Difference between Libertarian and Objectivist?
Posted by JoshA95 12 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
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.
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.
Ha!
No, really though, what's wrong with Playboy?
Erotica is OK, right - just not porn?
Not that I care one way or the other - of course...
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his opinion of himself."
Does AS have some erotic elements in it? Sure. But that's not all there is to it.
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.
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.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon, but even so, not everything innovated is readily nor easily identifiable. And if I were to create something "new," why would I even attempt to research whether it ever existed? I created it.
No, stealing from my neighbor is clearly wrong. I stand on my original example. Two can clearly create the same IP totally independently and both should have the ability to "own" same. I just don't know how to do it. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
Yes, there are some that are doing research for research sake - but very few. Nobody has the capital just to do undirected research.
And don't confuse patents with innovation. Most innovation is never protected. The costs/effort to do so has become quite onerous and only those truly seeking to block others from the technology spend much on patenting their ideas. Most of them merely publish/document the innovations so that if anyone comes knocking to try to block their use they can demonstrate prior art.
An improved axe design might be patentable, but you have to not only search other axe patents, you also have to search any other way such a device might be used. Maybe someone already developed the same idea but patented it as a lever, or a weapon, and not for chopping wood. Doing that exhaust search is how you cover your tail. then, yes, there are the patent trolls. Those that see your new axe design but realize you didn't extend the patent to include it as a weapon. Is that right?
There are better ways to protect IP than the government.
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.
I think the main difference is that Libertarians tend to side with the Conservatives on fiscal issues, but with Liberals on social issues - that's why it's been so hard for them to become a major party. Our country has been a two-party system for more than two hundred years (though we have seen the death of the Whigs and the founding of the Republicans and the takeover of the Democratic party by Progressives).
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.
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.
I'm not sure how you get that Fox News is pro-R. From what I see, they present both sides of issues. It is merely that few if any other news sites present both sides that makes Fox seem to be pro-R.
Not sure how you come to the conclusion that modern R's are more moderate than a TEA party person. I guess you would need to say in which respect you find them moderate, and what you think "moderate" really means. Most of those who consider themselves part of the TEA party would espouse smaller government, less restrictions/more freedom, and lower taxes. Those are also libertarian and Objectivist principles but not necessarily those of the R or D parties.
AC and RL both have espoused support for R's, but have also expressed disdain for some R's, so I don't think that you can just place them in the R camp. It depends on the R that you're talking about. Neither of them, nor most Objectivists or libertarians for that matter, would have much support for many D's or progressives as they are nearly universally collectivists (and there are some R's in that camp as well).
Compare Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain with Ted Cruz, Mike Simpson, and Mike Lee and you can see distinct differences in voting - thus the distinction between a Moderate Republican and a Conservative Republican. How many times do they vote for big government, gun control, etc? I stand by my observation.
Just because one is a Republican, one doesn't always support everyone with an R. And note that I didn't say either Rush or Ann were moderates like those they criticize, only that they are always talking about advancing the Republican Party, whereas others like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck are more issue/value-driven.
That said, if the choice is a moderate R vs. a D (who anymore are all collectivists), or a Libertarian who might espouse my philosophy but has not a snowballs chance of winning, I'm going to go R. At least that way, things don't move as fast. If/when we can get enough people to wake up to the need to return to true liberty, I'm right there with you. However, what I see happening is an ever increasingly rapid slide into serfdom under collectivists of all stripes.
I will not willingly march into bondage.
AR made a nice story about a "safe place" where those who didn't believe in collectivism could congregate. But it was nothing more than a story telling device. Such cannot exist. And with all due respect to our friend in Argentina, I don't see that as an option.
And I am the same way about voting: though I really like many of the Libertarian candidates, today's voting is much more about trying to keep the Dems out of office than trying to get the best candidate in. I hate not being able to vote my conscience. It's the lesser of two weevils conundrum. :(
From Merriam-Webster: Aggression: angry or violent behavior or feelings
Couldn't one libel or slander another without anger, violent behavior or feelings?
