Objectivists cannot be Libertarians?
Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 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?
Ummm... That sounds pretty libertarian to me...
As a libertarian, (note the small "L"), along with the NAP, I also view the life another person chooses to live as their business, not mine.
Just as my life choices are mine, not the concern or responsibility of others.
Your argument makes sense to me. From my observations objectivism, in venn diagram terms, lies entirely within the circle of libertarianism. That would mean that every objectivist was a libertarian, but not every libertarian is an objectivist.
When Rand has a rant about libertarians, she is saying that there are people who call themselves libertarian who violate the principles of objectivism. But are there people who consider themselves objectivist who lie outside of the boundaries of libertarianism? I am at a loss to find an objectivist belief that would disqualify one from the title of libertarian.
objectivists are objectivists and libertarians are not objectivists! there may very well be some overlap but it is for the most part insignificant. for a full explanation ask Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz or Leonard Peikoff.
ARI, being an advocate of closed Objectivism, is close to believing Objectivism to be an religion and seems to consider Rand's pronouncements to be gospel not to be questioned. I was introduced to Rand's works by a guy who had just lost his Objectivist subscription for asking a question wrongly to Rand. It was almost like a religion back in the late 1960s.
I am an Objectivist libertarian and see no problem with it. Objectivism can be a sub concept under libertarian if libertarian is defined as advocating the NAP. That does not imply that other kinds of libertarians personal philosophies or religions are included in Objectivism.
Second, I have read Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz and Leonard Peikoff. I find them dogmatists and unamenable to reason. To me, in essence, they say if Rand said “it” then “it” is true and if Rand did not say “it” than “it” is not true. Their attitude explains to me the various “purges” in ARI of those who questioned anything, thus becoming “untrue” believers and shunned. I never saw any of them actually deal with the issue at hand without building and burning a straw man.
To me, what the dogmatic Objectivist cannot accept is nobody ever claimed libertarians are Objectivists. The point under discussion is one can be an Objectivist and a libertarian. Rand said use reason. Good. Put the issue under discussion in terms of a Venn diagram and tell me what you find.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ana...
I think those examples are a bit contrived. The non-aggression principle does not preclude people or society from reasonably protecting themselves, as is implied in some examples meant to disparage libertarians.
The main reason why Objectivists do not embrace libertarianism is because libertarianism skips the metaphysics, the epistemology, and the ethics, and goes straight to the governing political aspects of the philosophy. The part about subordinating reason to whims in Rand's letter could, and probably does, refer to the idea that libertarians could tolerate, and perhaps even, embrace mysticism while Objectivists cannot.
Objectivism and Libertarianism are compatible. Not in every minute instance, but overall, I see no reason why one cannot claim to be both. If a difference looms large, since the major premises are compatible, there is no reason why they cannot be integrated.
I am not philosophically close to someone who professes a pro-capitalism point of view, but thinks creationism is right or who thinks capitalism is based on mysticism.
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?
Every year at her Ford Hall Forum talks someone would ask her, "Miss Rand, why do you refuse to support the Libertarian Party?" Her answers, seen by many as condescending, were much the same as you might give to your difficult brother-in-law who shows up uninvited at your party and proceeds to give all your beer away to HIS friends, whom he also invited to your party. My libertarian friends at the time dabbled in Objectivism, but preferred their own versions. "Just like Objectivism, EXCEPT for XXX"
That "XXX" could be any of various tenets, such as (1) unilateral, peaceful co-existence with everyone--this might be the so-called NAP, (2) establishment of competitive governments in the US, (3) vegetarianism, (4) rejection of copyright, including that on Rand's copyrighted material.
Those numbered items are not "straw men". I observed every one of them, and even found myself contributing to the efforts of people working on point (4).
Rand distinguished carefully between Objectivism (which she famously could define while "standing on one foot") and Libertarianism, which seemed to have a whim-of-the-moment definition. I think she saw Libertarians as not having fundamental principles.
Here's the one particular sticking point I've picked up. I quote Rand: "Just as the United States had the right to invade Nazi Germany, so the United States has the right to invade Soviet Russia or any other slave pen." I can't imagine a classic Libertarian ever saying that.
