May 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

« How to Recognize Different Types of Callings (From Quite a Long Way Away) | Main | Case Selection in Qualitative Research in Political Economy »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm curious - but I see nothing on the site. Addressing the issue where?

It was his lecture, I believe he discusses this in his work on justificatory liberalism.

btw, is the book out?

Frank Chodorov once wrote, in his book, "One is a Crowd" (1952) that the purpose of teaching individualism was not make individualists, but to find them.

Any thoughts by any one on this?

Richard Ebeling

If we use only those Economics Nobel Laureates who wrote on freedom--Buchanan, Friedman, Hayek, and Sen--then from their assembled works freedom is confirmed to be a separate and distinct philosophy, not merely a 'theory' of political or economic discourse.

As for whether libertarianism is only for the self-directed: definitely not. Freedom is but the manifestation by one of two primal bio-psychologies, inherent in every human being. It's just that one or the other of the two is usually dominant, so that if we develop, quite naturally, the psychological identity of a fallibilist--as opposed to a libertarian's improvabilist--then we become more pacifist than freedomist, more distrustful of human nature than trusting of basic human nature.
The improvabilist fervently believes in self-direction, but even the most ardent fallibilist reluctantly recognizes the internal intellectual appeal of self-direction in his more honest moments.

And as for Stanley Benn; glad to hear of him. No philosopher at any university in Australia has ever recommended any of Dr. Benn's work for inclusion on the website for the Philosophy of Human Rights. We'll buy and read his book, and give it respectful consideration for listing on the Philohr website.

Or, libertarianism is the political structure that creates the most self-directed individuals.

What goes into making a personality is complex and I doubt we can control the process. We need to accept that most people will not be indivialists or self-directing. However, it does not follow that the state should do the directing. There are a lot of people and institutions who can fill the role much better than the state.

For example, few people feel confident enough in their understanding of finances to direct their own investments. But their only option isn't government bonds. That's why we have investment advisers and mutual funds.

A free society naturally creates the institutions to direct people who aren't self-directed and don't want to be. There is no need for the state to do it.


Great, I will check it out.

I am actually finishing up a paper that relates to this subject--I argue that although collectivism turns dystopian on a large scale, the pure market forces individualism, which some would prefer to avoid, and collectivism can work on a small scale (e.g., hippie commune). So, socialists should focus on small scale socialism within a larger property superstructure.

Hence, my answer: Not really, when properly understood. It *is* primarily for self-directed individualists, but individuals can create alternatives within the private property society.

As for my book: thanks for asking. I am waiting for my advance copies, which have been held up due to a couple of formatting errors which are being corrected. Hopefully I will have them within a week or two--and you will be among the first to know, don't worry!

I think 'libertarian' is used in an analytical sense, contrasted with 'egalitarian' and other labels. A reductio, 'Libertarianism' may therefore be for self-directed individuals only. But *classical liberalism* is a theory for self-directed individuals as well as their moral community (which includes those who lack self-direction). Such nuance, lamentably, is not afforded in analytical philosophical discussions.

I don't think personal individualism is firmly linked to any political philosophy. I'm not that personally individualistic.

Some of us individually constitute bigger "crowds" than others, :-).

The comments to this entry are closed.