Now, on to business. There should be as little imposition to human freedom and the exercise thereof as possible.
The slippery slope (solely my own view):
porno - not for me, but knock yourself out if that floats your boat. No kids though.
drugs- again knock yourself out, but if you use drugs and harm someone else or something else or cause the harm of someone or the destruction of their property - you go to jail without parole for many years OR lose your liberty to servitude to pay restitution. (my ideas, not necessarily anyone else's).
Abortion - No, with some exceptions. Individual freedom dictates the right to sleep around with whoever you want as often as you want. It is up until the point of conception - the fertilization of the egg - that a woman's choice is her own. The life inside her from the point of the first split-cell is a person, a defenseless one, and need be protected. Choice for women (and men) in this day of contraception should make sleeping around much easier to be responsible. Rape is an exception as is incest.
I can fully agree with the first section. The second, however, we have a bit of disagreement. While I agree on a faith based basis, I must take some issue on a libertarian basis. I cannot accept that a being at the first cellular division can be considered a human being. It could not possibly survive separately. Thus how could such and entity be deemed a human, at best this entity would be a potential human. At some point, that changes, and deserves the protections you espouse.
But that's what makes life interesting, don't you think? If we all fully agreed with one another, it would be rather dull.
1) I cannot accept that a voluntary action with known consequences entered into willingly by the participant can result in "slavery."
2) That there evidently is some miracle that occurs as the being traverses the birth canal that bestows "personhood" and causes the ability of the entity to at one instance have no rights and mere moments later to have full rights is irrational. (just to be clear, there is a miracle that occurs in traversing the birth canal, just not the birth itself - ;-)
I think the real thing you have to get back to is that having sex results in children. When you take on the liberty of sex, you also take on the responsibility of any offspring that is a result. Period. If you aren't ready for that kind of life-changing commitment, you aren't ready for sex either.
Your argument that that extends to entities up to the point where they are fully independent doesn't hold water on a moral level, for that would permit infanticide which is abhorrent.
There is a point, unknown to any human, between let's say the 3rd month and 6th month, where that entity becomes a human being deserving of it's own independent rights to liberty. Prior to that time (up to the 3rd month), the rights of the mother should be paramount but after, they must be balanced between the two. This is, granted, an arbitrary time with deference given to earlier to protect the child's rights as much as possible while accommodating the rights of the mother. Any other answer is neither practical nor defensible from a moral view that takes into account both beings rights.
I think you missed my point. Infants can't live on their own either. If their needs aren't catered to - feeding, changing diapers, nurturing - they die too - it just takes a couple of days rather than a couple of hours. That's what they do in Illinois when an abortion fails (thanks to Obama when he was a State Senator there). What I was pointing out was that it is a false line to differentiate between in the womb and not if the true measure of "personhood" is self-sufficiency.
"the rights of the mother should be paramount but after, they must be balanced between the two."
Is there such a thing as a dependent right as you are implying? Can a person only have a right if someone else agrees? That seems to me to be a very dangerous stance to take, as you are basically arguing that life is granted based on authoritative whim - not that it is an inherent right in the first place. I can't agree with such an argument, as it undermines the entire notion of a right in the first place.
Here, read: http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/...
Also, if you're going to act like a jackass please feel free ignore my posts. A modicum of maturity would be helpful to iron out who is accurate and who is not.
Basing individual rights in a belief in a non-provable and contrafactual purported Deity makes individualism and freedom far weaker and easier to lampoon than it would otherwise be. Whether you believe in God or not please please do not ground individualism and freedom on that belief. It harms all of us.
