Nasty in what sense?
No. I haven’t said I’ve disagreed with you.
Btw, why did you capitalize “Libertarianism”?
Yet Rand was an Objectivist, through & through. There is a difference between objectivism & libertarianism.
Then why are so many Jews socialist? Wouldn’t their ethnic interest be to be libertarians so that they can undermine antisemitism?
No reason
Then why is the great evolutionary psychology professor Satoshi Kanazawa a libertarian (or at least a “South Park Republican”)? Look, I know about the insistence of you guys to find reason as a systematic trait that evolved to solve things other than inter-personal problems. But this is ultimately flawed, since logic can teach us truths of the world which your science ultimately rests upon. Seriously, I cannot see how a scientist in his right mind can make the claim that reason is not an absolute, regardless of if the matter is inter-personal or scientific.
Evolutionary Psychology certainly has a lot to teach us, especially behaviors not directly attributable to reason. Instincts or even aesthetics are phenomenon that can be explained by evolutionary psychology.
How we should behave and “what is right” (ethics) is basically a matter of philosophy (which must be built upon reason). An evolutionary psychologist might say that “well, we must behave in a way that does not make us genetic losers”. But that is just an observation on how to continue the process that the science of evolutionary psychology is meant to study, and not a goal in itself. But are there any intrinsic goals? Sure there are, given certain goals there are plenty. If you want to live you must be able to use resources to sustain your life, or another person must be able to do this for you to continue your survival. There are plenty of implications there, and they lead us to libertarianism.
Why conservatives are usually stronger than liberals and why liberals are often smarter than conservatives is interesting though. But the world is not deterministic, and what is interesting about these groups is that they do not use reason to come to their conclusions, hence there might be an evolutionary drive involved in their choices. Any one conservative, or liberal, when accepting the outcome of sound logic, must accept libertarianism. Some libertarians might be libertarians because of an evolutionary drive to certain ideas, and certainly many libertarians are of above-average IQ, which says something about how evolution plays a part in our choice of ideology.
A theory on why liberals tend to be smarter than conservatives is that smart people want to show this to possible mates by holding views that are nonsensical but constructed to impress. Like the peacocks do with their tails. A peacock has no real advantage in nature by having a beautiful and big tail. But the ones with big tails attract female peacocks. This is probably because the big tails tell the females that “look, my tail is big which is a big disadvantage to me, but I am so skillful that I still manage to survive, I have good DNA!” If you look at liberals, they tend to favor high taxation, this is the same thing as “look, I can manage the higher tax burden and still manage to live well!”
As you can see, evolutionary psychology can certainly explain certain behaviors, but not those behaviors where we consciously apply reason towards certain goals.
Objectivists and libertarians may approach it from different angles but their agenda is basically the same: laisez-faire capitalism. It is also undeniable that objectivism has influenced the wider libertarian movement.
So you’re asking me to refute the Jewish religion?
So you don’t choose your political or economic slant?
And the man “holding the cushy affirmative action job” doesn’t choose that job?
I hate to break it to you but you’re asking me to refute a particular group of people’s faith (the Jewish religion), and the choices people make in life why?
Why were the Catholic scholastics the first major liberal movement in history if the libertarian movement is largely of Jewish origin? Not to mention the French scholastics.
His view of history will tend to historical materialism, because he has misunderstood the applications for an important science. Therein lies the problem. He is using a science based on generalizations and empirical observation to the world of ideas.But his methods of dealing with the world of ideas and history are far too simplistic, and evolutionary psychology is not a great tool to deal with this, although it might be used to illustrate some points.
Well I’m a middle eastern, muslim, and libertarian male raised in southside, jamaica queens NYC(not a nice area to grow up in)- a lot of friends of mine that I grew up with, who are african american are libertarians too. Would the evolutionary psychologists and others who think they know exactly how and why people choose their paths in life give me their take on how this could’ve happened by only knowing the information I just gave you? I’d love to hear it.
cause you’re not real middle eastern and they’re not real blacks, just anomalies, freaks of nature[:P]
Well both movements socialism and libertarianism are universalistic, internationalist movements which in practice undermine native group cohesiveness. Both movements preach equality whether it is the equality of individual rights in libertarianism or economic equality under socialism. They essentially hold that a Jew is the same as a gentile.
In politics Jews do not march in lockstep, rather they are flexible strategisers who adopt ideologies according to time and place, the important thing is all these ideologies are vehicles to maximise their advantage in their competition with other ethnic groups for resources. Some Jews developed libertarianism as under the conditions of laissez-faire jews tend to rise to the top and dominate economies thanks to their high IQ and ethnic networking. I’m guessing the reason why few jews take it up is that its considerably more pie in the sky than Zionism, liberalism or neo-conservativism. Embracing libertarianism also conforms to anti-semitic stereotypes of greedy jews ruthlessly exploiting the poor. Ayn Rand is almost a charicature of the greedy jew.
In a sense you could argue that promoting socialism causes anti-semitism - and indeed anti-semities do hold jews responsible for subversive movements like marxism. But at the same time socialism works to eliminate anti-semitic dissidents by using the power of the state to raise the price of dissent to intollerable levels. As an extreme example publishing anti-semitic literature in many European countries can merit a prison sentence.
wow…lol
This is a joke right. Are you trying to experiment if a new Onion article will receive laughs?
First of all, I don’t think that all forms of socialism are inherently anti-semitic. Obviously the Nazis were the epitome of anti-semitism but there were lots of Communist Jews in Russia, there still are. So socialism doesn’t equal anti-semitism.
I happen to have a hypothesis for why so many Jews are liberals. I think it has a lot to do with the idea of being a light to all nations.
Then why does Stanford University have Jewish socialists and Jewish libertarians? Aren’t they at the same place in the same time?
The problem with you thinking is that you keep over-generalizing. Saying, “(All) Jews this…” and “(All) Jews that…,” instead of saying “Some Jews this…” or “Some Jews that.”
actionguy pointing to a handfull of token black libertarians, which by the way would like some proof that they exist and actually do engage in activism, does not mean that Blacks as a group are going to be receptive to a political ideology that will reduce the socio-economic status of the vast majority of blacks. As I understand it the black vote went 95% for Obama because he was a black man who promised them more government privileges.
libertarian are bunch of white guys because more whites care to read political philosophy while their brethren update their PHAT clothing inventory.
Non sequitur.
Not all libertarians are minarchists (laisez-faire). It’s more accurate to say Rothbard influence Rand, which had an influence on objectivism, even if she eventually denounced libertarianism.
how is that non sequitur. More percentage of Czechs play hockey than Spanish. hence they have a bigger share in world hockey. same thing applies for guitar players, rugby, political philosophy, nuclear physics, marine exploration.