Difference between Libertarian and Objectivist?

Posted by JoshA95 12 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
222 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

What is the difference (if any) between Libertarians and Objectivists besides that one is a political party and the other is not? I've been wondering this for a while.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 8.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How do you figure?

    From Merriam-Webster: Aggression: angry or violent behavior or feelings

    Couldn't one libel or slander another without anger, violent behavior or feelings?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Try reading or listening to Murray Rothbard - "For A New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto" I think you'll find a good presentation of libertarianism (small l).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Two issues bear mention here. First, are taxes on incomes without regard to a census a part of the Constitution, as amended? And second: *should they be*?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    because that is the definition! The patent office has looked into this and found that the issue is so rare it is not worth making a deal out of it. to your analogy, the correct way to look at it is, would I be able to take the firewood my neighbor chopped? The idea of independent creation is a myth. it is a waste of time to copy others' inventions and its sooo easy to just check it out-has someone done this before me? any inventor worth their salt does a simple internet search.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Strawman.

    I never said Objectivists agree on every issue, only on key issues.

    I never said everyone other than Objectivists are altruistic. I only gave two possible examples. I won't waste everyone's time by listing all possible permutations of a Libertarian's belief. I expected the reader to think beyond the perceptual demonstration I gave.

    As for a belief in a system approaching anarchy, are you really going to pretend that there are no libertarians who don't believe that? Or perhaps you've never met one, if so, visit the Adam versus the man web site and see for yourself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Libel and slander are aggressive against another. Abortion and drug US are self-destructive and hence not crimes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Both Bush's (and the other brothers?) are merely R's not conservatives - and certainly not libertarians.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are no groups that are totally homogeneous, so your critique that having different beliefs undermines any system is fallacious.

    As for EVERYONE else basing their ethics on altruism and ONLY Objectivists on egoism, and the faithful approaching anarchy for politics is just your opinion. And opinions are like a$$holes, we all have them and most of them stink.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Its going to take a larger amount of time to address those than I have to give right now - particularly drugs and abortion. I will, but its going to have to happen later.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, but why is "first" a criterion at all? Cannot one develop the same invention totally independently? Does the fact that someone else also thought of it diminish the ownership of my own creativity?

    If I were to use my physical capability, say chop some firewood, does that prevent my neighbor from doing the same? Does the fact that one or the other of us performed the activity at a different time matter? And should the two of us choose to sell the fruits of our labor, do either of us have the right to prevent the other from benefiting from their labor? I think that you would agree that the answer is no. So why would the output of the mind be any different?

    The issue is in demonstrating that the output is truly one's own and not just mooched from another. I don't have the solution, but this would seem to be the problem to be addressed.

    Just my humble opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So I think one thing to clarify is that there is a difference between a Republican and a Conservative. Fox News is pro-Republican (just as MSNBC et al are pro-Progressive), but a modern Republican is much more moderate than say a TEA party candidate, who are much more conservative. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are Republicans, but not necessarily conservatives.

    I like Ted Cruz (and Rand Paul) and I think that he is as you say - focused on the economic issues (which history has shown to be the most important issue in any election). Politically, I think it's a diversion to meander off into abortion, gay marriage, etc. when the meat and potatoes of the elections for the past 10 years have centered on the economy and loss of liberty as you point out.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 12 years, 2 months ago
    Objectivists hold a complete, consistent and explicit philosophical system.

    Metaphysics: Objective Reality
    Epistemology: Reason
    Ethics: Egoism
    Politics: Laissez Faire Capitalism

    Libertarians disagree on the first three branches, and really the fourth one as well. If you ask a Libertarian what he believes you'll likely hear different answers.

    For example one religious libertarian might say:

    Metaphysics: non-objective
    Epistemology: faith
    Ethics: altruism
    Politics: Limited government (approaching anarchy)

    Another non-religious one might say:

    Metaphysics: objective reality
    Epistemology: reason
    Ethics: altruism
    Politics: Mixed system of statism and Capitalism