As for the constitution not being inspired by faith, if not outright Christianity, is to be ignorant of history. One cannot separate the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. The declaration provides the foundation for the constitution (even though there was an intervening Articles of Confederation). The constitution (what the new government would be) must be interpreted with the declaration (the why). Only by understanding the declaration of independence can one understand the constitution in proper context, and the declaration clearly identifies that rights are inalienable, and endowed by our creator - with most of the faithful of the time being of the Christian variety.
There are two types of Objectivists - those who only believe exactly what Ayn Rand said, and those who believe they can think for themselves based on what they understand to be derivable from Rand's writings. The first type would say that Objectivists are not libertarians because Ayn Rand said so. The second type understand that Rand's non-aggression axiom is the same at the NAP, and therefore believe that all Objectivists are libertarians even if they deny it.
In short:
All Objectivists are libertarians
Not all libertarians are Objectivists.
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.
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.
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.
You identify several supposed philosophical groupings, only O's of which do not espouse altruism.
As for those that believe in a system approaching anarchy, are called ANARCHISTS. Regardless of what they choose to call themselves.
As to your analysis: If words held no meaning, I could understand why you posted what you did.
Metaphysics: No one else's business
Epistemology: Up to the individual
Ethics: Up to the individual
Politics: Limited government.
Mind your business (as was on our coins prior to In God We Trust).
The bottom line is libertarianism gives maximum flexibility (liberty and freedom) to the individual while keeping statism at bay. I don't know any real libertarians that want anything to do with statism, although many Republicans do.
I would agree with m082844's statements about objectivism.
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Egoism
Politics: Laissez Faire Capitalism
EXCEPT that if one were to apply the Objective Reality criterion correctly to Objectivism, then the logical conclusion should not be atheism because that makes a statement of faith that cannot be proven either. If Ayn Rand and objectivists were to be self-consistent
with Objective Reality metaphysics, then the appropriate response would be agnosticism, not atheism. Because she and none of the rest of you can KNOW whether this is a creator or not if you are to apply Objective Reality metaphysics.
There have been numerous threads debating this subject on this site previously.
Much of what Rand thought of the Libertarians is now dated. They are not the anarchists they once were, many now espouse limited government, constitutional principles, but there are still differences. The morality for one thing is not founded upon the same principles. Reason vs. Whim... Rand did not find it acceptable to do whatever feels good just because it does not use force. Remember an "objectivist" should not do something that is not in one's self interest even if there is no use of force. For instance, some around you may be hurt thus damaging your reputation, prospects, as well as your own reason by self abuse, unrestrained addictions, behavior, etc. There are several "official" essays on the subject in Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Piekoff, The Voice of Reason, etc.
Some references from the Lexicon: http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...
Respectfully,
O.A.
I understand completely. Since Rand has passed, he has become the anointed one! I often make reference to his material for those interested, but for myself I am not doctrinaire. I refer to myself as a student of Objectivism, not an "Objectivist." I want people to appreciate the most important parts of the philosophy, which for me are the recognition that A is A, the individual is sovereign, paramount, self interest is good/essential, and the emphasis of Capitalism as the only just economic system.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I happily wore a name badge to numerous Tea Party meetings that said "Quentin Daniels". The numerous people who knew me that asked me why on earth I was wearing someone else's name tag got a lengthy discussion about Who Is John Galt for their curiosity.
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry
"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."
John Adams
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."
John Adams
"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics."
John Adams
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
John Adams
Unless we want people to make laws to reign in behavior a moral people is needed. The people we elect are reflections of who we are as a people. This is why we are where we are.
First, I believe that you [that is, each person] should be allowed to do anything you want as long as it harms none. The fact that I may find some things on your list distasteful is irrelevant.
Second, do [that is, each person] you believe the same, even when something on my list offends you?
If we agree there, we are on the same side, whatever we call it.
If we don't agree there, we are NOT on the same side; how far apart we are depends on what you are willing to do to stop me from doing whatever it is that you dislike.
