Objectivists cannot be Libertarians?
Posted by Esceptico 7 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
I have been told both politely and impolitely by fellow Objectivists that one cannot be both an Objectivist and a Libertarian. I have heard this even here in the Gulch. I profess to being both.
Rand went on rants, literally, against Libertarians. Do not join, she says, “‘libertarian’” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.”[“Ayn Rand Letter,” Vol 1, No. 7, page 3, Jan. 3, 1972.] It does not take one deeply schooled in argument to recognize the ad hominem attacks in this one sentence, but the significant point is she set up a straw man in that Libertarians as such do not subordinate reason to whims and are not anarchists. Yes, there are some Libertarians who do and are one or both of these things, but are some Objectivists.
A Libertarian is simply a person who subscribes to the Non-Agression Principle (NAP). Nothing more, nothing less. So long as a person agreed with the NAP, one could be a communist or an anarchist. Libertarians are united only by the NAP and not by any other unifying principles or outlook on life. To be a member of the LP there is one requirement and only one: you must agree to the NAP. [https://www.lp.org/membership July 11, 2016.]
Picking up the theme from Rand, Ayn Rand Institute “Distinguished Fellow” (whatever that is) Peter Schwartz went so far as to say Objectivists should not be “trafficking with Libertarians.” [“On Moral Sanctions,” by Peter Schwartz, May 18, 1989.] This sounds similar to me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or any other cult, proclamation prohibiting contact with the outside world. And, indeed, several Objectivists have shunned me ever since I said I disagreed with them. If I had been a JW, then I would be “disestablished.” The point is the same: disagree with the dogma and you are out of the club.
During 1985 Schwartz wrote a series of articles in his “Intellectual Activist” publication. These are published, according to the introduction, in a condensed version as Chapter 31 in the book “The Voice of Reason.” Schwartz again sets up the Libertarian as a straw man and then sets about attacking the straw man. I am not going to detail his laboriously stated errors and ad hominem attacks because it is not relevant to my question below.
Apparently the subject is still something of interest to ARI. Schwartz lists, among his Talks and Lectures credits, “Analyzing Libertarianism: A Case Study in Thinking in Principles.” [https://ari.aynrand.org/experts/peter.... July 11, 2016] I could not access this, but I image it is more of the same diatribe he previously presented. I say this because as recently as July 2, 2016, [https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2016/07/.... July 11, 2016.] ARI touted a discussion to be streamed the following day on the subject. I missed that.
Here is the problem for me. A principle of Objectivism is the NAP. Restated in the words of Rand: “… no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others.”
The only principle required of Libertarians is: “To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Over the decades, every time an Objectivist tells me I must choose between being an Objectivist and a Libertarian, I point out the above and ask a question. To date I have not received even the courtesy of an answer.
I ask: How are these two principles mutually exclusive?
Rand went on rants, literally, against Libertarians. Do not join, she says, “‘libertarian’” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.”[“Ayn Rand Letter,” Vol 1, No. 7, page 3, Jan. 3, 1972.] It does not take one deeply schooled in argument to recognize the ad hominem attacks in this one sentence, but the significant point is she set up a straw man in that Libertarians as such do not subordinate reason to whims and are not anarchists. Yes, there are some Libertarians who do and are one or both of these things, but are some Objectivists.
A Libertarian is simply a person who subscribes to the Non-Agression Principle (NAP). Nothing more, nothing less. So long as a person agreed with the NAP, one could be a communist or an anarchist. Libertarians are united only by the NAP and not by any other unifying principles or outlook on life. To be a member of the LP there is one requirement and only one: you must agree to the NAP. [https://www.lp.org/membership July 11, 2016.]
Picking up the theme from Rand, Ayn Rand Institute “Distinguished Fellow” (whatever that is) Peter Schwartz went so far as to say Objectivists should not be “trafficking with Libertarians.” [“On Moral Sanctions,” by Peter Schwartz, May 18, 1989.] This sounds similar to me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or any other cult, proclamation prohibiting contact with the outside world. And, indeed, several Objectivists have shunned me ever since I said I disagreed with them. If I had been a JW, then I would be “disestablished.” The point is the same: disagree with the dogma and you are out of the club.
