Debate:Is libertarianism just ethical egoism repackaged?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Radioactive afikomen.

I bring this up for debate because of a comment made by John Stossel in his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "Helping the poor should be a matter of choice. If you want to donate to charities, that's all well and fine, but don't force me to with Social Security." At the time it struck me as sounding suspiciously like ethical egoism. Thoughts? — Unsigned, by: Radioactive afikomen / talk / contribs

I'm not sure how much "repackaging" is involved. I know that at the very least Randian libertarians explicitly embrace ethical egoism. Some others instead philosophically believe that any degree of coercion is unethical, and therefore while people should be altruistic, it is not acceptable to force altruism. That moves further away from the ethical egoism though. Researcher 17:59, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Well, it's repackaged in the sense that they're calling libertarianism rather than ethical egoism. Do you think ultra-right-wing militant groups would espouse belief in it if it was called "ethical egoism"? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:05, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Ted Honderich wrote a book on Conservatism in which he concluded that right wing theories are just excuses to be selfish. I agree. Certainly libertarianism in the philosophical rather than economic sense isn't an intellectual endeavour. Bil08 12:52, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I also believe anyone who disagrees with me has immoral motives. Why else would they disagree with me?CarwreCk 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Pushed far enough pure Libertarianism has a large factor of egotism if that person only takes into account the cost of the government in the term of taxation, and wants to get moral justification in acting "selfishly". Very few people would say that pure libertarians act within their own best interest when they rail against things that help them. Just say your average middle aged person who rails against the evils of taxation for government spending. Which would mean that his prescription drugs could now contain anything (toxic or doesn't work), his bank could fail due to operational risk (taking out all his money), or being poisoned due to lack of regulation in what is in his drinking water. At no point is this acting in one's own self interest from an outside observer, unless that person has massive brain damage. ~ Subsound ~ 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)