Objectivism vs. Libertarianism 2.0
Posted by WesleyMooch 12 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
The old Forum's about to be mothballed, so I want to revive here a valuable thread from Forum 1.0, "Objectivism vs. Libertarianism." You might want to fire up Firefox and avail her right-click and "Save Page As" to keep the nine-page thread for reference. I saved the nine pages to a folder I created called (pedestrianly enough) "Objectivism versus Libertarianism."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Newbie
Moocher
Pip
3 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:
Except that it does not mention rational self interest at all - so again - whatever you wanna do man, it's all good long as you don't initiate force. The morality of Libertarianism starts in the middle.
I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.
How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."
I agree with him completely.
#47 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:17 PM
View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:
I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.
I vote Libertarian because it is the party that most closely echos my values. There are many Objectivists who do likewise.
But an O'ist isn't going to say, "You wanna shoot up heroin and destroy your brain? Go for it." We'll either say nothing or say, "That's a horrible idea" or something like that.
A Libertarian operating from the platform's opening premise has NO moral basis to say, "Bad idea" to the would be druggie. You cannot philosophically identify why, despite the fact that the druggie has free will, the use of such a drug is an evil practice to perform on one's self.
Mind you, we won't try to STOP you from doing damaging drugs - that's not our place - but we're not going to surrender our right to form a personal judgement about your actions either.
As I said to Robbie - you can't help judging other people - its what we do. Even being indifferent is the result of a judgment - a decision not to care about what the other person says/does.
Quote
How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."
How about it? It doesn't change the starting point of the platform - it just means Allison has thought it through and expressed the right thought more fully.
#48 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:25 PM
View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:
For those Objectivists who will vote for Romney, you are voting for a mystic - a Mormon of all things?????
A Mormon of all things?????
A Catholic of all things?????
A Babtist of all things?????
A Lutheran of all things?????
A Medothist of all things?????
A Babtist of all things?????
A Jew of all things?????
Why this emphisis on Mormonism? What religeon isn't mystical?
#49 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:28 PM
View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:
I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.
How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."
I agree with him completely.
What it really comes down to is that libertarians (not going to capitalize 'cause I'm not talking about the party) believe that liberty/freedom is an inherent trait to sentient rational beings (derived from the fact that we own ourselves and all else follows), whereas Objectivists (such as my debate partner Greebo espouses) want to gaze into there navel and come up with the same foundation from a different source (I believe mostly due to an inability to accept that their may be a supreme deity that endowed us with the right to liberty). Either way, the foundation is personal liberty and for the life of me, cannot see a gnats whisker's worth of difference.
Now, as was said earlier, some of the early proponents of libertarianism seemed to believe that it meant being a "libertine" which is an entirely different thing. Nor are libertarians anarchists, as any organization/society of any size needs some structure. (l)ibertarians believe that this structure should be limited and kept to the minimal necessary to provide solely those functions not possible by the individual or through the auspices of capitalism.
#50 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:52 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:
As I said to Robbie - you can't help judging other people - its what we do. Even being indifferent is the result of a judgment - a decision not to care about what the other person says/does.
But that decision is about me and whether my needs/objectives are being satisfied and only relates to you in that you are the provider of my satisfaction. I trust you do the same, thus we have an on-going debate.
While heroin isn't the greatest example, I'll use it. No, I would not tell another person (outside of those for whom I care or can directly impact my well being) not to do as they wish. I would support efforts to educate, but not prohibit. Better examples would be for drugs/medical procedures that are banned in one location, but allowed in another and the afflicted individual obtains the banned item elsewhere. There are instances where this healed the person, irrespective of whether the medicine/procedure was the causal factor. Thus, one person "judging the effectiveness" and thus prohibiting it was immoral.
Likewise, a person choosing to commit suicide has chosen to make the highest moral decision they can make, and it's not my place to judge them for it. I can feel sorry for their decision, I can feel sorry for the results of their decision, but I cannot judge that person for their choice - as it is their choice, and nobody knows what may be going on inside the other person's head. And as you are fond of saying - a decision (judgement) without complete knowledge is arbitrary.
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:32 AM
"Go to: http://aynrandlexico...bertarians.html Start reading at the top and scroll down for all writings on the topic."
