is Arab. "now now Billy, not all Arabs are terrorists".

True, and not all Libertarians are anarchists looking for all the blow, hookers and booze they can find. BTW, you can just as easily insert: charity, volunteering and green tea.