Ayn Rand is not thinking today because she is dead; her philosophy is not changing. That does not mean that everyone who agrees with her ideas has to stop thinking about everything else.

Libertarianism is not "part of the Objectivist politics" and Objectivism is not "a libertarian philosophy", as explained previously. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

People who don't know what they are fighting for or who treat it as a floating abstraction are not relevant to pro-freedom activism now, they are very confused.

Libertarian subjectivism is no basis for anything. "Self ownership" is not a philosophical primary and neither is the concept of property rights. For someone who doesn't understand egoism and individualism they are meaningless.

One thing I've noticed meeting a lot of libertarians recently at various conferences is that many libertarians, and especially anarchist libertarians, tend to think of political principles personally. Many think that the meaning of rights is transparent. Since everyone understands property, it all boils down to a principle of self-ownership and against aggression.

They then think that if they will abjure the initiation of force, all interactions should do so. And, in general, this is right. And to be square with this commitment, they embrace anarchism. It doesn't matter, then, if anarchy will work: it is a clear, simple implication of justice. For similar reasons, they tend to oppose intellectual property.

But I think of political principles in terms of industrial capitalism. I think of them as pertaining to the individual, to be sure, but also as pertaining to Walmart and PayPal. If our free society doesn't enable the best aspects of industrial capitalism (think: Silicon Valley), it isn't going to be worth having.

And in that context, anarchism is a non-starter. The one thing industrial capitalism needs is clear, uniform law. And applying rights principles in property and contract is far from simple: it often involves subtle and complex issues. So there is much, much more to law than the basic principle of non-initiation of force. And the implications of that principle are not obvious or transparent.

That underlies many of our disagreements.

Thanks for posting this, kbhalling.

I don't think Objectivists are more prone than other people to disagree with each other or get into group schisms. Currently, Objectivism in the full sense is a position held by a small minority of Americans, to say nothing of the world at large. It makes it a marketing point to distinguish oneself from other Objectivists.But if we were in a position to make big governmental decisions, the differences would be small.

The founding fathers had deep and vehement disagreements themselves, despite being more or less on the same premises. It devolved quickly into personal and party hatred.

I expect an Objectivist society would be just as passionate about differences at the margin. (Or perhaps a bit better, valuing reason as they would.) But the consensus would encompass so many positive aspects, the bickering would simply be the gears of politics turning, while great things were done and people were set free to flourish.

Many libertarians are self-described anarchists. However, I find almost all do not hold that that state should be destroyed tomorrow. Rather, they say that when the culture appreciates freedom and perhaps some other Objectivist-ish fundamental ideas (like valuing reason and achievement), and when we have a small, limited government, then market anarchy will be the ultimate ideal. That's an empty position in terms of practical import. Wrong, I think, but not very relevant to pro-freedom activism now.

I debated Objectivism-influenced anarchist Stephan Kinsella at PorcFest, June 2015. See the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Fey... .

I have a paper "Objectivism Against Anarchy" where I explain the issues. http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/def...

In foreign policy, I think some libertarians mistake countries for people, and then hold that non-aggression applies country-to-country, whereas in fact it applies person-to-person. I discuss the implications of this in my talk "Free World Order" http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

However, some libertarians hearing this talk, yet who don't agree with it, characterize the libertarian antipathy to an interventionist military as practical in character. They say they are not isolationists, just prudent--intervention isn't working, they say. That's not an irrational view.

Thanks!

I was stating the situation as I understand it.

Those who say Objectivism is only (some subset) of what Ayn Rand said, wrote, or thought, then must hold that there are no Objectivist thinkers today and there is no Objectivism other than the quest to declare loyalty to that subset of what Rand said, wrote, or thought.

But Objectivism is a living philosophy. It derives essentially from Ayn Rand's essential philosophic ideas, but it must go on from there. It requires new work on new issues and refection, too, on the consistency of Rand's own arguments.

As khalling explained, I defined in my essay what political principle I thought Objectivists and libertarians had in common. Anyone with a rational understanding of that principle and in integrated agreement with it is a libertarian. Some others may call themselves "libertarians" who in fact aren't, but I can't control that, except to deplore them.

