Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional? A Soho Forum Debate
Law professor Andrew Koppelman and Soho Forum director Gene Epstein debate whether libertarianism has been corrupted.
HD DownloadNorthwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman and Soho Forum director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Libertarianism has been thoroughly corrupted by delusion, greed, and disdain for the weak."
Taking the affirmative is Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and a professor of political science at Northwestern University. He received the Walder Award for Research Excellence from Northwestern, the Hart-Dworkin award in legal philosophy from the Association of American Law Schools, and the Edward S. Corwin Prize from the American Political Science Association. He has written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books, most recently Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy was corrupted by Delusion and Greed. You can find his recent work at andrewkoppelman.com.
Arguing for the negative is Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor of Barron's. He's the author of Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard Wolff has gained almost 6 million views on Youtube.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is it that no one remembers that Rand thought libertarians were nothing but dirty hippies?
Are butt sex and weed dirty hippie things? If so, she may have had a point.
I’m not judging either of those things.
I just think it’s a little odd that she’s the patron saint of hedonism.
hy
I essentially make about $7,000-$8,000 every month on the web. It’s sufficient to serenely supplant my old employments pay, particularly considering I just work around 10-13 hours every week from home. I was stunned how simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath web………..:) AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Apply Now Here————————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
If someone doesn’t value truth, what could they possibly have to say that anyone needs to hear?
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
I essentially make about $7,000-$8,000 every month on the web. It’s sufficient to serenely supplant my old employments pay, particularly considering I just work around 10-13 hours every week from home. I was stunned how simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath web………..:) AND GOOD LUCK.:)
>
>
>
Apply Now Here————->> http://Salarycash710.blogspot.Com
Koch / Reason libertarianism is a philosophy wholly dedicated to making its silver spoon billionaire sugar daddy even richer.
So, no, not greedy at all. 😉
That’s different because reasons.
Through manipulating government policy and the electorate. Totes libertarian!
ENVY, n. Emulation adapted to the meanest capacity. This is best exemplified by idolaters of Tricky Nignew's Looter Kleptocracy which subsidizes entrenched parasites yet leaves among the unimpoverished a few living admirers of freedom.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
.
Just Open This Website.................>>> http://www.works75.com
PEOPLE are selfish and delusional.
Socialists aren’t socialists because they have so much to give.
They are socialists because YOU have so much to give, preferably to them
It's funny because it's true.
In current American politics, someone is a socialist because a conservative doesn't like them and can't be bothered to understand the person's actual politics, so they just call them a socialist and call it a day.
And usually it's pretty close to the mark.
Greed is wanting more of something than is needed. Who decides what is "more than needed?" At least libertarians want to earn what they desire and keep what they have to use as they please. Every other political group wants to take material possessions from those who earned them, using armed agents, and use as the takers please. Whose greed is immoral?
Greed is wanting more of something than is needed. Who decides what is “more than needed?”
University academics at Northwestern, like Andrew Koppelman.
And Bernie Sanders. 3 pairs of shoes is plenty.
GREEDY, adj, Said of a person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
He has written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books, most recently Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy was corrupted by Delusion and Greed. You can find his recent work at andrewkoppelman.com.
Wow, there's an academic out there writing articles critical of libertarianism? Ok...
That's like writing four articles a day on Ron DeSantis or National Conservatism.
Arguing for the negative is Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor of Barron's.
Tell me Epstein was smart enough to rig the voting.
He was smart enough to blackmail Bill Gates to keep the lid on Gates banging a 15/16 year old Russian girl who looks like a cleaned up Greta...
Oh, not THAT Epstein.
Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional?
"I don't know what they're smokin', but I want some!" - Reason
Greedy and Delusional?
Nah, we're just irrelevant. Any academic that would spend time bashing us needs to find a better area of inquiry.
Libertarians aren’t greedy and selfish. Libertarians merely want their generosity to be the product of free will, as opposed to government coercion. Which is why libertarians and conservatives are truly generous, and leftists are generally greedy, conniving soulless things that virtue signal faux generosity, using other people’s resources.
BS.
Religious ethics tend to lead to empathy-driven generosity to others. Religious beliefs are correlated with political beliefs (specifically traditionalist churches with conservatism and militant atheists with Marxism) – but it is the religious ethic not the political – that drives either charitable giving or pro-bono time/volunteering. And the data affirms that.
Libertarians (self-identified) tend to be FAR less religious in either their ethics or their actions. I’ll go further than that. It ain’t just a tendency. Randians are mostly anti-religious. ‘Libertine’/cultural libertarians are, at best, uncomfortable with most religions. Paleos USE religion as a rationale for spouting off about what should happen – but it is a cynical manipulative use not a sincere belief. Purely anecdotal – but I have NEVER met a self-identifying libertarian who is in the ‘charity’ (or even social) realm. They don’t DO charity. They just talk about what others should do.
