Why Do They Hate Us?

[Ex_Nihil0]

Two words: Confusion and Utilitarianism.

I say confusion for two reasons.  On one hand, Libertarians keep getting confused with Anarchists.  We've all run into this again and again.  We need to make it perfectly clear to the opposition that we believe the only legitimate function of government is to secure and protect Liberty.  In other words, we support the Night Watchman State.  This stands in stark contrast to the unprotected "natural order" that the Anarchists support.  True, Libertarians are also in favor of the natural order, but enemy states necessitate the creation and support of a battle-ready military, although this does not mean waging a crusade of democracy all over the world.

On the other hand, I also say confusion because Libertarians also get confused with Ayan Rand Objectivists.  Unlike objectivism, Libertarianism is not incompatible with altruism.  It's just that Libertarians understand that government never does as good of a job when it comes to altruism as the private sector.  If you are a Libertarian, it is up to you if you want to help the poor or not.  Nobody is forcing you either way.  But my take on Objectivism is that it says nobody should ever help out the poor unless they can do something for you.  Of course, I do believe that the best charity is teaching a man how to fish, rather then giving him a fish, but again, I don't think Rand would have even gone that far.  Bottom line, Libertarian does not equal greedy bastard.

Utilitarianism has got to be one of the most despicable consequentialist bullshit philosophies I have ever heard of.  Do any of you realize what this is or the concept of hedonistic calculus?  Hopefully some of you got instruction on this subject if you took a philosophy class.  It is the basis for everything from socialized medicine, to social security, to Communism, to the torture of US terror suspects, to the harvesting of organs from political prisoners in China. 

Utilitarian Ethics, being consequential, is based on the idea that the greater good justifies the means.  But what is the greater good in Utilitarianism?  It is the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.  Sounds great so far, right?  Happiness is calculated in units called "hedons".  Anything that causes pain subtracts hedons, while anything that adds pleasure adds hedons.  So our goal is to maximize happiness and minimize pain for the greatest number of people possible.  This sounds awesome, right?

Unfortunately, in order to accomplish this as a goal, the rights and Liberty of the individual become irrelevant.  In fact, the suffering of one person is worth it if it means everybody else is made more happy because of that one man's suffering (maybe this explains why Catholics vote for Democrats?).  In order to maximize everybody's happiness, those who are very happy because they became rich, must have their wealth taken away and redistributed among the other people so happiness can be increased for all.  But we all know what this means, right?  Everybody's motivation to try harder, to innovate, to improve, and to generate wealth becomes squelched.  Why produce more if somebody else is going to take it away from you?  You could even justify forced euthanasia for expensive hospital patients nearing the end of life.  Maybe your grandmother is dying, but she doesn't want to die.  For what ever reason, she wants to keep on living even though her present situation is hopeless.  Under utilitarian ethics, overall happiness goes up if the state kills your suffering grandmother and the collective no longer has to pay for her expensive medical bills.  Another issue with Utilitaranism is that it takes the responsibility of happiness away from the individual, thus making the individual dependent on the collective for happiness.  This is problematic because individuals are different from one another, being made happy by completely different things. 

Because Utilitarianism must take the responsibility of happiness away from the individual, it is inherently elitist.  This is why those who think they know better then the individual as to what is best look down upon us with such contempt.  We stand in direct opposition to their desire to micromanage the lives of of everybody but the ruling class, all in the name of equal results at the expense of equal opportunity.  We know better then the elites.  We understand that allowing everybody to find their own happiness will give us the maximum level of happiness possible for everybody willing to work for it.  This is the reason why we Libertarians dislike socialism so much.  If only the elitist thinkers like Thunderf00t, TAA and DPRJones understood this, along with supply/demand economics, or how the banking system really works, maybe they'd understand that they are wrong on Progressive issues. 

So the next time a Liberal, Progressive or Utilitarian says you don't care about the poor man's pain, just tell him he doesn't care about the poor man's opportunity to succeed in life. 

[Travis Retriever]

Two words: Confusion and Utilitarianism.

I say confusion for two reasons.  On one hand, Libertarians keep getting confused with Anarchists.  We've all run into this again and again.  We need to make it perfectly clear to the opposition that we believe the only legitimate function of government is to secure and protect Liberty.  In other words, we support the Night Watchman State.  This stands in stark contrast to the unprotected "natural order" that the Anarchists support.  True, Libertarians are also in favor of the natural order, but enemy states necessitate the creation and support of a battle-ready military, although this does not mean waging a crusade of democracy all over the world.

