Libertarian Objectivist differences - Page 6

DanishDynamite · #51 (**permalink**) 06-27-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteAugustusGermanicus

why are you stealing my arguments? are you my 'secret sharer'?

Have you made any similar arguments? I wasn't aware, but good for you.

DanishDynamite · #52 (**permalink**) 06-27-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio

I disagree. I think that human nature, like ideology, isn't set in stone, but is something that can grow and evolve. There are certain aspects of us which will never go away, like our desire to eat and have sex. However, I think as a society we can become more altruistic than we are now.

Human nature is set in stone. At least as far as one human lifetime, Or 10. Or 100. At a 1000 human life spans, however, it may have changed slightly. Evolution takes time, you know.

That being said, human nature currently includes a need to be selfish and a need to be altruistic. A need to be peaceful and a need to be agressive. A need to be part of a group and a need to be a loner.

Human nature encompasses all these apparent contradictions, each to a different degree in each individual, and each to a different degree at any particular time in each individual.

Quote:

Right now, our human nature definitely veers more towards the pure pursuit of self-interest, and that is why ideologies which assume human nature is eternally selfish tend to be more attractive to realists. However, I think that ideology can affect human nature just as much as human nature affects ideology. There is no denying that the majority of people in this world pursue their own interests and nothing else. However, there is also no denying that a good portion (surprisingly large) dedicate their lives to acts of altruism and to the benefit of humankind. To me, the fact that these people exist, and that there are more of them now than ever before, gives me hope that this kind of altruism may one day be second nature to us.

So, where lackluster sees 'idealism' and probably naivete, I see hope. A bit cheesy, but hey.

No person can dedicate his/her life to altruism unless said person's daily needs are already covered. Only if your daily needs are already covered can you of course choose to dedicate your life to whatever you wish.

DanishDynamite · #53 (**permalink**) 06-27-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

If you rationalize enough, you can make even those people "selfish". They most likely do it because it makes them feel good or because it keeps them from feeling guilty (unusual, since this is usually an afterthought), or even due to instinct.

I just think stretching "selfishness" that far is a bit too much. People do die to help others, presumably for believing there is a greater good than themselves or that they would feel very guilty if they did not... I can't call that "selfish".

There was a study a while back suggesting altruism has some kind of biological origin. Seems connected somewhat to empathy.
They've found that people who act altruistically are more able to accurately detect fear in a person by looking. By contrast those who hurt others for gain may lack the ability to make this distinction.
Apparently noticing fear in a person triggers merc and compassion in most normal human beings, causing them to give up some gain for the benefit of another.

Also keep in mind that "group evolution" is returning to mainstream science as a theory. Shermer talks about it quite a bit in his book. People may very well, though not equally, pass on things like altruism because ultimately altruism does preserve the group and thus the offspring. Since it gains respect in most communities it may also lead to reproductive success for the individual and the protection of those individuals by members of the group who see their value.

Altruism is part of the human nature as is collectivism. Rand denied their place in human nature so that she could see only one side of the coin.

I suspect the source of altruism is more in the nature of what Richard Dawkins I believe touched on in his book The Selfish Gene. Our mindset, our human nature if you will, was determined by our ancestors 50 - 100 thousand years ago. Why might it have been a good idea to be altruistic back then? Why might it have been an evolutionary advantage? Well, the reason is people back then lived in small tribes, small communities. And anyone you were likely to meet in such a tribe was either a relative or someone you were likely to meet again and again in your life. Hence, helping out someone else meant helping out a relative (who would have some of your genes) or helping out someone who would be in a position to likewise help you out in the future, because you were afterall going to run into each other again, and again, and again throughout your lifetimes.

I would write more, but I think we have strayed quite a bit from the OP.

So, where are all those Libertarians?

Giorgio · #54 (**permalink**) 06-29-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Human nature is set in stone. At least as far as one human lifetime, Or 10. Or 100. At a 1000 human life spans, however, it may have changed slightly. Evolution takes time, you know.

That being said, human nature currently includes a need to be selfish and a need to be altruistic. A need to be peaceful and a need to be agressive. A need to be part of a group and a need to be a loner.

Human nature encompasses all these apparent contradictions, each to a different degree in each individual, and each to a different degree at any particular time in each individual.

No person can dedicate his/her life to altruism unless said person's daily needs are already covered. Only if your daily needs are already covered can you of course choose to dedicate your life to whatever you wish.

I agree that for the most part all these elements are present in everyone, and that no one is 100% altruistic. But I still feel that there is a structural/social element to it all. There are cultures in which there is simply more altruism than is seen elsewhere. I'm in Japan right now on holiday, and it may not be big things, but there are dozens of little courtesies that are shown that I've never seen anywhere else. Not wanting to get anecdotal, but a train attendant helped me get to the right train and let me off my fine for taking the wrong train since I couldn't have known, and he did this even though I couldn't really communicate with him! I'm sure all of us have experienced this kind of awesome kindness, and I think you can create a society where that is more prevalent than it is right now.

After all, I think we can accept that society in general (in rich countries) is less cut-throat and more civilised now than it was during the Dark Ages or Middle Ages, and that wasn't long enough ago for the change to have been evolutionary. These changes were social, in my view. More pervasive police forces, less xenophobia, more multi-culturalism, less absolute poverty, all these things create a more amenable society to live in.

As to your last statement, I'm not envisioning a village where every guy is a Gandhi and every girl is a Mother Teresa. I don't want to deny people their daily needs. I just think there's more hope for altruism than we currently see.

Also, can you imagine what Gandhi and Mother Teresa's kids would look like?