    So where the objectivists clearly define and demonstrate their philosophical system, the libertarians as a group are a hodgepodge of beliefs that share a similar belief that the government should be limited. Limited to what? They disagree on this matter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, those are too easy. How about abortion, drugs, "pornography", liable/slander, etc.?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well we are now a first to file instead of invent system. Inventor has a definition and there are ways to prove who was first. I see no value in rewarding "independent development." That would discourage the dissemination of information and retard technology. The incentive lies in the ownership of the right. If I'm in the area technology and someone gets there first, I can still see what they did and figure a way around it-something new. Every invention is made up of other known elements. This is the best way to drive technology forward. It is no coincidence that the US went from a fledgling new nation to the most powerful, most technologically advanced nation in under 150 years. The Libertarian solution of open is less efficient. One can share their knowledge for free, but they still have to put food on the table. This system allows inventors to be a profession
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Check your history. tariffs were the only thing established in the Constitution, Personal income tax is a construct of the early 20th Century. Personal income tax didn't even exist prior to1913. I'll do the legwork and look up the factual info for you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well, ok, but I regularly argue with Conservatives on this site regarding law and order issues and rarely Libertarians. The Libertarian umbrella surely does cover anarcho capitalists. Rand advocated for a strong patent system which many Libertarians would like to weaken-see Cato Institute, von Mises group.
    Objectivists are wary of Conservatives. They are convinced a Conservative will always support legislating social/moral issues and patriotism. Sometimes they are right in this. How about the flag burning legislation? Where you would have all Libertarians very upset over the NSA spying-I watched Fox News in disbelief -many commentators who are Conservative came out in support NSA over-reach and see Snowden as a traitor.
    Personally, I do not see a Conservative candidate as a threat, unless they prove they are hung up on social/moral/tradtional family values to the disregard of personal freedoms. I saw both Santorum and Bachmann fall into those traps during the last election, whereas a Cruz stays very focused on fiscal and loss of liberty issues.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We do not need to reboot the Constitution. What we need is a reset of the federal government and those in it. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen since the government is comprised of a people who has grown immoral.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Only some. Most libertarians see IP as the same as any other good. The real issue is in the application of an IP regulatory/registration system. Whereas the current patent system in the US (and other nations as well) tends to reward exclusivity to the first to file, ideas are not unique to a single individual, and therefore ideas that are developed independently should have equal protection. This is a very difficult/complicated situation and thus, requires careful implementation. In the end, it likely requires a system of adjudication that is impartial and allows for multiple "owners" of ideas. I don't know how to do it, but it would seem to be necessary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by g4lt 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, no, as of the amendment in 1915, the Constitution DOES provide for income taxes. It was duly done in accordance with the process of amendment listed within, it IS part of the Constitution now. The Constitution isn't a cafeteria, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you agree with.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, just as one also has a recorder of deeds, and--here's a reform Miss Rand discussed in one essay that didn't get much attention--a recorder of airwave deeds. Intellectual property is still property.

    That's another difference between Objectivists and libertarians. Many libertarians fail to recognize any such thing as "intellectual property," in the belief that, because "all information wants to be free," all intellectual products ought to be held in common. Benjamin Franklin was one such. Were he alive today, he would head the Free Hardware Foundation, to go along with Richard Stallings' Free Software Foundation. It would be left to Thomas Alva Edison to demonstrate the value of the patent system. He, more than any other inventor, used his fees from the sale of some inventions to finance his research on others that were fundamentally transformative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago
    Josh: First of all, let's distinguish between Libertarians and libertarians. The capital L is a political party, but even as such, it is not a very homogeneous party, with local Libertarians in the various states having different policy positions than many national candidates. Perhaps the most recognizable politician (who isn't even a real Libertarian) is Ron Paul, who actually resided in the Republican party. Most candidates that have run on a national Libertarian ticket have received little recognition (have you heard of Gary Johnson?).

    On the other hand, libertarianism is a political philosophy that has it's roots in classical Liberalism, which once meant liberty. It is different from anarchy in that libertarians do accept some limited form of government, whereas anarchists believe in no governmental structure. Typically, Conservatives are thought to believe in economic freedom and social control, and Liberals are thought to believe in social freedom and economic control, whereas libertarians believe mostly in both economic and social freedom.

    Many libertarians in the US consider themselves Constitutional libertarians (myself included) which would return the federal government to the original constitutional form, removing most of the bureaucracy including most of the cabinet positions and departments and reducing the role of the federal government to security and a federal legal system and little else. This is similar to the position that many Objectivists would espouse.

    Perhaps the biggest difference is that Objectivists base their philosophy on a foundation of reason that they say does not permit the existence of a deity. Those that support libertarianism do not have this position, and in fact, many believe that a supreme deity inspired the libertarian tradition of the original constitution.

    Hope this helps.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 12 years, 2 months ago
    The most salient difference is the moral difference. The Objectivist standard of value is: "the life proper to a rational being." Thus an Objectivist will not consume drugs or pornography, believing the same to compromise one's reasoning faculties. But an Objectivist will not necessarily make these things police matters, either.

    But also: libertarians do not take a uniform position on government. The rational anarchists are still with us. So are those who would set limits on government--and I don't think they all agree on *what* limits. An Objectivist sets a definite limit: a government exists to manage the retaliatory use of force, and bring the same under objective control. So a government needs those institutions, and only those institutions, important to the management of force. They are:

    Police

    Armed services

    Courts of law

    Much of what the executive "regulates" today, one would litigate in an Objectivist system. An Objectivist would not think it proper to combine, in one agency, the functions of a legislature (in the making of regulations), the executive (in their enforcement), and the judiciary ("administrative law judges," etc.) Regulatory agencies are quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in character. Instead, let the legislature make such civil laws, and grant such standing, as they shall think proper after public debate. Then let anyone with proper standing seek redress in a true court.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo