Why do libertarian types like Oligarchy & Corporate rule?

No, less government has always led to higher inequality, see the feudal societies.

 

Daniel Dennett's rules for thoughtful criticism:

Glynch failed #1

You don't understand AS or Rand at all if you think she desired anyone to "run society".

 

If you keep learning about politics from MSNBC/Fox News because the "vast majority" other people do too, you'll continue to be confused.

But, to be fair, libertarians aren't all the same so I can understand why there would be some confusion. That word could include both minarchists and anarchists, and can even be broken down further between "left-libertarians" (you would likely be more accepting of these guys, since they are anti-corporations, pro-labor, and also write often about gender and race equality) and "right-libertarians". But, come on, Paul Ryan? GTFO.

I don't have many strong disagreements with Ron Paul. I don't really know much about Rand Paul, but from what I've seen I'm not impressed. I don't see the difference between him and most other Republicans. I wouldn't vote for him for President (if I voted, which I don't).

Small "l" libertarianism can simply be explained as not hurting innocent people or stealing their crap. Non-libertarians can find innumerable justifications for hurting/imprisoning/killing you or stealing your crap, while libertarians are ethically against it as a matter of principle.

 

What about building interstate highways?, bridges and ports? Do you support those? Do you support hospitals emergency room cannot turn away anyone even if they do not have money? Do you support allow monopolies to charge whatever they wish to charge?

I am pretty sure you are against public education systems, but they are the biggest reason for the advancement of modern societies.

Government can do many good things, but too much government is just as bad as too little government. The trick is find the right balance, and even the point of balance can change depending on many other factors. So there isn't a perfect solution that works 100% of the time.

 

Spoiler

Those are all big topics, but they have all been covered in great detail.

Privatization of Roads and Highways

Privatizing oceans, seas, rivers and other bodies of water

And as for an advocate of a nation-state saying, "What about monopolies?" I don't even know how to respond.

I'm not saying that I have a perfect solution. I'm not saying libertarianism will ever "win" (whatever that means). I'm not even really arguing with anyone here; I'm just trying to clarify some things for glynch. I'm simply saying that it is wrong to commit violence against innocent people. And if you disagree, I'd be interested to see your justification. Who knows, I just might see the light.

 

I don't know. The Soviet Union seemed to have a hell of a lot of inequality and I don't think they were lacking in government.

 

Since you claim you're only using the term as self-described libertarians do, can you point to a single instance during his entire political career when Paul Ryan has referred to himself as libertarian or has been referred to that way by a self-described libertarian? I'm pretty sure you are the only person I have ever heard refer to Ryan as libertarian.

 

Troll status: confirmed. And I'm an idiot for trying to talk to you like a normal adult when I should know better. Continue to be proud of your ignorance. It will do you well, I'm sure.

 

I hate to be in the position of defending Ayn Rand and Objectivists but I don't think many of you understand what it is about.

Objectivism isn't libertarianism and it certainly isn't Neo-con. It is related and there are many from the two latter camps who take Objectivist ideas but I highly doubt Rand would've considered herself part of either and would've criticized both. While Objectivism does uphold the wealthy it isn't all wealthy and wealth isn't the primary goal. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are very critical of many rich and particularly the idle rich. Those books are also very critical of those who compromise principle (Objectivist principles) for money. The wealthy that Rand holds up are industrialists and creative people or people who in her opinion actually add value to society. For us now that would be people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Sergei Brinn, Craig Venter and etc.. While recognizing the valuable role that people who are primarily financiers play she doesn't make those people the heroes of her books. Hedge fund managers aren't bad but not people to lead in a Randian world while the Bernie Madoffs and Jordan Belforts are as much criminals in a Randian world as they are in ours. They might be considered even worse in Rand's view as while they are obviously talented individuals they are wasting that talent for petty ends.

It's a mistake to view Objectivism as just being about people acting selfishly for any end but that they act selfishly for an ideal end. John Galt stops the engine of the world because he wants to bring his idea of a new motor to the world under his terms. Howard Roark blows up a building he designed because it is his vision that shouldn't be compromised. Neither of them are motivated really by money, fame and the rock star lifestyle that can come with that.

As far as them being Neo-Conservatives while Neo-Cons share a certain idealism with Objectivists they are by nature interested in Geo-politics, military force and spreading democracy using the other two. Those are three things that Rand didn't really care for and it the idea that the US would use things like the military aid and diplomatic force to press to advance Western Democratic values was anathema to her. While both Rand and Paul Wolfowitz firmly believed in American Exceptionalism how they would want to see those expressed is completely opposite.

While I am no fan of Ayn Rand I think it is too easy to look at her views as being just about worship of money or American Exceptionalism. They are utopian in nature and like most other utopian visions flawed and ultimately unworkable but not evil.

 

Actually yes government is necessary for rising beyond the stone age. The development of agriculture beyond the subsistence level requires organization beyond the tribe and clan level. There is too much labor and coordination involved. The same thing with developing any major construction project and developing industry. A tribe (a few hundred people), even given the knowledge of how to do it, could never develop an industrialized economy. There are just too few people to grow food, mine resources, manufacture goods, and finally administer all those activities. Like it or not government is a precondition to being able to do those things.

 

Why do atheists like hell so much? They know they're going there of God exists, yet they persist.

I'm puzzled.

 

Government is also a precondition to free market economies, governments provide the rule of law required to enforce contracts, ownership, and the rights of individuals and organizations.

 

The ones who work in media/government are just paid shills for the rich.

The ones who are celebrities are just rich Democrats who don't want their taxes raised.

The ones who are working class are simply low information voters.

 

Once again I find it awkward to be defending Rand but I think you are very much simplifying Objectivism and just lumping it in with those other philosophies without understanding what it is about. While Objectivism does champion laissez-faire economics that isn't the end all of it. Objectivism actually isn't even an economic philosophy but a moral philosophy. While wealth is a big issue in Atlas Shrugged it is isn't about wealth for wealth's sake. Wealth is barely an issue in The Fountainhead and there it is often shown as corrupting when it compels people to compromise principle and vision for financial success. Both John Galt and Howard Roark choose poverty when there is a choice between money and sticking to one's ideals.

Greed to Rand isn't just a blind pursuit of money but a single minded pursuit of one's own vision unfettered by concern of social responsibility. The difference between her philosophy and libertarian is that a libertarian will say that we should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else and that we shouldn't be compelled to give anything to anyone else. While Rand agrees that we shouldn't be compelled to give anything to anyone else Rand doesn't argue that you should do whatever you want as long as noone else is harmed but that those who are the most capable have a duty to live up to the highest ideals. That's why Rand's heroes aren't hedonistic partiers but people who sacrifice everything to live an ideal.