Tag: Utilitarianism

1349: Ron Paul – Moral Commitment to Liberty

W1349: Ron Paul – Moral Commitment to Liberty
Those whose libertarianism is based on utilitarianism are oftentimes willing to sacrifice liberty in a doomed attempt to achieve an important goal. In contrast, those with a moral commitment to liberty are unlikely to betray liberty by endorsing government force. —Ron Paul
Those whose libertarianism is based on utilitarianism are oftentimes willing to sacrifice liberty in a doomed attempt to achieve an important goal. In contrast, those with a moral commitment to liberty are unlikely to betray liberty by endorsing government force. —Ron PaulDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 4.15MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 240KB
Those whose libertarianism is based on utilitarianism are oftentimes willing to sacrifice liberty in a doomed attempt to achieve an important goal. In contrast, those with a moral commitment to liberty are unlikely to betray liberty by endorsing government force. —Ron PaulDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 6.10MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 298KB

Those whose libertarianism is based on utilitarianism are oftentimes willing to sacrifice liberty in a doomed attempt to achieve an important goal. In contrast, those with a moral commitment to liberty are unlikely to betray liberty by endorsing government force. —Ron Paul

1303: Robert Weir – The Whip Itself

F1303: Robert Weir - The Whip Itself
The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)
The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)Download Print Quality (6146×7680) 817KB  |  Normal Quality (3073×3840) 694KB

The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)

The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)Download Print Quality (774KB)
Normal Quality (765KB)

The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)

1137: Caryn Ann Harlos – Don’t Sell Your Principles for Fickle Votes

W1137: Caryn Ann Harlos - Don't Sell Your Principles for Fickle Votes
There is something wrong with treating libertarian principles like a cheap whore to be sold for fickle votes. —Caryn Ann Harlos
There is something wrong with treating libertarian principles like a cheap whore to be sold for fickle votes. —Caryn Ann HarlosDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 2.05MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 188KB
There is something wrong with treating libertarian principles like a cheap whore to be sold for fickle votes. —Caryn Ann HarlosDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 2.55MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 233KB

There is something wrong with treating libertarian principles like a cheap whore to be sold for fickle votes. —Caryn Ann Harlos

1094: Murray Rothbard – There are No Utilitarian Revolutionaries

F1094: Murray Rothbard - No Utilitarian Revolutionaries
It is rare to find a utilitarian who is also radical, who burns for immediate abolition of evil and coercion. Utilitarians, with their devotion to expediency, almost inevitably oppose any sort of upsetting or radical change. Hence, utilitarians are never immediate abolitionists. They became mere gradualist reformers. But in becoming reformers, they also put themselves inevitably into the position of advisers and efficiency experts to the State. In other words, they inevitably came to abandon libertarian principle as well as a principled libertarian strategy. The utilitarians wound up as apologists for the existing order, for the status quo. Thus, they wound up as the image of the thing they had fought. —Murray Rothbard (For a New Liberty)
It is rare to find a utilitarian who is also radical, who burns for immediate abolition of evil and coercion. Utilitarians, with their devotion to expediency, almost inevitably oppose any sort of upsetting or radical change. Hence, utilitarians are never immediate abolitionists. They became mere gradualist reformers. But in becoming reformers, they also put themselves inevitably into the position of advisers and efficiency experts to the State. In other words, they inevitably came to abandon libertarian principle as well as a principled libertarian strategy. The utilitarians wound up as apologists for the existing order, for the status quo. Thus, they wound up as the image of the thing they had fought. —Murray Rothbard (For a New Liberty)