The chief flaw that Objectivist notice is moral equivalency. That is, a Libertarian, as the original poster defines it, considers a war of liberation inherently wrong and unjust. Not so an Objectivist.
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.
As to the Christian wars, I am not so sure they are over.
When I make a Venn diagram, I see no mutual exclusion between them. Have you done a Venn diagram on this question?
With the result that a libertarian would wait until we get a launch detection before even building a missile.
2. NAP wouldn't apply to Russia at that time in history The other cheek had already been turned. Where it runs into trouble is being told we should do 'someting' about 'some' situation only to find out the next quote is 'what gives you the right to....." Usually form the left. Usually for cheap political gain..."
My answer is 'you did.' You could have done something but couldn't wouldn't didn't and won't I can do something and have the 'will' to act and the moral fiber to act correctly. You do not. But next time I'll let you go first. What game me the right? Common Politeness.
The foundation principles, for me, are the same: Free Minds, Free Markets, never initiate force or fraud.
At his point I approach that publication in the same manner as I do the Guardian. All of that aside while Moral Philosophy could give rise to a 'religion' Objectivism is not a system religious nor secular nor commercial but a way to validate or invalidate one's beliefs or the beliefs that have been offered to them. But only for the stronger minded more inclined to think and reason and test and examine. Therefore when some in Congress decided to continue this economic farce and looked at Keynes great road block (only until you can't pay the interest) they and probably objectively asked. Is there a way around Keynes and if tested will it work. It did in 1993 the gas crisis the rest was borrowed from Carlos Marighella and his friends and it emerged full blown as the 'Great Recession of 2008. Like alll objective notions it has to be tested continuously and the use examined ethically. The Congress failed in that requirement and became common garden variety subjectivists aanother world for failures. They screwed up the Second Law and skipped the third one. On that basis one can safely say it's impossible to be a ' ' and an objectivist. Trouble is we gotta pay for their failures but that's a failure ini personal ethics on choosing who to vote for. Given the signs. I wouldn't count on the Libertairans unless they truly do use objectivism - but....it is possible
For what it's worth, I wouldn't wear the label "libertarian" either, if most people felt it were as narrowly defined as kdechaine seems to believe it is. Perhaps being a capital-L Libertarian is that narrowly defined.
If there is an argument that objectivists can not be libertarians, it is acedemic, and dividing a grain of rice rather than killing a pig for dinner. We both have much bigger enemies to liberty and economic freedom !
There are PROBLEMs and problems. The differences between objectivists and libertarians (if they are meaningful) can be worked out 50 years from now (I'll be dead) when we are bathing in productivity and wealth after, and only IF, they work together to fix the problems caused by socialists, progressives and totalitarians.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06...
But given her metaphysical foundation, any mystical explanation for life is ruled out.
She was referring to the 'missing link" between man and animal, and simply questions how evolution could leave such a drastic distinction.
She did not "refuse" to take a stand; she simply did not fully study evolution as it was not a philosophical issue. Science has not fully "figured it out", and she certainly would not have been in a position to do so.
The creation–evolution controversy involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the earth, of humanity, and of other life. Such is hardly trivia, especially to a person claiming to be a philosopher, and she did not even look at the issue. The most cursory examination, even in 1973, would have shown overwhelming evidence for evolution and none, zero, for creationism (the alternative). Rand, the atheist, was unwilling to commit to science in the face of mysticism.
Did I misrepresent her view?
Her metaphysics certainly shows she is on the side of science (vs mysticism); more importantly, on the side of nature. She had a serious question about evolution, however, due to the Missing Link that science has never resolved. She didn't take a stand because - aside from not needing to as a philosopher - there were questions within the study of evolution, not that mysticism was an alternative.
She obviously looked at the issue; she simply could not fully resolve - as no one else has - the mystery of the Missing Link. Note, however, that she did provide a hypothetical explanation.
Are you an Objectivist concerned that she had a flaw, or a skeptic attempting to discredit her?
