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 3.
And as to the Mises Institute's definitions--They define themselves as: :We are the worldwide epicenter of the Austrian economics movement." To get a better handle on an Objectivist read of Austrian economics, I highly recommend Dale Halling's (dbhalling here in the Gulch) work and writings on the subject vs. an Objectivist's thinking on economics...But in Rand's Objectivism, she prescribes self defense as 'retaliatory and only that necessary to stop the force involved.' and the Libertarians in your quote again use 'against aggression' as what's to be defended against and as I pointed out in my response to Escepio above, aggression as used by Libertarians includes the synonyms of: (confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy, zeal)*
While I can agree that there are some, maybe even many, areas in which both Objectivists and Libertarians can agree on goals to further individual liberty, as even some religionists, I'll still maintain that Objectivists cannot be Libertarians, though they might ally with them.
And the non-aggression principle is not a “pacifist philosophy of life” as you claim. According to the Mises Institute wiki, “In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.” http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_...
And according to the Libertarian Party platform, “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. . . We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.” http://www.lp.org/platform
Pacifist? Hardly!
But given her metaphysical foundation, any mystical explanation for life is ruled out.
You can argue with the dead but not the living. Objectivists demand facts and proof and accept nothing that isn't realistic and without understanding it's nature. They don't get frustrated if the answer isn't to their liking they just keep observing and and testing and never accept wrong answers.
That is what people who have no morals, values, ethics or self respect do and then try to window dress it into something acceptable to the rest of us. Problem is we don't absolve you.Only you can do that. People who can absolve themselves of being second raters or willing to accept false premises fall in a special category called amoral. Some folks call them politicians though.
The idea of Libertarianism philosophically based and turned into a political system.
All of These systems we'll call Apples Galas
.
So is the idea of a Constutional Republic Fujis
So is the idea of a representative Democracy Granniy Smiths
So are Monarchys and Consittutional Monarchies GoldenDelicious
So is the idea of Socialism. It like the others is s based on philosophy what else Red Delicious
Some add in their own system of economics notably Socialism including in it's more extremists versions State Economics. Some used capitalism some a mixture Some hold economics as part and parcel of the mix some use economics from another system. But they are not apples So we'll cal lthem oranges. Valencias and Navel's They are not apples.
All are based on some basic philosophical idea or belief. But while they may cause and oranges they are neither. one they are things like cropo farming or orchards but I' would say pears but they aren't fruit either. Each leads to another but is not the same thing.
One particular Philosophy led to something different, all encompassing in it;s own way. It discovered the secret of and the purpose of validating the subsequent ideas, the work, the outcome and finding it useful or not useful You can't eat it. It's purpose is observing and testing.
It won't grow apples, operate an orange, ripen a pear but it will tell you a lot about apples, oranges, and pears It's so different I'm going to think of a different name. It will tell you what you want to know and allow you to see ways to improve your orchard operation. Then you must choose to pay heed to those observations and keep observing or disregard them.
So you say . hmmmm his fruit really isn't a fruit we'll call it something more basic. Hammer after all it is a tool.
Now compare them.
Along comes the County Extension Agent and checks your operation. Does some soil testing and recommends some changes. He uses a carrot to do so. First the apples, then the oranges, then recommends changing pears to another variety. He' using the tool of objectivism.
Along comes your wife picks some of each and arranges them in a basket. She chooses them objectively but arranges them creatively and that's ok in this case. Wives are always right in the endl Later she will create a couple of pies which is the main objective.
Point is you can't compare one to the other except in how they work together or don't work together. Did he arrangement int he basket work. Did the slice of apple pie with a bit of cheese on top work. Bingo. They worked together. But that sashimi radish pie was a ......not so good.
So you can't be an objectivist in the way you can be a PIR member in Mexico or a Labor Party member in England or a Libertarian in the USA BUT you can use objectivism to find out if those ideas work on their own or together. What needs chaniging or improving, discarding or replacing,
The wife won't say. I know you love kumquats and sashimi radishes but really they have to go. She's got her own reasons. If you want to sackseed in your field Mr. Farmer listen to what she's telling you.
But try to turn the Fuji into a Valencia it isn't going to work. They are truly apples and oranges.
Aggression (3rd of 3 definitions):
forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.
synonyms: confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy, zeal
The scientific study of aggressive behavior was hampered for years because of different understandings of the word “ aggression. ” Aggressive toddlers are generally considered bad. However, in sports and in business, the term “ aggressive ” is frequently given a positive connotation as a trait to be admired. Consequently, one of the first steps scientists (scientist used in this context means social scientist) had to undertake was to define aggressive behavior clearly as a negative social behavior. (u.mich/2010.Bushman&Huesmann.Aggression.HandbookSocial
Both of the above are positive definition uses of the word 'Aggression', as was Rand's reclaiming of 'selfishness', away from the social science, political correctness efforts to control cognitive behavior.
Libertarian definition: I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Ayn Rand definition of use of force: ..."no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others.”
Rand's didn't use the word aggression, she used physical force in an absolute context, while Libertarians change that to aggression in the pursuit of 'political or social goals'. Libertarians continue that 'political correctness' and drive for inclusiveness, throughout their alleged definitions of laissez faire capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, private property as anti-liberty, IP as slowing down progress, and etc.,etc.
At this point in time, Libertarians are so far away from the Classical Liberals and from Objectivism, both strongly defining and supportive of the primacy of Individual Rights, as to be nearly unrecognizable.
1. It is ok to like certain aspects of any other movements; just don't identify yourself as 2 things at the same time that are in conflict.
2. "They" have never claimed that an Obj.ist has to accept every word of Rand; but certainly he has to accept all the philosophical fundamentals, otherwise don't call yourself an Obj.ist.
3. A true Obj.ist is never rationalistic.
(1) Communication usually fails, except by accident.
(2) If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes damage.
(3) There is always someone who knows better than you what you meant by your message.
Restated: Whenever you say something, if there is any possible way for another to misunderstand what you say, you will be misunderstood in the worst possible way, at the worst possible time, and then they will tell you what you “really” meant by your message.
Load more comments...