Many people in this sort of discussion want to bring up their favorite issue [for or against], but I try not to let them. The particular issues are actually irrelevant, it is the "harm none" part that really counts. After long years of dealing with 13-year-olds, I'm really good at not being sucked into a specifics tornado. I just keep saying "Is anyone harmed by the openly admitted fact that I like to eat grass? [using a silly example also helps] Who is harmed, and how?"
The rest is easy. I think Objectivism is how you run your life; Libertarianism is how you would like a society to run. Both are based on the principle illustrated in the preliminary sort.
I'd wager that MOST Tea Party people, at least the vast majority I know and associate with, feel the same way.
There are people in the United States who are literally trying to pass the same kinds of laws that Uganda and Russia now have (in fact, they're actually the very same people who got those laws passed in those countries). People in the LGBT community HAVE to be incredibly open and loud about the issue. Otherwise the bigots will stomp all over them.
You say you don't want it shoved in your face? Well guess what? The LGBT community is tired of getting their faces beaten in. Silence is death.
God Loves Uganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_hKv4p...
Russia's anti-gay law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8P9jWcg...
I had a homosexual roommate in college. Great guy, we hung out and drank together often as well as shared a dorm room. He taught me how to look at poetry. I only knew he was gay because he shoes to tell me. It didn't matter one way or another. It wasn't until he and partner decided to flaunt it publicly that shit hit the fan in the dormitory. He chose to move out when people asked if I too were gay.
I've known and continue to know many gay people, men and women, in my life. I don't give a rat-ass if someone is gay as long as its not worn as a star of david placed over their zippers. As far as Uganda and Russia...not my concern, nor should it be - I don't have a voice there.
If we in the US weren't constantly dividing people for political gain according to superficial differences we wouldn't have to worry about becoming like those places.
Content of character.
The groups who got those laws passed in Russia and Uganda are actually based in the U.S. They are American missionaries from fundamentalist extremist churches who go to foreign countries and spread their hate and infect the political leaders. Watch the trailer for "God Loves Uganda." Sure, maybe some of the hate came naturally from the country's own population, but American hate groups have fanned the flames. To claim that we cannot influence the laws of other countries and that we have no power to stop international atrocities is simply blind.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Thus I find I am not exactly an Objectivist, nor am I a Libertarian. I am ME, however, and well satisfied with my outlook, ALTHOUGH open to modifications!
Steve
As for Islam, Rothbard was anti-Zionist and supported Palestinians. While not specifically denouncing the militancy of Islam, he was certainly an advocate of non-aggression and I believe would be very much against the current situation of militant Islam.
Besides, nobody is perfect. Overall his thoughts on liberty and Austrian economics are some of the best that I have studied.
Those who recognize the value of freedom and liberty MUST move to eliminate the islamic doctrine everywhere --- just as small pox can not be tolerated, so too islam, and Libertarians should be leading the charge!
Scientists at CERN recently claim with
high certainty that they have found the
Higgs boson that gives mass to matter,
which is necessary for gravity to work.
I'm open to that idea.
I believe that if speed limits were abolished, Objectivists would keep their driving speed in line with other traffic for safety reasons. Libertarians, meanwhile, would go nuts because there would be no number on signs to exceed "to make a statement".
Objectivists make their own rules in accordance with a universal standard. Libertarians require laws in order that they may disobey them. A peculiar mindset.
(L)ibertarians believe that laws have one major justification: keeping order between individuals. They are there to make sure one individual does not abuse, hamper, or endanger another one.
Hence you might be suprised to see how many (L)ibertarians would support the traffic laws. Ditto with the (l)ibertarians, who believe in the philosophies, but are not part of the political party.
Meanwhile the only Randian with whom I personally associate brags about how fast he can make his daily commute through Bay Area traffic. I asked him a couple of months ago how many accidents he has caused, and his response was "none anyone could prove."
NOW you see why I laughed when I read the comment... :-D
Your last statement is completely absurd.
