Libertarian social profile (from Digest)

[Daniel Davis]

I get to disagree with Sid and Svein Olav in one post. What a rare treat!

I'd say egoism is compatible with just about any political X. You could be a 
monarchist, a communist, an anarchist. You could have just about any political 
preference and still be an egoist.

And while there are different ways to "be an X" politically, having a preference 
for X qualifies in my book, and I consider it the relevant distinction. As a 
matter of course, most Xs will not be egoists just because there are few 
egoists; they'll be Xs for some idealist reason. The world is full of crazies; 
if their craziness furthers the X I prefer, I'll take it. Beats a sharp stick in 
the eye.

I'm trying to dredge it up in my mind, but didn't someone else in the sacred 
scrolls make the point opposite of Sid, that egoism was compatible with any 
political X? 


Marsden has "a tub for Diogenes: a continent for Napoleon: control of a trust 
for a Rockefeller:
all that I desire for me: if we can get them." This isn't really the one I was 
thinking of. I thought someone mentioned monarchist or monarchism as a 
possibility for an egoist.


Buy Buy -- Dan Davis



> From: Svein Olav Nyberg <i at i-studies.com>
> 
> That was Sid Parker's contention as well. In fact, he said you 
> couldn't be an egoist and an X regardless which political ideology X 
> you pointed to...
> 
> But then there's a difference between "being" an X, and
> 2. having *preferences* one way or the other (I prefer living in a 
> secular country to living under sharia)