Is libertarianism a collectivist ideology?

Economics Political Theory
1

I heard from an objectivist the other day that libertarianism is a collectivist ideology.

Libertarians value principles (non aggression) more than the individual. Principles are based on collectivism. They are not derived from reality to be useful to the individual, but are chosen arbitrarily based on emotions. After choosing such a principle, they use this axiom to derive conclusions using logic, and then they stick to the conclusions no matter how silly they are, and even if it leads to death and catastrophe.

This fom of logical thinking with vague abstractions without foundattion in reality is called rationalism, and most libertariians today base their views directly or indirectly on Kant.

Libertarians say “Initiating force is always wrong. End of discussion.” Objectivists also value non-aggression, but only when it benefits the individual. It does in 99% of all cases, but there are important exceptions.

This is why so many libertarians are anarchists; they think the state is a self-contradiction. Since a little violence is needed to maintain the state. Objectivists on the other hand, believe tat the state is necessary to protect individual self-interest. Therefore objectivists are minarchists.

2

Why do we need the state? Why can’t we voluntarily form or hire an organization that will protect our rights?

3

And how does the objectivist propose to keep the minimal state “minimal”?

4

Socialists and libertarians have something in common: rationalism. They insist to make use of concepts without foundation in reality, but in fantasises. The father of rationalism is Platon. He was the first person to value the ideas more than those who invented the ideas. As a consequence of thes, both libertarians and socialists insist to base their arguments on abstractions that are in conflict with individual self interest.

For example, some libertarians believe they ought to refuse to receive welfare services, social security and retirement pensions. Objectivists take exception to this, because they value self interest more than principles.

5

No but most Objectivists are. Oh burn!

6

Yep.

7

Of course, it’s as impossible, just like it is impossible for anarchists to promise to keep the state absent?

8

Nice.

9

Intellectual property rights are property rights over physical implementations of abstractions. Humans are abstract creatures living abstract lives. Even the idea of property is abstract. It is an abstract idea that prevents you from stealing my car, and it is an abstract idea that prevents objectivists from copying my music.

10

Every wrong idea is always based on a mysterious exception to normal reason that is never explained.

11

In this case, which exception?

12

Was that his/her reply to me?

13

Maybe your car is just the physical implementation of the abstract idea of crappy.

14

Libertarians recognize the self evident truth society already contains all of the tools needed to solve mans problems. Miniarchists believe society is not safe, can not be trusted to solve mans problems, and requires wise overlords. Objectivists are absolutists because they believe wise overlords must have a monopoly on justice. Absolutism is utopian and not based in reality.

15

Who will protect from that organization?

16

No one, perhaps. Why do you ask?

Anyway, at that point, it becomes a state, which is what objectivists want. So why can’t they form a PDA, then have turn against them so it becomes a state, as they desire?

17

How about those who want a government but not governors. They simply recognize that standard procedures is necessary when it comes to legal processes.

18

Because they don’t want it turn against them, I guess.

19

We need the state for one reason; to prevent evil people from gaining power.

20

they need a state to institutionalise evil people into government, and to give a sheen of legitimacy to their evil.