This has me thinking and re-evaluating. I KNOW that I don't substitute whims for reason or anarchy for capitalism, as Rand accuses the liberatarians of 40 years ago; and I don't beleive that Stossel, Napolitano, Paul, Johnson or most other of today's "leading" libertarians do either. But I also know some self-described libertarians who do fit Rand's description of "hippies" who do lean rather strongly to whims and anarchy rather than reason and capitalism.
#42 ObjectiveAnalyst
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts
LocationOakland county, Mich.
Posted 11 July 2012 - 10:35 AM
Hello CajunGodzilla,
I investigated the provided link also. I agree with your assessment. It isn’t accurate to pigeonhole all libertarians; they are no more homogeneous than any other political faction. The same can be said about the conservatives. Purists are rare. Many in both camps practice the good aspects of their ideology while others spoil the title. I believe some who are truly anarchists co-opt the title Libertarian. Likewise some “conservatives” are social conservatives but not fiscal conservatives. The reverse also being true has only demonstrated the corruption of the meaning of words, and the co-opting of same.
To me, it makes little difference if libertarians or conservatives don’t understand why they come to the proper course of action/ conclusions when they do, so long as they do. If Objectivism has a sounder moral basis, so be it. Most people never check their premises, never investigate philosophy, or even contemplate critical thinking.
Regards,
O.A.
#43 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:11 PM
View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 11 July 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:
Hello CajunGodzilla,
I investigated the provided link also. I agree with your assessment. It isn’t accurate to pigeonhole all libertarians;
Correct - this is why I tried to clarify that I was talking about Libertarianism, not Libertarians
Quote
To me, it makes little difference if libertarians or conservatives don’t understand why they come to the proper course of action/ conclusions when they do, so long as they do. If Objectivism has a sounder moral basis, so be it. Most people never check their premises, never investigate philosophy, or even contemplate critical thinking.
But to circle back as to why Rand had such a problem with Libertarianism - this is exactly why. The failure to check one's premises - the deliberate choice NOT to think - this to her was the unpardonable sin.
#44 Aztriman
Newbie
Moocher
Pip
3 posts
Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM
From lp.org :
"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."
This platform seems to be much more in line with Rand's idea of rational self-interest than does this from democrats.org:
"Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules."
or the following from gop.org:
"Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another."
Maybe it's not axiomatic that one shouldn't harm another person for one's own benefit, but it's still the proper way to act in society. If one disagrees philosophically, fine; but just go out and start harming people and see what happens.
I consider myself both an Objectivist and I'm a registered Libertarian. For those Objectivists who will vote for Romney, you are voting for a mystic - a Mormon of all things????? Bush 43 was about the worst President ever in my opinion, and although I support Ron Paul, he's not a panacea either - another mystic after all.
#45 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:57 PM
View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:
From lp.org :
"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."
This platform seems to be much more in line with Rand's idea of rational self-interest than does this from democrats.org:
Except that it does not mention rational self interest at all - so again - whatever you wanna do man, it's all good long as you don't initiate force. The morality of Libertarianism starts in the middle.
#31 Solver
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
59 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:15 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:
The founding fathers were very smart.
They were not, however, infallible. Calling these rights self-evident was a mistake. So was the Commerce Clause.
So was including that big promoting the general welfare mistake. Big government has promoted their numerous prosperity destroying social dependency programs to rank of a four star general.
With Obamacare it looks like they are going to get another star.
#32 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:
Frog: Since I am not well versed in Ms. Rand's other writings, can you summarize so that I might learn?
Go to: http://aynrandlexico...bertarians.html Start reading at the top and scroll down for all writings on the topic.
While the thread thus far has concentrated on the differences in philosophy, nobody has engaged on the aspect that Ms. Rand may just have been jilted by a couple of specific Libertarians, and that causes her vile revulsion with them. Much more so than with either the left or right, and on par with Marxists.
Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.
#33 JonEdanger
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts
LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA
Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:23 PM
View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.
Posted Image
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger
Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.
#34 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:30 PM
View PostJonEdanger, on 10 July 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
Posted Image
Priceless! I wish I could give you 10 "likes" on that one.
#35 JonEdanger
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts
LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA
Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:40 PM
View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:
Priceless! I wish I could give you 10 "likes" on that one.
Every now and then luck shines on each of us...
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger
Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.
#36 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:00 PM
View PostJonEdanger, on 10 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:
Every now and then luck shines on each of us...
Affirm that. Even a dog gets a warm piece of the sidewalk. :D
#37 DR_BRETT
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
63 posts
LocationUNITED STATES Of AMERICA
Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:29 PM
I have a BIG PROBLEM, with "The Evil Greebo" -- his name contradicts his actions .