DanishDynamite · #55 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio

I agree that for the most part all these elements are present in everyone, and that no one is 100% altruistic. But I still feel that there is a structural/social element to it all. There are cultures in which there is simply more altruism than is seen elsewhere. I'm in Japan right now on holiday, and it may not be big things, but there are dozens of little courtesies that are shown that I've never seen anywhere else. Not wanting to get anecdotal, but a train attendant helped me get to the right train and let me off my fine for taking the wrong train since I couldn't have known, and he did this even though I couldn't really communicate with him! I'm sure all of us have experienced this kind of awesome kindness, and I think you can create a society where that is more prevalent than it is right now.

Exaggerated courtesy, as we in the West see it, is part of Japanese culture. I don't see the connection with altruism?

Quote:

After all, I think we can accept that society in general (in rich countries) is less cut-throat and more civilised now than it was during the Dark Ages or Middle Ages, and that wasn't long enough ago for the change to have been evolutionary. These changes were social, in my view. More pervasive police forces, less xenophobia, more multi-culturalism, less absolute poverty, all these things create a more amenable society to live in.

These changes were indeed social, I agree completely.

My point previously was made in regard to the nature of altruism.

Quote:

As to your last statement, I'm not envisioning a village where every guy is a Gandhi and every girl is a Mother Teresa. I don't want to deny people their daily needs. I just think there's more hope for altruism than we currently see.

Also, can you imagine what Gandhi and Mother Teresa's kids would look like?

An offside, I admit, but have you read Christopher Hitchens' book regarding Mother Teresa?

It severely contadicts the current western view of Mother Teresa as a good person, let alone a saint.

DanishDynamite · #56 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 05:09 PM

Now, back on topic: Any Libertarian here?

SpankyTheWhale · #57 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Now, back on topic: Any Libertarian here?

What's up?

JavaBlack · #58 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio

As to your last statement, I'm not envisioning a village where every guy is a Gandhi and every girl is a Mother Teresa. I don't want to deny people their daily needs. I just think there's more hope for altruism than we currently see.

Well, if that is the case libertarianism is unlikely to help.
Real altruism is rare. People help others... but mostly when it gains them more than they'd lose (ie. "I can spare a few bucks and it will make me feel good", "I depend on these people so they must be able to depend on me").

The "few bucks" thing works to a limited extent but is dependent on a person's empathy to the cause, the visibility of the cause, and the amount of trouble involved in giving. Plus it is not likely to raise enough... Any cause realistically must involve some overhead- someone takes it on as a full-time job... sure, maybe willing to take a miniscule salary for the amount of work done... but someone is making a living. And charitable donations are unpredictable.

The interdependence thing is dependent on a sense of community. I hate to tell you, but that's not coming back. Bringing that back would be akin to becoming a socialist state, breaking down and isolating our economy, disrupting the mobility (and to some extent freedom) of workers, and overall lessening our productivity and quality of life... albeit we would gain in certain areas of life quality... basically what's missing now.

The fact is... for altruism to work, you have to get non-altruists to support the altruists. That was natural in tribal society. Doesn't work so well in post-industrial society.

sunnyside · #59 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 05:38 AM

There is some wisdom in what Javablack wrote there.

But the idea that someone donating "Gains more than they lose" just because they aren't being a greedy son of a Libertarian/Objectivist b^%(h .

The premise that they're coming out ahead because it makes them feel good, or perhaps because not giving in such a situation would make them feel bad is just BS. Apperantly we need to evolve past any empathy in order to embrace these higher philosophies.

Really it's just a way to rationalize being a jerk without having to admit that there are other people who are not jerks.

I'm not really a stateist. But for some reason that just really makes me want to oppress the heck out of these people.

I suppose that actually might be a valid reason to be concerned about altruisic type people. Collectively they can start getting it into their heads that they're tired of doing all the giving when others sit on all their money. Expecially when actively insulted for it.

Jim Profit · #60 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Libertarianism is like Marxism. It sounds good on paper.

Both are of course equally deluded.

Tell me, Libertarians, how is original ownership of land established? And do you really feel, like your previous "presidential candidate" that anyone should have the right to have nuclear arms?

I'd be glad to answer these questions as a libertarian.

How is original ownership of land established?
Capitalism was an evolving thing, we didn't just wakeup one morning and decide to trade via currency. We built-up to it. In the most earliest stages of human development, families (or herds if that makes you feel more comfortable) would fortify land and declare it as their own for safety and shelter. This land we commonly call "territory" and exists for most if not all animals. All species naturally create territory for themselves and fight to keep it. Thus ownership of land did not need to be established, it simply was in our nature..

Should anyone have a right to nuclear arms?
Yes I believe so. I know how to develop a nuke. Though do you honestly think I'd be willing to put my life in-danger creating one? Much less I can't simply waltz into Wal-Mart and find purified uranium. It's not practical to develop nukes for personal use. But a well established private militia should feel free to develop them. People don't just throw nukes down for the hell of it. Obviously we only attack others when we feel threatened. Again, natural instinct...

Libertarianism is the most natural human state we could hope for short of pure anarchy.. The more regulation and laws we have, the more we distance ourselves from our natural state..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Striking differences over Kosovo	AmusedToDeath	Political Opinions & Beliefs	4	02-25-2008 12:33 AM
10 Differences Between Conservatives & Liberals	BoogiePeople	Political Opinions & Beliefs	36	05-05-2007 02:17 PM
Libertarian or Left-Libertarian?	ForceoftheTruth	Political Opinions & Beliefs	16	09-13-2006 11:58 AM
Defining Ideological Differences	ElLider	Political Opinions & Beliefs	3	11-26-2004 09:02 PM
Differences Between Bush & Kerry	JP5	Elections & Campaigns	9	10-21-2004 02:52 PM