The missing link is a non-scientific term for any transitional fossil or species, especially the great apes (of which we are one), linking back to last common ancestor which is connected with human evolution. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature.
The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to a god. The idea of all living things being linked through some sort of transmutation process predates Darwin’s theory of evolution
The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination and I most often hear the phrase uttered by creationists as proof their god created each species separately and independently. You can see this at the Institute for Creation Research website (https://www.icr.org)
I am an Objectivist who does not look at Rand as one who, for all the good she has done, is inerrant.
All that is important here is that you agree with all fundamental principles/values of Rand's.
Complete Rand quote:
“I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between man and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon — a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless “safety” of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness,
which he is afraid to achieve.
“For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between
man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality.”
Rand deals with the subject of evolution only in the first sentence of the first paragraph above, and then changes the subject. She comes back to the subject in the second paragraph, and here she is completely wrong. Scientists did not use the term “missing link” in 1973 (or any other time, really) and she proposes the missing link might be the anti-conceptual mentality — and the anti-conceptual mentality has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution.
You "Imposed" since you gave a different definition of ML and are assuming she is using that def.
She appropriately used "anti-conceptual mentality"; see also Vol !!, #16
I won't answer again - no value; nothing here is a negative on Rand.
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.
I support the Libertarian Party as being the only current on the ballot in all states political party that comes close to rational political views.
What ARI calls "fundamentals" and what I believe from my own deep reading and study are truly the "fundamentals" are not the same thing. As an Objectivist I must go with what I understand to be the core not with what some group claims is such.
I would agree that a true Objectivist is not rationalistic. Which is why I have my doubts with ARI as I believe that they sometimes are.
Second, if a Libertarian is one who subscribes to NAP, then what is the purpose of the LP Platform? Is the NAP the basis of all LP positions? If so, how do you reconcile the conflicting points of view between Libertarian and Objectivist positions on foreign policy and national borders, for example?
Also curious why you think Rand was against Libertarians?
Rand in all her knowledge was probably unable to see how she would affect the libertarian movement. The libertarian movement of today is different from that in her day, from internal shifting as well as her influence. Our conversation is a testament to that.
The second point is that she was reacting to specific persons within the libertarian movement. I am thinking specifically of Murray Rothbard.
I have been part of the libertarian movement since its founding, and before Johnson I did not see much change. Johnson, though, either through ignorance or lack of understanding has changed the chanel.
THE FOX " A Harvest Book HARCOURT, BRACE & WORLD, INC. New York .
So does this by extension imply that an Objectivist has some litmus test to call themselves an Objectivist?
Can one be Libertarian and Objectivist? Religious and Objectivist, must all Objectivists conform to atheism and the view of "some" objectivists?
If one states that to be Objectivist you cannot be Libertarian, Religious, must be an atheist, you are in essence denying anothers FREEDOM to choose and believe based on THEIR personal reasoning the very thing that the Objectivist claims to extol. Freedom of Choice, Free Will.
The biggest hurdle is step one learning how to think independently. The second is observing the nature of things and then testing the observations for anything useful AND then to keep testing as new information comes to light or is observed. The third is forming a set of personal moral values and ethics and judging what to do with the findings of step two.
If honest with yourself it will guide all sorts of choices. Secular, religious, commercial economic whatever.
If dishonest with yourself it won't stop you from choosing the wrong path nor absolve you of the consequences.
The reason Libertarians have been said to be not objectivist is they show little evidence of applying objectivism while the Rinos of the let and the extremist of the left show no evidence of using such a validation system as objectivism.
The rest especially when a group grope answer is sought is BS. Only one vote is needed based on one set of observations and one individuals morals, values and ethics. And most never make it to much less beyond step one, For once Esceptico got it right. But I would argue choosing communism or nazi-ism is an example of the failure to apply the the three rules or laws of objectivism starting with number one. It' pure Plato collectivism and that's where while admitting libertarians can be anything they want also shows why they are not using objectivism especially the third step.
But thanks for stating the prime objective of Libertarians. I can agree NAP as long as the second line says has the right to defend oneself and one's family against aggression initiatied by others. I assume it's there somewhere ---maybe?