I would have a good time knocking those sorts of people over the head with their own ignorance. I detest those who will try to take away my rights. I also know when I have more to learn. Which is every day I breathe air. There are so many things in this world to learn about. The way the enemies of freedom think, that's a big one.

According to Rand, the most important reason for government is the protection of its citizens. Hence, armies, police, and courts. I agree. Everything else falls into categories below that, or should not be the concern of the Federal Government. Somehow, we've pretty much turned that upside down so that protection of citizens is way down the list, with other things such as welfare, infrastructure, education, are treated as being more important. To the Founders, those things were better handled privately. Once again, I agree.

:) I cannot wait until you visit

I'll try to keep him focused on other stuff while we put the living room back in order. seriously, this philosophical discussion affects real lives really right now. and while we tolerate the faithful (who usually are big supporters of IP rights) we let the Libertarians slide. If you come up with an idea to take this site to the moon and no one else is doing it, I want your idea protected. Right now, due to the thinking such has been displayed here on this site the last day, these people do not support your efforts. and they wittingly or unwittingly support those who are against you legally. It is the kind of thing that is a fighting thing. like let's see how anti-gun advocates would play on the site.

Uhm... I think you zigged when you should have zagged Dale. It's me, Scott (sdesapio).

I acknowledge those basic facts. :)

The richest most technologically advanced countries are those with the strongest patent laws and those with the weakest patent laws are the poorest, do not create technologies, and the most technologically backward. Admit this and admit that you are arguing against a property right, based on the formulation of property rights that the US was created on, and admit that you are arguing for changing the constitution, which guarantees the rights of inventors to their inventions. No you ignore all the evidence. You are like socialists who complain about sweat shops in capitalism and ignore gulags and mass starvation in socialist countries Failure to acknowledge these basic facts means that you are just being dishonest, which I will not tolerate anymore.
You are DISHONEST

The richest most technologically advanced countries are those with the strongest patent laws and those with the weakest patent laws are the poorest, do not create technologies, and the most technologically backward. Admit this and admit that you are arguing against a property right, based on the formulation of property rights that the US was created on, and admit that you are arguing for changing the constitution, which guarantees the rights of inventors to their inventions. No you ignore all the evidence. You are like socialists who complain about sweat shops in capitalism and ignore gulags and mass starvation in socialist countries Failure to acknowledge these basic facts means that you are just being dishonest, which I will not tolerate anymore.

The richest most technologically advanced countries are those with the strongest patent laws and those with the weakest patent laws are the poorest, do not create technologies, and the most technologically backward. Admit this and admit that you are arguing against a property right, based on the formulation of property rights that the US was created on, and admit that you are arguing for changing the constitution, which guarantees the rights of inventors to their inventions. No you ignore all the evidence. You are like socialists who complain about sweat shops in capitalism and ignore gulags and mass starvation in socialist countries Failure to acknowledge these basic facts means that you are just being dishonest, which I will not tolerate anymore.

You are DISHONEST

No just see patents for instance.

They are not the same thing. It just shows the ignorance of the conversation.

The richest most technologically advanced countries are those with the strongest patent laws and those with the weakest patent laws are the poorest, do not create technologies, and the most technologically backward. Admit this and admit that you are arguing against a property right, based on the formulation of property rights that the US was created on, and admit that you are arguing for changing the constitution, which guarantees the rights of inventors to their inventions. No you ignore all the evidence. You are like socialists who complain about sweat shops in capitalism and ignore gulags and mass starvation in socialist countries Failure to acknowledge these basic facts means that you are just being dishonest, which I will not tolerate anymore.

Software exploded in the 80's due to the wide acceptance of personal computer platforms with the IBM PC and to a degree the MAC. This allowed large numbers of people to get into the business of software development due to the low entry cost.

For the price of a PC and a compiler you could start a software company and the growing millions of computers needed software applications. Many many companies were started and grew.

These were people who could not check with an attorney every time they write a routine -- and a software engineer 'invents' new routines every single day they work.

As some of these companies grew into the large multi-billion dollar giants and the industry grew the idea of software patents grew, not so that they could justify the investment in software -- everyone needs a new version every years. This was so that they could block other companies from developing things and NOT have to innovate.

The vast majority of the patents are owned by large corporations in legal battles to maintain in the court what they cannot maintain in the marketplace.