During 1985 Schwartz wrote a series of articles in his “Intellectual Activist” publication. These are published, according to the introduction, in a condensed version as Chapter 31 in the book “The Voice of Reason.” Schwartz again sets up the Libertarian as a straw man and then sets about attacking the straw man. I am not going to detail his laboriously stated errors and ad hominem attacks because it is not relevant to my question below.
Apparently the subject is still something of interest to ARI. Schwartz lists, among his Talks and Lectures credits, “Analyzing Libertarianism: A Case Study in Thinking in Principles.” [https://ari.aynrand.org/experts/peter.... July 11, 2016] I could not access this, but I image it is more of the same diatribe he previously presented. I say this because as recently as July 2, 2016, [https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2016/07/.... July 11, 2016.] ARI touted a discussion to be streamed the following day on the subject. I missed that.
Here is the problem for me. A principle of Objectivism is the NAP. Restated in the words of Rand: “… no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others.”
The only principle required of Libertarians is: “To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Over the decades, every time an Objectivist tells me I must choose between being an Objectivist and a Libertarian, I point out the above and ask a question. To date I have not received even the courtesy of an answer.
I ask: How are these two principles mutually exclusive?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
When I make a Venn diagram, I see no mutual exclusion between them. Have you done a Venn diagram on this question?
Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? If not, then I understand your confusion in that regard. Regarding straying from the subject issue I proposed, let me restate the question: how does the Objectivist principle of not to initiate the use of force exclude libertarians whose only common principle is “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals?” I find myself very close to most Objectivist doctrine and the LP. sole principle of non-agression.
When I make a Venn diagram, I see no mutual exclusion between them. Have you done a Venn diagram on this question?
1) Ayn Rand never said or implied that being a political party member is in itself incompatible with Objectivism. I’m pretty sure, for example, that Alan Greenspan was/is a Republican, but that didn’t deter Rand from showing up when then-President Ford appointed him head of his Council of Economic Advisors.
2) Although the LP platform does not define aggression, it is clear from the context that it means “initiation of force”. It would be nonsense to support “the defense of individual rights against confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy and zeal.” No libertarian uses the term as you define it.
3) Libertarians use the term “aggression” (meaning initiation of force) in a limited context (political and social) not because they are striving to be “politically correct”, but because libertarianism is a political movement, not an overall philosophy. Ayn Rand’s formulation covers more ground because Objectivism is an overall philosophy. Big difference.
Many (likely most) libertarians are not anarchists or opposed to private property (including IP). The non-aggression principle (or non-initiation-of-force principle) is all that libertarians really have in common. Since Objectivists also accept this principle, an Objectivist can indeed be a libertarian.
As to the Christian wars, I am not so sure they are over.
Restated, the question is: how does the Objectivist principle not to initiate the use of force exclude libertarians whose only common principle is “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals?” I find myself very close to most Objectivist doctrine and the LP. When I make a Venn diagram, I see no mutual exclusion between them. Have you done a Venn diagram?
As to goals of the LP as a party, that is different from the question I posed and strays from that core.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06...
As to the Bible, the wars of the resettlement of the Promised Land are over. Those people who practiced such things as child sacrifice, are no longer part of this world. But Muhammad declared war against the Byzantine Empire and all the rest of non-Arabic civilization. And that declaration still stands.
The objection that Objectivist have about Liberatians is that by failing to adopt objectivism system in full, Liberatians simply cannot defend the objectivist principles they like. The reason is the principles necessary follow from the system.
I like to compare Objectivism to Mathematics. It is like Liberatians are saying I like the law of multiplication but I am not too keen on the law of equality. The Objectivist says you dupe! The law of multiplication necessary depends on the law of equality!
This is why some Objectivist may get frustrated by Liberatians who adopt some Objectivist's principles while rejecting others. I don't excuse Objectivist who use ad hominem in their rebuke of Liberatians. They should stay on point. To support the Objectivist's principles you like, the entire system of Objectivism is required. You cannot reasonably cherry pick from Objectivism. Such as simply adopting NAP and rejecting the the primacy of existence.
Load more comments...