Libertarians in particular are very well-known for being almost reflexively autistic in their anti-social behavior. This is quite different from any 19th century or Toquevillean liberal. Modern libertarianism doesn’t derive from liberal. It derives from the egoism side of the egoism-altruism spectrum. From Comte, Nietzsche, Tucker, Rand.
I made it to "reflexively autistic" before catching on that you are just making shit up.
haha. Well it may be the incorrect term - but I worked with the Ron Paul crowd in 2008. Dale Carnegie is not on any libertarian reading list.
Carnegie should be. He made some good points on how to persuade people to help you voluntarily.
Talking about what others should do with their money is a lot better than taking other peoples’ money and deciding what to do with it for them.
And “thou shalt not steal” is a pretty basic religious tenet. It may even make the Top 10 list.
I'm more of the no taxation without representation than all taxation is theft school.
Problem is - we've spent 100 years losing our representation by freezing that house. So that house's 'generosity' is paid for by debt where everyone seems to agree that theft from the future is ok.
SOHO, acronym for Socialist Onanists Hostile to Objectivism. The 12th Edition of the Newspeak shortens the collective pronunciation to Sow Hos.
>>Taking the affirmative is Koppelman
fails on his possibly ugly face by grouping avowed individuals
One can have sympathy for "the weak" while at the same time believing that they are far outnumbered by "the lazy."
Libertarianism cannot be corrupted any more than socialism, capitalism or democracy can. I don't care you define any of the "isms" once you define them, they are what they are. Libertarians, democrats, socialists and capitalists can be corrupted. They can espouse practices that neither support nor are consistent with the philosophies they claim to believe in. People who claim a particular philosophy don't necessarily agree with each other on details.
Libertarianism is inherently a utopian philosophy, that is incompatible with human nature and behavior in large groups.
You can try to take specific libertarian ideas and ideals and apply them to create a better society (similar to the so-called "Scandanavian socialists"), but trying to apply the philosophy wholesale at-scale would be an unmitigated disaster.
So yeah, any libertarian/Libertarian who thinks it's a workable stand-alone government philosophy, rather then a "and also" government philosophy, is delusional.
As far as greedy goes? Well, that's not an inherent part of the philosophy, but y'all routinely run "greed is a virtue, actually" articles, so that seems an odd point to debate.
Granting massive power to a central ruling elite (whether democratically elected, inherited monarchically, or by a self-selected cabal of dreamers and climbers), and hoping for a good outcome is delusional as well.
Libertarians are realistic enough to not trust anyone with too much power.
Heh. Thanks for the laugh.
Disagree. Greed is NEVER a virtue. Whenever I see putative libertarian writers implying it, “greed” is almost always in quotation marks. The Randite variety sometimes revel in her unapologetic so-called objectivism, elevating Rearden and Galt to god-like status because they’re so much better than everyone else, but in fact what her heroic industrialists really espoused was doing the best you can with your abilities. Rearden could not have manufactured steel for an entire nation without competent people doing all the jobs he employed for the purpose. He could make only small amounts of steel much less efficiently for a small group of compadres without the other crafts and trades. But critics tend to want to grab on to one small flaw and run with it to make their points. None of her heroes were particularly greedy in her descriptions of them – just the opposite.
Delusional? Sure.
Greedy? Not hardly.
The greediest people are those who want to get their hands on other peoples' money without earning it or trading something of equal value for it -- progressives, communists, socialists, etc. being the worst offenders. They call the rich greedy, while plotting to take the cash the rich have earned by pleasing their customers or creating value for everyone.
Now do Marxists.
Rand-influenced libertarianism has a problem with selfishness and disdain for the weak, but her influence on the movement peaked in the 70s and 80s.
Right-libertarians generally (in the economic sense) tend to get caught in the tension between a libertarian recognition that actually existing markets aren't free and government privileges lead to a maldistribution of wealth and power, and the instinctive conservative urge to defend the current property distribution as more or less just. That's a significant departure from classical liberalism.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the "disdain for the weak" part of Rand-influenced libertarianism. Civilized people voluntarily take care of the sick and the weak - they don't have to be coerced into contributing by government authority. It is not selfish in any way to want to keep what you earned honestly. Admiration for the most competent does not automatically imply disdain for the less competent. I do not personally know anyone who espouses liberty and free market capitalism who disdains anyone except for people who could do better but don't try or who prefer to leech off of their productive fellows. In Rand's novels she portrays anyone who does their best to contribute as admirable, and only disdains those who try to claim that it's unfair to expect them to contribute.
Its really nice
Looking to read more!