I even have a theory -- he is NOT evil .
#38 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:20 PM
View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.
Read it, still don't get what you find so definitive.
As for the Jilted - you don't think that the dissolution of the relationship with Nathaniel Branden or the subsequent "conversion" of Barbara to Libertarianism could have any part?
#39 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:49 AM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:
No. I exist as a rationale being. A rationale being owns oneself. In owning oneself, I have inherent freedom to do with myself as I choose (ipso, facto; Freedom). I do not rely on any outside rationale/philosophy/sanction for my liberty, it is inherent.
Ok, I misunderstood.
FYI Rationale is definitely the wrong word here. Rationale is "the underlying reason for something" -
Assuming you meant rational, then NOW you're starting to define a foundation for why the initiation of force against other men is wrong.
To wit: The rationale for the need of men to be free is that they are rational beings.
It's not complete but it's getting there. ;)
#40 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:51 AM
View PostDR_BRETT, on 10 July 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:
I have a BIG PROBLEM, with "The Evil Greebo" -- his name contradicts his actions .
I even have a theory -- he is NOT evil .
I am to altruists. ;)
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:32 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:
That's not a decision, that's indifference. I appreciate the debate, but other than that (which benefits me, and when it doesn't, I will cease my participation) don't care one way or another.
You opened the topic. I'm explaining to you why Objecitivists and Libertarians are not comrades in arms, and why Rand did not care for the Libertarian movement, per se.
Did you WANT to understand it or not?
#27 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:37 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:
How did I imply that I require a sanction to exist? I exist - rather axiomatic, don'tcha think?
"I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me."
Did you not state that your right to decide your own course of action comes from Libertarianism?
Perhaps you meant that your freedom of action *IS* your authority to decide your fate - and I misunderstood you to be saying your source of rights was external. If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
But your freedom does *not* compel you to act in a moral manner - quite the opposite. Your freedom gives you the choice to act or not to act. It is your reason and only your reason that gives you the ability to choose the correct course of action.
Freedom without rational moral consideration leads to "Will to power" - it leads to the strong over the weak, simply because they're free to act.
#28 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:47 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:
I thought so (although Frog seems to believe this has already been hashed over).
Not quite, Frog doesn't need to hash over this subject. I've said here that libertarians have hijacked certain Rand ideas and think that they (libertarians) and Objectivests are kindred spirits. They arent.
For further information see The Ayn Rand Lexicon, subject "Libertarians". I agree with Ms Rand 100%.
#29 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:48 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:
"I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me."
Did you not state that your right to decide your own course of action comes from Libertarianism?
No. I exist as a rationale being. A rationale being owns oneself. In owning oneself, I have inherent freedom to do with myself as I choose (ipso, facto; Freedom). I do not rely on any outside rationale/philosophy/sanction for my liberty, it is inherent.
#30 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:53 PM
View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:
Not quite, Frog doesn't need to hash over this subject. I've said here that libertarians have hijacked certain Rand ideas and think that they (libertarians) and Objectivests are kindred spirits. They arent.
For further information see The Ayn Rand Lexicon, subject "Libertarians". I agree with Ms Rand 100%.
Frog: Since I am not well versed in Ms. Rand's other writings, can you summarize so that I might learn?
While the thread thus far has concentrated on the differences in philosophy, nobody has engaged on the aspect that Ms. Rand may just have been jilted by a couple of specific Libertarians, and that causes her vile revulsion with them. Much more so than with either the left or right, and on par with Marxists.
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:
You also indicated that libertarianism is based on "faith" From where do you get that? As our founding fathers indicated, it is an inalienable right - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and self-evident (therefore, axiomatic).
The founding fathers were very smart.
They were not, however, infallible. Calling these rights self-evident was a mistake. So was the Commerce Clause.
#22 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:
[/font][/color]
Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...
I have already fully explained why taking that statement as self evident is taking it on faith. Perhaps it would do you well to go back and re-read my answers WITHOUT jumping to respond before considering them in their entirety this time, then perhaps they will be clear.
I look forward to your proof on A<> A.
You won't like it.
#23 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:23 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:
[/font][/color]
Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...
That's not a decision, that's indifference. I appreciate the debate, but other than that (which benefits me, and when it doesn't, I will cease my participation) don't care one way or another.
#24 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:29 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:
As for providing you singular decision authority - you just stated that you require a sanction to exist.
