I've already responded to your original statement adequately enough.
I said that although you are right that libertarians do not seek to improve the status of the middle/upper classes, they do realize that the lower classes wouldn't reap the same benefits under classical liberalism as they would under welfare capitalism or socialism.
As for your other 'original' statement, that utilitarians would favor breaking basic individual rights if an action called for it, I also responded to that. Rule utilitarians can respect individual rights, because one could argue that breaking rights generally causes less happiness, so we should avoid breaking these rights in all cases.
You seem to think that libertarians argue for their ideology like this:
"Libertarianism is the best, because, you know, individual rights."
The truth is that libertarians, like most other people, are consequentialists. This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, because when you hear a libertarian make his argument for a free market or respect of individual rights, they never say, "you know, individual rights," but they might say, "we should respect individual rights because in those cases in which they haven't been respected, it has gradually led to tyranny, i.e. Nazi Germany, USSR, etc." Not only is this a consequentialist argument, it is rule utilitarian as well.
Your only other argument to this point was that both Bentham and JS Mill had different political views that were not libertarian. So what?
You've failed time and time again to explain why this matters. Bentham founded utilitarianism as a moral philosophy where you try to maximize the amount of good for the greatest amount of people. There's nothing political about utilitarianism. From there, utilitarianism split up to act and rule utilitarianism, and then into various other forms including preference and motive utilitarianism, etc.
Only because Bentham and JS Mill had views on various political issues that modern libertarians don't doesn't make utilitarianism and libertarianism at odds.
You also made another false analogy that while Bentham believed in various levels of pleasure, libertarians equate pleasure with individual rights. This again is wrong. Individual rights are viewed as a vessel to create more pleasure, and not as pleasure itself.
Libertarians believe their policies would cause the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. That certainly sounds (rule) utilitarian to me.
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I'm not sure why you are so appauled by the fact that libertarianism and utilitarianism have fundamental differences, nor do I know why you have gone out of your way to hide that rather simple point. Whatever your reasons, your style (which amounts to perversions of other's claims and shifting claims of your own) has drained me of any motivation to further discuss this particular topic with you.
I'm not hiding any simple facts.
You simply failed to prove how utilitarianism and libertarianism are at odds.
I even provided an example of a philosopher and economist who was both utilitarian and libertarian - Ludwig von Mises. You simply state in response about how you don't know how he could have "reconciled" their differences.
I've never perverted anyone's arguments, and if I did so I want you to go through all of my posts and quote exactly where I did.
Your posts have consisted of many insulting little comments, like ones claiming I don't know what I'm talking about and this one about me perverting people's claims. I've never done so.