Libertarianism = disguised social darwinism

Post Reply New Topic

Not all libertarians are social Darwinists.

A social Darwinist would not support private charity.

it isn't implied that libertarians would either.

Rand despised all gestures of altruism, no matter how small or tokenistic.

Didn't stop her claiming state welfare towards the end, though.

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such."

--Ayn Rand

Took about thirty seconds to find that at aynrandlexicon.com. Research isn't your strong point, is it?

P.S. Libertarians and Objectivists are not the same thing at all.

"Getting back your money from government" is consistent with Libertarianism ...

I think Libertarianism is based on a simple truth - humans are greedy, lazy and cannot be trusted - even when they wear government outfits - they still cannot be trusted - so don't trust them.

The question only presents as a dichotomy when it is discussed amongst ideologues. Unless you are an anarchist or in favor of a fully planned economy, the matter is one of balance. So I reject the implication that libertarianism equals Social Darwinism. Libertarianism, at least to me, is not an ideology, it is a suggested answer for a particular problem. For me to even begin to evaluate it, I need to know what it is being applied to. Libertarianism, as I have opined previously, offers no real answer to many issues in the world today, such as racism or other forms of social disadvantage that are structural, even when government is minimal, so I don't feel any particular warmth for it. However, there are problems that should be solved by less government, particularly with regards to privacy. I don't see how a libertarian view of privacy is Social Darwinism. So I just place it into a solutions toolbox to be used to unpack problems and suggest solutions.

Politicians might be evil, but they aren't the people spending most of the money.