I think that's pretty naive of you to describe the Declaration of Independence as a "Libertarian manifesto", when it is in actuality and historically nothing of the sort. It is virtually devoid of political ideology.
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
Quote:
As for the subject at hand, I quote: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The inherent nature of man is not good, which is why governments/bureaucracies invariably go down the road described above.
Your argument is disconnected. The quote you submitted, which feels like a line out of a Rand essay, has nothing to do with the nature of man. But if you like Rand, consider the heros of her novels. They are all unadulterated characters, and there's a strong thematic suggestion that evilness is bred from collectivism, a system unnatural to the nature of man. Her heros are those that haven't lost their birthrights. IIRC there's a good portion of Atlas Shrugged that details the gradual perversion of children.
Incidentally, Rand also wrote an essay of the nature of money which I can dig up for you if you'd like. The premise is simple: money is good because it's an abstraction of work and trade among honest individuals, and honest individuals are good. If you don't consider an infant to be an honest individual, the whole system breaks down.
But Rand mixed in a lot of personal views in her works, which separates her general philosophy with Libertarianism. Rand disdained religion, like you. Libertarianism is more peaceful, and it disdains no excercise of civil liberty.
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
Right. Good post, Splinemodel.
I would only add a couple of things: 1) in the 18th and 19th centuries, "liberalism" was what we would now call "conservative," insofar as it was essentially a kind of Smithian classical capitalism applied to most segments of life. JS Mill, for instance, that darling of the modern conservaties, was a "liberal." 2) Sometime in the very late 19th century (I believe. I've never been able to wrap my brain around when [although I have my own suspicions about why] the flip happened) what we think of as liberal became associated with labor movements and public welfare (at least in England). America, I believe, lagged behind on this.
But to say that the D of I and the US Constitution are devoid of political agenda or ideology is, frankly, ludicrous, considering that they are both documents that challenge the status quo of an aristocratic and non-democratic society, make arguments about the proper relationship between the individual and the state that were, at that point, quite radical, and establish a model for government that divorces it from traditional religious allegiances (or burdens, however you want to look at it).
If they do anything, they are the only political documents of the c18 to effectively codify the politics of the late 18th-century English Enlightenment, and are, as you rightly point out, "liberal" (i.e. fundamentally libertarian) to the core.
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Try the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
Now that you're done grasping at straws, I will remind you that you referred to the Declaration of Independence as "perhaps the most significant Libertarian manifesto ever written".
Quote:
Your argument is disconnected. The quote you submitted, which feels like a line out of a Rand essay, has nothing to do with the nature of man.
Actually, it's from your beloved Declaration of Independence, and if you had paid attention you would understand what it has to do with the nature of man, as well as the general spirit of the entire Declaration which it conveys.
Fortunately, Rand's objectivism is very compatible with Jeffersonian democratic republicanism that any mistaken connections don't really pose any problems. It has been a long time since I've read either, and I'm not perfect.
The Consitution is not a manifesto, so on principle it can't be the most important Libertarian manifesto.
Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke. John Locke wrote pages and pages about the nature of man, that it was good, and how that justified everything else he wrote. The Declaration of Independence is something of a summary of Locke's contribution to political theory. While it doesn't make direct reference to the nature of man that I can recall -- it is short -- it can't be vindicated without referring to the source that inspired it.
While the two philosophies are similar (Rand's and the general case of libertarianism), they are markedly different in their treatment of groups versus individuals and the importance of both.
Comments
Originally posted by Ganondorf
I think that's pretty naive of you to describe the Declaration of Independence as a "Libertarian manifesto", when it is in actuality and historically nothing of the sort. It is virtually devoid of political ideology.
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
As for the subject at hand, I quote: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The inherent nature of man is not good, which is why governments/bureaucracies invariably go down the road described above.
Your argument is disconnected. The quote you submitted, which feels like a line out of a Rand essay, has nothing to do with the nature of man. But if you like Rand, consider the heros of her novels. They are all unadulterated characters, and there's a strong thematic suggestion that evilness is bred from collectivism, a system unnatural to the nature of man. Her heros are those that haven't lost their birthrights. IIRC there's a good portion of Atlas Shrugged that details the gradual perversion of children.
Incidentally, Rand also wrote an essay of the nature of money which I can dig up for you if you'd like. The premise is simple: money is good because it's an abstraction of work and trade among honest individuals, and honest individuals are good. If you don't consider an infant to be an honest individual, the whole system breaks down.
But Rand mixed in a lot of personal views in her works, which separates her general philosophy with Libertarianism. Rand disdained religion, like you. Libertarianism is more peaceful, and it disdains no excercise of civil liberty.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
Right. Good post, Splinemodel.
I would only add a couple of things: 1) in the 18th and 19th centuries, "liberalism" was what we would now call "conservative," insofar as it was essentially a kind of Smithian classical capitalism applied to most segments of life. JS Mill, for instance, that darling of the modern conservaties, was a "liberal." 2) Sometime in the very late 19th century (I believe. I've never been able to wrap my brain around when [although I have my own suspicions about why] the flip happened) what we think of as liberal became associated with labor movements and public welfare (at least in England). America, I believe, lagged behind on this.
But to say that the D of I and the US Constitution are devoid of political agenda or ideology is, frankly, ludicrous, considering that they are both documents that challenge the status quo of an aristocratic and non-democratic society, make arguments about the proper relationship between the individual and the state that were, at that point, quite radical, and establish a model for government that divorces it from traditional religious allegiances (or burdens, however you want to look at it).
If they do anything, they are the only political documents of the c18 to effectively codify the politics of the late 18th-century English Enlightenment, and are, as you rightly point out, "liberal" (i.e. fundamentally libertarian) to the core.
Again, Splinemodel, excellent post.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think it's pretty naive of you to be posting. To be a libertarian is not to be an "Anar-kid." If you can think of another document that has a libertarian feel to it that has had more impact on the world, please tell.
Try the U.S. Constitution.
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That covers private property and civil liberties pretty thoroughly. Since a Libertarian is most respects a neo-18th century liberal it would follow that the most pivotal works of 18th century liberals are indeed cannonical to the libertarian agenda.
Now that you're done grasping at straws, I will remind you that you referred to the Declaration of Independence as "perhaps the most significant Libertarian manifesto ever written".
Your argument is disconnected. The quote you submitted, which feels like a line out of a Rand essay, has nothing to do with the nature of man.
Actually, it's from your beloved Declaration of Independence, and if you had paid attention you would understand what it has to do with the nature of man, as well as the general spirit of the entire Declaration which it conveys.
The Consitution is not a manifesto, so on principle it can't be the most important Libertarian manifesto.
Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke. John Locke wrote pages and pages about the nature of man, that it was good, and how that justified everything else he wrote. The Declaration of Independence is something of a summary of Locke's contribution to political theory. While it doesn't make direct reference to the nature of man that I can recall -- it is short -- it can't be vindicated without referring to the source that inspired it.