The Voice of Reason

I am talking of the current Libertarian, not anarchist position, I keep seeing from Penn Jillette, Ran Paul, and others, (but I also see similar arguments from Molyneux, see his position on Israel) reasoning that concerns me. The idea keeps coming up that we should allow are economic and non-aggression values dictate how we deal with funding Israel, or whether we send troops to the Ukraine, etc. Though the morals and ideological arguments are consistent, they are also cause the arguer to ignore mitigating circumstances and many crucial details. That we should not fund or send troops to situation X is a foregone conclusion and so such details in favor of troops or funding are ignored, (I never see them brought up by Libertarians, and of course even less likely from anarchists). The data points that are used to justify the non-military funding or non-troop policy would have to be cherry picked, for example nasty things about Israel's government or military, while ignoring massive factors like Iranian nukes, Hamas' genocidal ambitions and the superior freedoms of Israel to any surrounding nation. In short, decisions are not made by balance of evidence and argument in each situation, but a one size fits all dogma. I am just keen to see if there are good counter arguments to my opinion on this. I am in the position of agreeing with the more hawkish conservatives, as they seem to take into account a higher percentage of the data, (ignoring their other dubious motives) while Liberals and Libertarians seem to use arguments like the narcissistic claim that such wars are just fought to bamboozle the American public, as if the rest of the world has no part to play. It's not all about the US gov, leaders or Public, other minds and ideologies have goals and great determination. I don't want to see Libertarians/anarchists resort to white washing Islam or Putin as the left are, just because conflict is so distasteful.

Here is a just quick example, there are other better sources I read in Uni. http://news.discovery.com/animals/chimps-share-110808.htm The idea is that these experiments are when a chimp denies themselves food to help another chimp they are not related to, showing self sacrifice is innate, and not a social/leadership doctrine, but a nature that groups/leaders exploit. Therefore "altruism" by Rands definition cannot be absolute evil, and must be included in the forms of caring allowed. Altruism must therefore be sub-divided into that which is innate or voluntary and that which is a tool of social or governmental evil. It's a semantic thing somewhat, but the term altruism and its definitions is such major part of Objectivism.

Hello, Philosopher from England here, I will be asking Molyneux 2 questions on the 28th concerning anarchy and its relation to altruism and US foreign policy, anyone interested in tackling them on this forum? I am an objectivist/individualist and I am attempting to gain a complete picture of the arguments for and against anarcho-Libertarianism and anarcho-Objectivism. Question 1. Do you think Ayn Rand's rejection of Altruism can no longer form part of Objectivist ethics given psychological research showing altruism is innate in primates? Is not such rejection oppressive? (she believed in the blank slate model, now debunked) Question 2. Is it sufficient to base a non-interventionist foreign policy on Libertarian reasoning and morals given the complexity of the world outside of the US, and the intentions of other nations leaders and countries not bound by the NAP? Why not go with what history seems to suggest and make strength and willingness to fight as a deterrent and responsiveness to events rather than a blanket policy as many conservatives recommend? I ask this second question as it seems the Libertarian foreign policy is a mirror of the Liberal one that consists of the ignorance of other cultures due to multiculturalism based complacency. Only this is a myopia due to principle rather than ideology, too much induction, not enough deduction.