Comments on: Libertarianism; what I think it is

By: Rothbard dishes the dirt on Keynes « Samizdata

Rothbard dishes the dirt on Keynes « Samizdata — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:21:14 +0000

[...] the late, great Murray Rothbard criticising Keynes. (And while I’m linking to Carey, see also this recent piece about libertarianism by Carey, which is very [...]

By: Hugh Myers

Hugh Myers — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:50:13 +0000

‘dominant as a philosophy, or in governance?

By: A decent caring Tory | Libertarian Home

A decent caring Tory | Libertarian Home — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:01:01 +0000

[...] What libertarianism is [...]

By: Richard Carey

Richard Carey — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:35:42 +0000

Those are the choices, huh? individual, sociopath or atom of collective blob; WE?

Still choosing the first

By: Right-Wing Hippy (@RightWingHippy)

Right-Wing Hippy (@RightWingHippy) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:03:32 +0000

That one’s already in my ever-expanding PDF library, probably from one of your previous posts(?)

Yep, a little over-optimistic. Individualism still means me me me to most people. It causes confusion amongst libertarians too; some people just don’t see the distinction between being treated as an individual and being a sociopath.

By: Richard Carey

Richard Carey — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:58:48 +0000

Fair enough. I’m certainly not against ethical arguments. The only alternative is to argue on the grounds of pragmatism, which is inherently weaker IMO. Most arguments involve a blend of ethical points, practical points, purely rational, value-free statements, humour, ad hominems and sundry rhetorical tricks.

By: Simon Gibbs

Simon Gibbs — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:30:20 +0000

I don’t disagree. I’m only likely to disagree if you told me that making an ethical argument is damaging. I don’t always present the arguments the best way myself but Rand’s idea that our politics are the consequence of our moral understanding is essential. Make it a naked appeal to NAP if you prefer it to rational egoism but the moral argument is necessary.

I’ve never said that Rand is the best person to quote, she evidently isn’t.

By: Richard Carey

Richard Carey — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:25:53 +0000

This is true, and then the tide turned, at least according to a somewhat optimistic Ernest Benn, writing in 1929 (don’t know if this helps, or hinders!) …

Students of the English language will in later years discover that about the beginning of the year 1927 the word ” Individualism” reappeared in the English vocabulary. For a year or more prior to that a little group of political” discontents” met on several occasions to discuss ways and means of dealing with the Collectivist mania then and now sweeping through human affairs. The problem was how to revive that sense of personal pride which threatened to desert the English character, of which it is the most precious part, and without which the glorious.history of Britain and of the British Empire would not have been written.

That little group, of which I was a member, hesitated long and thoughtfully before adopting the word” Individualist” as· a label. Strange as it may seem to~day, some of us demurred only as recently as two years ago even to breathe the word. It was objected against it that it was harsh, hard, materialistic, out of keeping with the popular notions of service and citizenship, and it was solemnly predicted that any movement so ticketed would be doomed to failure from the start. We played with “Freedom, ” “Liberty,” “Prosperity,” “Life,” and “Liberalism,” and many other symbols of our dominant thought were mooted. Then we took our courage in both hands, and, in spite of warnings that would have deterred men whose convictions were not so deeply rooted and unshakable, plumped for” Individualism.”

There are few who can now doubt·that the word is destined once· more in our history ·to ·serve as a weapon of victory, of victory over the forces and influences making for disruption and disintegration in our national life.”

http://library.mises.org/books/Sir%20Ernest%20Benn/The%20Return%20to%20Laisser%20Faire.pdf

By: Richard Carey

Richard Carey — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:16:40 +0000

I might add that if someone argues against individualism, you can always point out that the very act they are engaged in demonstrates that they are an individual, possessing reason, and possessing a unique perspective, i.e. they are contradicting themselves.

By: Right-Wing Hippy (@RightWingHippy)

Right-Wing Hippy (@RightWingHippy) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:12:40 +0000

That's an interesting point. There was a time when liberals* used to call themselves individualists; they switched to "liberal" for precisely this reason. "Individualism" is perhaps misleading, it's not really an -ism. The reason we have to stress the individual is that socialism (broadly) says there are no individuals, or that we should pretend that there aren't. It's absurd that this should be necessary, since autonomous individuals are an empirical fact, but we really really do. *libertarians