How did I imply that I require a sanction to exist? I exist - rather axiomatic, don'tcha think?
#25 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:31 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:
You won't like it.
You can't provide it.
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:
I can challenge it on the following premise:
"If I initiate force against others, I can get what I want. If they do not get what they want, well, that's too bad, there's no reason for me to be concerned with their rights, only mine, because I'm stronger."
And I can challenge your assertion by the following logic: A<>A because then I can solve an equation that is non-sensical otherwise. Do I care that A=A, no, because that doesn't help me solve my problem, because I'm too dumb to solve it otherwise." Just as fallacious an argument. I say that man not initiating force against fellow man is axiomatic as we are both rational creatures, and ...
wait for it...
wait for it...
created in God's image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#17 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:52 PM
Ok, I will accept your conclusion, if you can do one thing.
Prove that A != A.
#18 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:57 PM
Robbie - to be clear- asserting that an argument is fallacious does not make it so if you cannot provide the grounds upon which the fallacy rests. Simply saying, "That isn't true" is not a proof.
#19 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:03 PM
The definition that I find is: "Judgement (or judgment) is the evaluation of evidence in the making of a decision"
While I may reason and evaluate many things, until I make a decision, I have not exercised "judgment."
Again, I don't give a rats a$$ about you and have made no decisions about you. I have chosen to continue this debate as it serves my purpose of challenging my own beliefs and rationale, thus benefitting me (and perhaps others who read through this thread, but that is ancillary).
You also indicated that libertarianism is based on "faith" From where do you get that? As our founding fathers indicated, it is an inalienable right - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and self-evident (therefore, axiomatic).
#20 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM
Quote
While I may reason and evaluate many things, until I make a decision, I have not exercised "judgment."
Again, I don't give a rats a$$ about you and have made no decisions about you.
Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...
I have already fully explained why taking that statement as self evident is taking it on faith. Perhaps it would do you well to go back and re-read my answers WITHOUT jumping to respond before considering them in their entirety this time, then perhaps they will be clear.
I look forward to your proof on A<> A.
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:35 PM
Greebo:
You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"
Answer: That is the definition of an axiom - it just is and requires no derivation. A=A just is and any derivation is superfluous. And the statement is about whether man "should" commit force against another, not whether it is possible. I can say that A<>A all day, doesn't mean it's true. Similarly, one man can initiate force against another, doesn't make it moral to do so.
#12 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:42 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:
On this site? Where?
View PostRobbie53024 END
I've touched on the issue here. The rest is a non-issue.
#13 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:44 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:
Greebo:
You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"
Answer: That is the definition of an axiom - it just is and requires no derivation. A=A just is and any derivation is superfluous.
View PostRobbie53024 END
Yes, that is the definition of an axiom. Almost. An axiom must be self evident and not reducible to constituent parts.
No, the quoted statement above is not one. It is a dropped context - it lacks foundation on its own.
Why?
It is *not* self evident that man should not initiate force against other men. We initiate force all the time - against animals, against plants, against earth. Why shouldn't we initiate force against other men?
I can question the statement, on its own, since it lacks a foundation. I can challenge it on the following premise:
"If I initiate force against others, I can get what I want. If they do not get what they want, well, that's too bad, there's no reason for me to be concerned with their rights, only mine, because I'm stronger."
And since the statement is not axiomatic, I can challenge it WITHOUT implicitly accepting it as true.
With the proper premise BEHIND that statement, which Objectivism defines, the statement becomes irrefutable - but it is never axiomatic.
A proper axiom is something like "Existence exists", "A is A", "Consciousness exists". They are not only self-evident but any attempt to disprove them must implicitly accept them.
To deny existence presupposes the existence of someone who's doing the denying.
Ditto consciousness.
To disprove a is a implicitly accepts that it is possible to prove that proof is impossible - which means if proof is impossible one cannot set out to prove it.
The statement *IS* True - but Libertarians do not have the moral grounding to understand why, and cannot prove the Will to Power argument incorrect without it.
#14 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:45 PM
Greebo:
"In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine."
I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me.
Here's one for you - this drives my kids nuts: "A person never does something that they don't want to do." or its corollary "You cannot make anyone do anything."
#15 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
Greebo:
"In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine."
I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me.
View PostRobbie53024 END
False. Libertarianism does not require you to use reason. It only requires you to accept its premise - on faith - which is the opposite of reason.
As for providing you singular decision authority - you just stated that you require a sanction to exist.
