It's one the major Chinese philosophies. basically it sees governing as a science and sees tradition, culture, and humanity as things that hold people back and impossible ideals. Morality as nothing more than a function of law and only handed down by law. That improving human kind through education, ethics, and compassion is useless and that it only happens when there is strong government, laws, policing, and harsh penalties. Partiality is a mistake and context has no bearing on matters. The core belief being that people are naturally evil and selfish and need to be controlled to act peacefully. that without strict control and harsh penalties the result will be social chaos and that humans are happiest and achieve their highest potential when controlled by legal processes.
Doesn't sound like something I'd like. Listen.. I've gotten through life being totally UN-ACQUAINTED with philosophy, and YOU pointed out the reasons WHY..
I'm not that knowledgeable on the various schools of philosophy. Legalism definitely sounds like garbage. My quick search took me to one of those quizzes to find out which school of thought I belong to, so I had to do it, of course. The result was Skepticism. It was only when I was immediately skeptical of the result that I realized that it was actually most likely correct.
Neither are Liberalism/Progressivism, Socialism, and Communism the same, yet that doesn't stop critics from equating them....
More seriously, I once (I think this was in the late 1990s) compared the "our philosphy" page at the Any Rand Institute with the party platform page of the US Libertarian Party. Except for the Libertarians purging the more noxious unpopular statements of Objectivsm (e.g. "We reject all forms of altruism"), the two were almost carbon copies of each other.
I know adherents of the two philosophies claim they are different, but in my experience they might as well be the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea. There is little practical difference in their worldviews or the social constructs they advocate.
You haven't read too much about them then. Libertarianism is a blanket term and the tenets much less specific than Objectivism. The basis of the USA and the Constitution is libertarian.
I honestly don't understand why people on both sides of the political isle have such a negative idea about libertarian thought. It's just a rejection of authoritarianism.
Objectivism has some libertarian thoughts to it but is much more rigid and a way to live by.
I'd actually have a discussion about it but you don't want to have one. It's obvious by your staunch smugness and egotism.
It's obvious you have a warped view that being on a libertarian scale translates to right wing which is not true. People who identify as such encompass both ends. It's a scale. None of those cartoons are even remotely accurate. What's so bad about it? Please explain. Sure it can go too far, but what can't? What's so evil about the basic premise about leaving people alone and minding each others business as long as they aren't hurting anyone with their direct actions?
@Glis -- We could have that discussion. I've probably had more discussions about Objectivism/Libertarianism than you've had hot dinners...which is why I mostly poke fun at them now....;-D...
I could go into detail, but I'll try to sum up the central logical flaw of that branch of philosophy.
It asserts rational autonomous human beings being allowed to freely choose their own actions produces the greatest good for all. The problem with that assertion is it PRESUPPOSES rational autonomous human beings. It does NOT provide a mechanism to create them.
A human being asserting rational autonomy from birth only has the ability to die of starvation, predation, or exposure. It requires a SOCIETY to raise, feed, educate, and socialize a person to give him or her the capability to become something like a rational autonomous person. Yet Objectivists/Libertarians seek to DISMANTLE societal structures which have shown through history can produce the kind of people who can contemplate their philosophy, without being able to show their philosophy will produce social structures which will create rational autonomous people.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
If you want to talk about narrower aspects (such as your nonsensical assertion the Constitution is a libertarian document), we can discuss that, too.
Please do. I would love to hear that since it's objectives in it are exactly the same as most libertarian objectives are. Once again you're assuming all libertarian thought is objectivism so i understand the confusion. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying socialism is the same as Maoism.
@Glis -- Reallly? It's a Libertarian objective to have a government exclusively of White Male Christian Property/Slave Owners?
That IS news to me. Please elucidate on this concept...;-D...
Of course, some people have suspected that was the case all along...;-D...
"Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"
Pure nonsense. You are conflating all kinds of different ideas together. Only the lunatic anarchist fringe behave as you describe.
Even anarchists are not individualistic to the point of isolationism. All political and economic systems work by human cooperation. The question is merely how that cooperation should be structured.
"If you want to talk about narrower aspects (such as your nonsensical assertion the Constitution is a libertarian document), we can discuss that, too."
Once again you can't see the difference between society and the state. Constitution law is libertarian in the sense that it protects the liberty of the people by constraining the powers of the state.
Just as I have always been the odd-shaped peg that never fit into any of the round or square or whatever-shaped stereotypes others wished to peg me into, I have found that I never wholly agree with any philosophical, religious, political or any other belief system. I have studied many and have come to the conclusion that I am good with my own system of beliefs, which I come by honestly, impose upon no one and am willing to adjust should I find proof it is warranted.
I don't put much stock into positive thinking or the law of attraction. My MIL believed in that to the point of being really annoying to other people. Saying something bad happened to you is really all your fault because you secretly wanted it to happen just sounds really snotty. My hubby says she's finally giving up on it because she didn't have enough denial of bad things happening to actually make it work for her.
If what you believe is what happens then the Titanic wouldn't have sank. People believed it was unsinkable.
It is based on a misquote of Darvin, frequently made by people who dont comprehend evolution. The proper quote is "survival of the fittest" and that is a lot more diverse and many faceted than mere strength.
I agree. This misinterpretation of that aphorism I find is rather irksome. I always think it's one of the most dangerous extrapolations of evolutionary theory, giving licence to all sorts of unpleasant behaviours.
Benedict Arnold 