Page 3 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


What do you think about libertarianism?
Libertarianism is an awesome political philosophy 35%  35%  [ 26 ]
Libertarianism is an alright political philosophy 17%  17%  [ 13 ]
Libertarianism is an internally inconsistent political philosophy 13%  13%  [ 10 ]
Libertarianism is a bad political philosophy 16%  16%  [ 12 ]
Libertarianism is an evil political philosophy 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
Libertarianism just is a political philosophy 13%  13%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 75

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

08 Aug 2008, 11:22 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Different political philosophies are most suitable for different types of people. For example, it is rare for a compassionate person to subscribe to libertarianism, and it is equally rare for an independent-minded individual to subscribe to communism or any other authoritarian ideology. Such individuals then extend the notion that what's most suiting for them should be the way the totality of society and government is organized. The fact that governments and social structures affect many people necessarily requires compromise to function maximally well for the most people.

Hmm. Yes. Why can't we all just come together and do things the Rawlsian liberalist way :wtg:.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Aug 2008, 11:28 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Different political philosophies are most suitable for different types of people. For example, it is rare for a compassionate person to subscribe to libertarianism, and it is equally rare for an independent-minded individual to subscribe to communism or any other authoritarian ideology. Such individuals then extend the notion that what's most suiting for them should be the way the totality of society and government is organized. The fact that governments and social structures affect many people necessarily requires compromise to function maximally well for the most people.

Well, who wouldn't? Frankly, the very notion of what a person wants is how they want society to work. Can you ever want something you do not want?

Why compromise? Screw the others, do what I want. I mean, after all, why is "maximally well" for others something that I would want a society to aspire to? Aren't you just presupposing utilitarianism or perhaps Rawlsianism in order to assert what you want from society and then pulling a little slight of hand to disguise that as well? Couldn't I then counter-argue that in order to function maximally well for most individuals, what needs to be done is maximization of neutrality, and thus argue that libertarianism is the most liberal(and thus neutral) society by striving to allow each individual to aspire to what they desire rather than seeking to impose external restrictions upon them? The fact of the matter is that compromise is in and of itself an ideology, for it is the democratic ideology, as opposed to a number of other rulership possibilities and other competing virtues.