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:20 AM
View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:
Libertarianism adopts the tenet that the initiation of force against other is wrong as a primary given,
View PostThe Evil Greebo END
Why would you object to that? Initiation of force except in the interest of self-preservation, and generally as the last option, should be wrong. Modern science has made waiting for a first strike to respond a suicide proposition. Thus, a moral code/philosophy must take this into account.
Quote
which it is not,
Quote END
By whose authority? You are imposing your moral standards on others. I would no more do so to you than I would do so to a Quaker.
Quote
and ignores the moral standard man must set for ones own self in order to BE moral.
In Libertarianism, as long as you don't initiate force against others, it's all good baby.
Quote END
Is that ALL that Libertarianism requires? Seems too simplistic to me.
Quote
In Objectivism, your own sense of reason should drive you to act in the best possible most rational long term manner in all things. We simply wont' force you to do so.
Quote END
Nothing that you have presented indicates that a Libertarian would either.
Quote
Libertarianism doesn't judge individuals for what they do to themselves. Objectivism does.
Quote END
Ah, there's the rub. As a Libertarian I don't give a rats a$$ what you do. But you want to stand in judgement of me. You can do what you believe is right, by your code, but will judge me - who does not necessarily fully ascribe to that code. Seems a bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?
Quote
That's the gap in the nutshell.
Quote END
#7 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:22 AM
Oh, by the way, Greebo - I wasn't being judgmental (I didn't call you a hypocrite), just pointing out that having one standard for oneself and a different one for others is hypocritical.
#8 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:28 AM
View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:
Greetings,
Interesting subject!
Ms. Rand also derided the conservatives.
Regards,
O.A.
View PostObjectiveAnalyst END
Thank you, I thought so (although Frog seems to believe this has already been hashed over).
AR had a particularly vile opinion of Libertarians. While the thread thus far has concentrated mostly on the moral/philosophical aspects, it is my belief that her revulsion was driven more by personal animus. Nowhere did she deride Liberals or Conservatives as she did Libertarians. I'm looking to discover just why this is, since, as I said, most libertarians cite her works as a linchpin of their philosophy.
#9 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:10 PM
View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:
I don’t believe that all Libertarians are non-judgmental
View PostObjectiveAnalyst END
Clarification
Libertarianism is not judgmental as long as what the individual does initiates no force against others.
Individual libertarians may or may not be judgmental.
#10 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:24 PM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:
Why would you object to that? Initiation of force except in the interest of self-preservation, and generally as the last option, should be wrong. Modern science has made waiting for a first strike to respond a suicide proposition. Thus, a moral code/philosophy must take this into account.
View PostRobbie53024 END
You misunderstand my point.
Objectivism does not disagree with the premise. Objectivism disagrees completely with treating the premise as axiomatic.
You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"
Libertarianism starts with that statement, and fails to consider why it's a true one.
Quote
By whose authority? You are imposing your moral standards on others. I would no more do so to you than I would do so to a Quaker.
Quote END
No, I'm imposing logic on the philosophy. A primary given - that is - an axiom - is that which stands on its own as self evident and cannot be contradicted because in doing so the attempt to contradict the axiom must first accept the axiom as given.
Quote
Is that ALL that Libertarianism requires? Seems too simplistic to me.
Quote END
It is the root principal from which Libertarianism begins, and as such, falls short on the individual morality level.
Quote
Nothing that you have presented indicates that a Libertarian would either.
Quote END
Correct - but nothing in Libertarianism requires you to do so. In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine.
Quote
Ah, there's the rub. As a Libertarian I don't give a rats a$$ what you do. But you want to stand in judgement of me. You can do what you believe is right, by your code, but will judge me - who does not necessarily fully ascribe to that code. Seems a bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?
Quote END
It's hypocritical for you to claim that you don't give a rats ass about what others do while you sit there clearly judging me for admitting that I WILL judge what you do (despite your later assertion otherwise - you ARE exercising judgment).
Man kind is a voltionally rational animal. It is our sense of reason that allows us to survive - and nothing else. Our ability to survive is not automatic, it is not instinctive, it is a skill we must develop. To fail to exercise judgment is to fail to use reason, which is to fail to exercise our survival skill to its best ability.
In plants and animals, when automatic survival skills fail, the creature suffers. With Man, the same is true. When we fail to judge we fail our future.