1. They borrowed her ideas without credit.
2. They misrepresented her when they did give her credit.
3. They were "do whatever you want" hippies. (In her distinct accent she called them "Leebertairian heepies.")
4. They attracted socialists, anarchists and mystics, and as such actually had no consistent philosophy. Many of them were, for one reason or another, anti-Rand or anti-Objectivist.
5. To the extent they were politically effective they were her enemy.
Why would she see them as an enemy? I think it was because they saw philosophy as useless and political activism as the correct path.
If I remember correctly, Rand said that the time for action is when you are unable to speak. Or perhaps when that hammer is about to fall on you. If you find that you must self-censor your thoughts before speaking or writing, or that you are writing satirical works to avoid being caught in a "national security" net, revolutionary political action is needed. If instead Libertarians are only drawing votes away from those trying to preserve civilization, they are making a mistake.
Objectivists are philosophers. Libertarians are politicians.
Three weeks ago was Purim. Did anyone read the Book of Esther? Some would say its lesson is, "Jews do not bow down to authority." Do Objectivists bow down to other philosophies? Do Libertarians bow down to political necessity?
What is supposedly the major virtue of an Objectivist?
The other was actively engaged in stealing from Rand herself.
The sloppy thinking, the drugs, and other immorality helped me move away from the libertarians in my area. I was even offered some "really good stuff" drugs by two brilliant but flaky people who were well known among the Objectivists and Libertarians in my area, around 1968.
What Rand thought about libertarians is still important. Claiming to agree with Rand does not make one correct, and does not grant certainty of knowledge. I cannot forget how these hedonists and their hangers-on. claiming to agree with Rand's politics, were all wrong, and how Rand was, as usual, right.
So no, objectivists as a rule are not philosophers.
I am a student of the world - faith, politics, economics, engineering, statistics, the female form, etc. When one stops growing, one starts dying.
Answer? *ALL* of them that did not agree with Hitler...
"Johnson has stated that the best environmental practices are due to a good economy.[7] He says "America needs to be a land with a clean environment," and supports "clean-air and clean-water action and believe[s] in conservationism." He cites the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of good government.[14] Johnson has stated he agrees that human carbon emissions do impact the climate." Wiki, Political Positions of Gary Johnson
Objectivisim would not support these contradictions
I and a bunch of people who worked as partners with me who had all read and discussed AS decided we would each shrug, and sell our business to someone else.
JerseyBoy won't believe this, but I will not compare myself to Galt. However, one of the guys in that company who had been born in communist Poland and developed an energy technology worthy of Galt was the one who convinced us (without much effort) to sell the company. He was the first of us to go Galt on a day that we were plumbing gas cylinders from an outdoor shed into a partner's two story garage on the coldest, windiest day that winter (about 2 Celsius). I am proud to say that I worked next to him. We got a lot done in a short time, but that January, 2009 day was the moment that AS became non-fiction for me.
I agree that America needs to be clean, but completely disagree with Gov. Johnson on the onerous EPA.
The way I break it down is this:
Conservative: economic freedom
Liberal: social freedom
Libertarian: both economic and social freedom
However, had you come up with the invention independently, then you would have the right to it. That is the failing of our current system.
But in any case I agree with your second point and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I will however disagree with your first point and respectfully decline further discussion of the subject.
Libertarian = KYFHO (Keep Your F##cking Hands Off)
Objectivist = Rational Self Interest
Both strongly track to The Enlightenment.
So what are libertarians? They are folks who believe in BOTH personal and financial freedom. (see: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.ph...)
I see two types of libertarians: 1) (L)ibertarians, members of the political party. 2) (l)ibertarians, who believe the philosophy, but are party agnostic.
We believe in the historic definition, as guaranteed by the founding fathers: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We share in the responsibility of preserving these, so those who come after us have the same opportunities we did.