At the risk of getting flamed and/or getting this off topic, I thought I'd post this: http://mises.org/daily/2801 (Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard) to give some thoughts to the noted paragraph.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

At the risk of getting flamed and/or getting this off topic, I thought I'd post this: http://mises.org/daily/2801 (Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard) to give some thoughts to the noted paragraph.

Is there that much of a difference really?  If the government is rendered unable to forcibly tax the public then doesn't that make the anarchists happy too since they don't have to pay a cent unless they honestly believe it's worth it?

[Travis Retriever]

Is there that much of a difference really?  If the government is rendered unable to forcibly tax the public then doesn't that make the anarchists happy too since they don't have to pay a cent unless they honestly believe it's worth it?

Actually, I think you're right.
Blah. I was tired when I posted that. :\

Anyways, outstanding post, Ex_Nihil0, as always.
Though I do consider myself at least a small l libertarian as I still vote for pro-liberty candidates even though I am an anarchist.

[Travis Retriever]

I just hope that by "battle ready military", he doesn't mean, "standing army".

[Ex_Nihil0]

I just hope that by "battle ready military", he doesn't mean, "standing army".

That depends on what you mean by "Standing Army".  Are we talking about an invasion force capable of waging wars on multiple battle fronts in several different countries at once at a cost of trillions of dollars like the US military?  In that case, no.  If we are talking about a robust homeland defense force (like in Israel, Japan or The People's Republic of  ʞᗗŃᗗDᗗ), then yes. 

[MrBogosity]

What is there to stop the latter from becoming the former?

[Virgil0211]

That depends on what you mean by "Standing Army".  Are we talking about an invasion force capable of waging wars on multiple battle fronts in several different countries at once at a cost of trillions of dollars like the US military?  In that case, no.  If we are talking about a robust homeland defense force (like in Israel, Japan or The People's Republic of  ʞᗗŃᗗDᗗ), then yes. 

Maybe we could mix that with removing the restrictions on gun ownership and whatever other restrictions that are preventing this market from developing more- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700854.html

I would love to see more schools like that pop up. I scares me that some people think that this sort of combat training should only be available to police and the military.

[Travis Retriever]

I would love to see more schools like that pop up. I scares me that some people think that this sort of combat training should only be available to police and the military.

You think so too huh?
Glad to know I'm not alone in that respect.

[Gumba Masta]

Am I the only one who's disturbed by the name "Valhalla Training Center"?
I know I'm heavely biased but the two only places I can see this name pop up are either a Japanese RPG or an arian supermacist's places-to-visit list.
Both of which, I might add, are'nt very reassuring.

[MrBogosity]

In the first season of Jeremiah, Valhalla Sector was the place where the Big Bad Guys launched their murderous tyranny from.

[Gumba Masta]

Did they have wangsty teens with swords larger than than mini-vans and spikey hair?

[MrBogosity]

Oddly enough, yes! Although I think they were mostly there for color...

[Travis Retriever]

Is there that much of a difference really?  If the government is rendered unable to forcibly tax the public then doesn't that make the anarchists happy too since they don't have to pay a cent unless they honestly believe it's worth it?

(Off topic:  After reading through the article, it certainly gives another perspective on the anarchist ?= libertarian debate that is actually quite interesting.  I think it was written before Rothbard identified as an anarchist.)

Provided we are able to opt out to form our own courts, police, defense, etc, I cannot see any reason for us to ojbect.

Also, going back to the first paragraph of FlowCell's (Ex_Nihil0's) post; Anarchists, at least the Anarcho Capitalists that I associate with and myself, are not against the idea of government (courts, police, defense, etc); just against the coercive monopoly the state holds on them.
I have explained this as best I can and have been as civil and polite as I can in that Blessings of Slavery: a free market vs. collectivization teaching tool thread to Lord T Hawkeye, even providing essays, a book, and videos explaining it from different angles where I might not have been able to touch on.

[Ex_Nihil0]

What is there to stop the latter from becoming the former?

Easy, you have a Congress that retains the power to declare war rather then allow the President to take "police actions" and fund his efforts with a budget passed with a simple majority.  Of course, that would require a government that respects the Constitution.