But stating they can be left wing extremists was a step too far. In the end you ...lose. I see that as a major failure in the use of false premises
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
I would +1 again if I could.
+1
then the purism of "if you ain't pure Objectivist, you ain't s**t"...so sad...
i like Harry Browne the best...Life Free in an Unfree World...
and Eric Hoffer...True Believer...
or my spinach loving friend...I am what I am ...good old popeye the sailor man...
My advice to you is, until someone proves you wrong you are correct in your assumptions. You can be both Libertarian and Objectivist, although this would be based upon the definitions which you have furnished in your comments. If someone else has a different understanding of what those two words mean then it would be possible that both categories are inconsistent with one another.
I personally prefer to avoid labels altogether because I find them to be silly and constraining.
And Libertarianism does not do that, this you can't be both.
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.
Objectivists accept/understand that the initiation of force against others is not a philosophically acceptable means of furthering life of a rationally reasoning animal, while Libertarians have taken the principle and redefined it as the Non-Aggression Principle, a pacifist philosophy of life. Objectivist understand aggression applied to the actions of principle in furtherance of life as a desirable attribute, ie "A Radical for Capitalism".
All politics and political parties, by their very nature, are searches for power and include compromise as a means to achieve that goal. Objectivism sees political parties as anti-individual and anti-life, as well as non-principled. An Objectivist will never be a Party member, basing his vote on that Party but will place his vote instead, for an individual based on demonstrated principles and actions consistent with those principles.
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!
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.
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.
"The non-aggression principle (or non-initiation-of-force principle) is all that libertarians really have in common." The trouble I have with the statement is that the LP platform is based on a political movement, not a philosophy, and therefore it does not define it philosophically - which is to say "why is the initiation of force evil"?
That is to say, without philosophy, how can one go from the non-initiation-of-force principle to a platform? Of course, the platforms of two LP members may be different from another, but then the question remains: what makes it a political party? It must be a loose collection of similar beliefs. The loose collection of similar beliefs may be correct beliefs but the lack of philosophic answers makes the movement susceptible to vast differences of opinion. It is a collection of opinions, not a structure of facts.
John Stossel hosted a Libertarian from the CATO institute who supported Bernie Sanders and claimed that even Hayek found it necessary to provide a safety net to the poor and disenfranchised. That kind of comment represents an alien or sometimes even repulsive set of values to other Libertarians. How much more so for those who hold the initiation of force as the evil? How much more so for Objectivists?
As to goals of the LP as a party, that is different from the question I posed and strays from that core.
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.
I stopped worrying about that a long time ago - I think what I think and know what I know and that suits me just fine. No one can tell me I can't subscribe to Galt's Oath, whether he thinks I'm 'good' enough to be an Objectivist or not.
Both Objectivism and Libertarianism have adherents that I prefer not to associate with, but that doesn't mean there is not some truth in both.
I was trying to edit it to say: While Rand said we should use our minds and reason, LP has interpreted that to mean 'so long as we agree ...
If it were up to me, I would do away with the separation of powers and allow the public, at town meetings, to directly discipline police officers, making all alleged misconduct cases completely public. I would also give people the right to resist police when the police are violating their rights.
However for the many reasons "mainstream" Objectivists tend to be dismissive of the Libertarian Party (what we could call capital-L Libertarians), it might not do them any good. That is, I suspect that if the Libertarian Party ever achieved power, its Objectivist wing would do as well as the moderate branches of the Russian Revolution did after the revolution. Or even the slightly less vicious branches (Trotsky, please call your office). The Libertarian Party is rather a philosophical mess, and the one thing power is good at (yes, Virginia, even if the Libertarians had it) is selecting for the most vicious.
Sure, it is hard to imagine the Libertarian Party being truly equivalent to the Communists; but I think the same principle would apply on a lesser scale.
Obj.ism is a complete philosophy; Lib.ism, like religion, is not a true philosophy.
An Obj.ist, by definition, upholds all the fundamental tenants of Obj.ism. Thus, one can't be both an Obj.ist and a Lib.ian. This need not be an emotional debate.
Load more comments...