Since freedom is a core value, so, also, is responsibility. For instance, a true libertarian might/might not, support abortion. Probably not because it deprives a human entity the guaranteed rights without due process. Either way, they would adamantly oppose public funding, because doing so would take away the rights of the "public" to oppose abortion by forcing them to be a party to financing them.
We also believe strongly in the concept of "self ownership." I own "me," and I own the goods I produce, and I own the right to do with those goods whatever pleases me. To a libertarian, the only real role of government is to provide for the common defense, and support and enforce laws which prevent individuals abusing others, or the rights of others.
As with libertarians, my experience sees two kinds of objectivists: 1) Randians, who diefy Ayn Rand, hanging on her every word like they were straight from god -- which to many Randians, they were. 2) objectivists, who believe in the tenants of objectivism.
What are the four tenants of objectivism?
1) Existence, consciousness, and identity are axiomatic. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2) Knowledge acquisition outside personal perception(s) requires the exercise of free will and validation through observation, as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.
3) Humans face the reality of life and death, and must choose their values. Rational ethics are required for humans to decide what principles of action are required to implement his chosen values; an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being.
Every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is his highest moral.
4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism, where men deal with one another as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights. In a system of full capitalism, there should be a complete separation of state and economics.
It could be argued that it has been libertarians throughout the ages who built and advocated capitalism, so I would say this is where both philosophies match rather well.
Both philosophies also are built on the advocacy of logical reason as a basis for meaningful living. Both philosophies also tend to rely on the thought that people are basically good, and when given the freedom to do as they please, they'll chose things which are not a detriment to others. Both also acknowledge that there are those who are not basically good, so we need government to enforce laws to keep this from happening.
Most of the "objectivists" comments denigrating libertarians I have encountered seem to focus on those who only want to legalize pot. I, and most libertarians I have talked to about it, don't much care for objectivism because they can't see AR's potential for deification.
As I have said before on this site, objectivism will remain halted until the zealous adoration of AR is waning, much like psychology was hampered by over-adoration of Freud. I'm basically waiting for reasonable people with reasonable attitudes to pick up the gauntlet and carry on. If that doesn't happen, I sense that objectivism will be kind of like the South Beach Diet -- something most folks have heard of, many read something about it, but it really doesn't effect their life much.
There are exceptions. There are many quite philosophically and ethically deep libertarians that are not objectivists.
On the negative side objectivists are much more likely to heavily criticize and attack their own. Some objectivists seem to think that Ayn Rand did all the think necessary and figured it all out thus absolving them from thinking for themselves. Those tend to do most of the attacking.
Libertarians believe in "self ownership." That means *I* own *me*, and that I have full control over what I produce, and that I can do with it whatever pleases me most. Furthermore, what I do with what I produce is my decision, based upon my own rational thoughts and plans.
Who are you, or anyone else, to denigrate me for my rational choices?
As long as I do not force others to act in accordance with my rational choices for my own belongings, then what could possibly be an issue?
As far as being "altruists," I believe that the concepts of loving others, sacrificing some of my belongings to the support of those I wish to be a benefit to, and promoting the survival of others besides just my own self are generally accepted principles for virtually every group outside of the very narrow band of Randians.
If I make a rational choice to take some of what I produced to help others, what objectivist philosophical point have I broken?
That "reality exists?" Nope. That I have free will and receive validation through observation? Not hardly. Capitalism? I can't see how.
That I "face the reality of life and death," and "chose my values and rational ethics" so I can "decide what principles of action are required?" Again, no.
The only point I "break" is what seems to be a deal-breaker for most folks I speak with, and that is her point that I cannot be altruistic and have the "highest moral purpose of my life."
And, frankly, this is one point where she is in error. And every parent or grandparent knows it. Every real school teacher knows it. Nurses know it. Police and soldiers know it.
That is why I will never identify myself as a Randian, and almost never identify myself as an objectivists (either big-O or little-o).
What you describe is NOT altruism; you are not sacrificing a greater value to a lesser one.