16th July 2015, 8:53 AM
I flirted with that philosophy, but the biggest issue is that it ignores that people don't start out on equal footing. In the real world, some people are born into incredible wealth, and others are born into utter destitution, and nothing about that sort of negative freedom (freedom from certain actions) actually does anything about this situation at all. Further, in common practice, most that hold this philosophy naively believe that it's possible for ANYONE to become a billionaire from nothing with enough hard work, ignoring the simple fact that the majority of cases where that actually happens depend on an immense amount of sheer luck, for just the right circumstances to present themselves to ALLOW them to get that chance.
I also had to abandon it because technically a stringent application of that philosophy means parents shouldn't be obligated to take care of their own children and should be allowed to abandon them in the woods should the mood strike them.
However, consider this. In a libertarian (or objectivist if you want to go hardcore) world, every interaction is basically "trade". It seems to me a contradiction to say that a landlord should have full right to evict anyone based on any demand they so wish, but at the same time the government demanding anything of citizens is automatically unfair. Look at it from this point of view for a moment. Let's say every bit of land on earth is now owned by a corporation. No matter what you do, no matter where you go, you are on SOMEONE'S property. You've got to pay SOMEONE for the right to stay put, or you'll eventually be shot for trespassing. Now, my point is, governments can be seen through this philosophy AS these companies. Every bit of land on earth (aside from the completely inhospitable areas) is owned by some government. Why not say that "America" as a concept is in fact a big business, free to do what they like with their own land, and taxes are basically your rent. Heck, I'd say libertarianism DEMANDS this point of view, that the distinction between land owner and government is arbitrary, an accident of history. In fact, applying libertarian philosophy to governments (if they are seen as land owning governments with full libertarian rights as land owners) would essentially create a dictatorship.
I also had to abandon it because technically a stringent application of that philosophy means parents shouldn't be obligated to take care of their own children and should be allowed to abandon them in the woods should the mood strike them.
However, consider this. In a libertarian (or objectivist if you want to go hardcore) world, every interaction is basically "trade". It seems to me a contradiction to say that a landlord should have full right to evict anyone based on any demand they so wish, but at the same time the government demanding anything of citizens is automatically unfair. Look at it from this point of view for a moment. Let's say every bit of land on earth is now owned by a corporation. No matter what you do, no matter where you go, you are on SOMEONE'S property. You've got to pay SOMEONE for the right to stay put, or you'll eventually be shot for trespassing. Now, my point is, governments can be seen through this philosophy AS these companies. Every bit of land on earth (aside from the completely inhospitable areas) is owned by some government. Why not say that "America" as a concept is in fact a big business, free to do what they like with their own land, and taxes are basically your rent. Heck, I'd say libertarianism DEMANDS this point of view, that the distinction between land owner and government is arbitrary, an accident of history. In fact, applying libertarian philosophy to governments (if they are seen as land owning governments with full libertarian rights as land owners) would essentially create a dictatorship.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)