So yes, I *will* "sit in judgment" - I will sit in judgment over you and I will sit in judgment over myself. What I will never do is try to compel you to act as I think best. I may, if I judge it worth while, try to tell you when I think you're making a mistake - I also may not - I will be the judge of that. I will simply use my judgment to determine the best course of action FOR ME. If that judgment concludes that your actions are counter productive to me, I will disassociate with you. If they are beneficial to me then I may seek to associate with you, if you're willing.
And you, my dear sir, will AND DO sit in judgment of me as well - you WILL judge what I do, and what I say. You cannot help it. You might refrain from expressing an opinion, but you WILL judge me.
You cannot help it - you're a human - you think.
Right?
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:14 AM
AR disliked Libertarians (and libertarianism) vehemently, yet most libertarians (and many Libertarians) cite Rand, or at least Atlas Shrugged, as a primary influence in them developing their libertarian ideas/philosophy. This is a dichotomy that seems worthy of exploration.
So, is there a philosophical fissure between Objectivism and libertarianism so wide so as to justify the animus, or is the disdain driven by a personal animus that is projected from a specific individual onto an entire body of ideas? Given Ms. Rands personal history, I feel the latter is much more likely.
What say you?
#2 Frog king
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:21 AM
View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:
This is a dichotomy that seems worthy of exploration.
View PostRobbie53024 END
Been there. Done that.
#3 The Evil Greebo
Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts
LocationBaltimore, MD
Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:58 AM
The failing of Libertarianism is an ethical failure - specifically the ethics of one's self.
Libertarianism adopts the tenet that the initiation of force against other is wrong as a primary given, which it is not, and ignores the moral standard man must set for ones own self in order to BE moral.
In Libertarianism, as long as you don't initiate force against others, it's all good baby.
In Objectivism, your own sense of reason should drive you to act in the best possible most rational long term manner in all things. We simply wont' force you to do so.
Libertarianism doesn't judge individuals for what they do to themselves. Objectivism does.
That's the gap in the nutshell.
#4 ObjectiveAnalyst
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts
LocationOakland county, Mich.
Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM
Greetings,
Interesting subject!
Ms. Rand also derided the conservatives.
Today’s conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are not the same as they once were. Labels have been corrupted and co-opted. Trying to fit all into one label is becoming increasingly more inaccurate.
I don’t believe that all Libertarians are non-judgmental, even if that were an expressed tenet of some. I believe that generally they simply do not feel they have the right to dictate personal activity as long as it does not violate another’s free will. This does not mean they all endorse self abuse.
I also do not believe they have abandoned any sense of maintaining a moral standard for themselves, but here again do not expect others to accept their, yours, or anyone else’s standards for themselves. Each individual has a right to set their own, with the only limit being the non-interference towards others. It is a live and let live philosophy. I can live with that.
Objectivism teaches to judge and be prepared to be judged, but it also does not allow for the initiation of force against one who is simply not towing the objectivist line of morality, unless it is in retaliation of force. In this way it is espousing tolerance in the same way.
Blanket statements are prone to error as I well know…
Regards,
O.A.
#5 Robbie53024
Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts
Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:07 AM
View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:
Been there. Done that.
View PostFrog king END
On this site? Where?
Yes that was a good thread. I too would like to explore this further. I believe most Libertarians are on the right track without necessarily having the proper philosophical footing. Many would adopt much of Objecivism if they investigated the philosophy.
Although it is a 9 page thread it would be a great starter if you could edit/ omit all but the most pertinent comments and post it here for convenience for those of us who are not so computer savvy; that is if the new forum will allow a post of such length… I do not know the character allowance on this site, but you may be able to break it into manageable pieces.
Regards,
O.A.
Objectivism is a specific philosophy. Libertarianism is broad group of political philosophies that favor extremely limited government.
Objectivism is not and never will be a politics. There are no specific governmental policies that are essential to the philosophy. Objectivists can, and should, disagree rationally on what government can should do. And even though Rand claimed capitalism was one of the four essentials to her philosophy, I would argue it is an application of objectivism and if a better system of economics was derived, Objectivism would still remain Objectivism.
As a party platform libritarians support the party politicla platform because its the party political platform.
Objectivism as a philosophy supports the process of identifying truth through the removal of contradictions in any party platform. It is logic, reason and the removal of contradictions through evaluation of ones premises that drives the objectivist. It is the party platform that drives Libratarian.
As a result of the motive that drives both libertarianism is subject to corruption. Objectivism is much less so.