Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hello, I'm New Here

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Edward,

Welcome to this forum. Understand that as a Libertarian and thus part of a small minority of members of this forum you must refer to yourself as a "little o" objectivist and not a big "O". Only those who accept Ayn Rand's philosophy in full are entitled to big "O" status. You are aware of this by now I see.

In order to get along in this forum it may help if you don't advertise your Libertarianism too much for it will be assumed that you agree with every item of the party's platform and every crackpot comment or idea espoused by the most radical outspoken members of the party. Perhaps refering to yourself as a "little L" libertarian will make your affiliation appear less egregious.

Since the LP does not derive the principle human rights from Objectivist philosophy it is considered incompatible with Objectivism. Proclaiming such truths to be self-evident as our founding fathers believed is insufficient. Therefore in the U.S. Objectivists prefer to side with the dominant political parties that base their policies on something a bit more concrete I suppose.

It's best just to focus on ideas and their consequences here and not get too hung up with labels. When it comes to politics we're all mostly big "C" Capitalists anyway. This is a great place to learn and for the most part everyone treats each other with dignity and respect. Welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BurgessLau,

Pedophiles? How about giving a concrete example ...

By "concrete" do you mean the name of particular persons I met who advocated and practiced sex with children? I no longer remember the names of those individuals. Besides, why should I remember them? Fortunately I have excluded such people from my life.

The issue of course is not homosexuality. (Some pedophiles I met in the LP were heterosexual, but not most.) Now, homosexuals in my Objectivist network do not support sex with children, an act of aggression.

The advocates of "man/boy" relationships whom I met were, at the time I was in the LP, tolerated -- and thus sanctioned -- by the LP. That was plenty to get me started thinking about what kind of philosophy -- if any -- underlies Libertarianism, an issue you still have not addressed.

P. S. -- I notice that you didn't respond to my note, also based on my personal experience, that Libertarians tolerate Christians and anarchists as well. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to this forum.  Understand that as a Libertarian and thus part of a small minority of members of this forum you must refer to yourself as a "little o" objectivist and not a big "O".

Or better yet, don't refer to yourself as an "Objectivist" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socionomer,

Thanks for the welcome. Listen, folks, I understand that I may have got off on the wrong foot here. I certainly am not trying to 'prostylze' my libertarian values, or impose my political beliefs. I do enjoy discussion of them, however. For those of you that wish to further find out why I believe so ardently in privatizing education, you can read my essay in the 'Essay Forum'. I'll also rephrase some of my earlier remarks as far as Objectivism. I agree with alot of what Objectivism teaches and I appreciate much of what Objectivism stands for, I admire the stand on reason and rationality. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which I read over 25 years ago, were two of my favorite books, and they certainly made a big contribution to my life. I did not set out to offend any of you folks, and if I did I certainly apologize, it was not my intent. Now, I do think it would be benificial to both Objectisism and Libertarianism if we established more meaningful dialogue and searched for some commonality, we could also benifit from taking part in less invective. I'll grant that there are factions within libertarian circles that have not treated Objectivists very well, but for the most part libertarians support the work that you all do. I notice that on major University Campuses across our great nation Objectivist clubs abound, seminars and workshops are held, and kids are being actively engaged. That is something to be commended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Williamson,

You have not offended me or my sensibilities, and I do understand that not everyone alive is an Objectivist.

Libertarianism, to some extent, does advocate the similar political policies as does Objectivism. The similarity, though, is superficial. Libertarianism is an adaptation of a variant of altruism (utilitarianism), which itself is a product of irrationalism and subjectivism. Objectivist politics is a consequence of its ethics, egoism, which is a consequence of objectivity in fact and in knowledge. There is no actual commonality between Objectivism and Libertarianism; the only faction that can benefit from a compromise between them is Libertarianism. For Objectivism to be advanced successfully, it must be advanced on its own terms, not as an ally of Libertarianism.

In regard to education, the government is not necessarily the cause of its rot. It is a very efficient catalyst, though. Peikoff argues that philosophy is: that progressive education a la Dewey is the infection. Privatizing education may, to some degree, slow the spread, but it is no cure. The introduction of a philosophy of reason to today's youth is the cure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff argues that philosophy is: that progressive education a la Dewey is the infection. Privatizing education may, to some degree, slow the spread, but it is no cure. The introduction of a philosophy of reason to today's youth is the cure.

Hi Mr. feldblum,

You'll get no argument from me regarding this assertion from Dr. Peikoff. It is absolutely correct. I do disagree with the premise that libertarianism bases, or derives its beliefs from any variant of altruism.

Yours in liberty,

Ed Williamson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Williamson,

What is the ethical base of libertarianism? What is the metaphysical/episteomological base of libertarianism's ethical base?

Good questions. For sake of brevity, I have summed up my answer to the first part of your question. Seeing as I have other duties to attend to, I'll delve into the second part after the weekend. (Gotta see if the Sox can come back against the Yankees. LOL ) Here is my response:

First of all, I want to debunk the false assumption that libertarianism has no philosophical underpinnings. That is patently false. As a matter of fact, libertarians have the same basic premise of ethics as Objectivists – that one's life, and happiness, is the prime value - i.e. a morality of self-interest. Libertarians hold sacrosanct the idea that we own and control our own bodies and I suppose that the most basic right is that of self-ownership and that since ownership implies control, we logically can conclude that our actions must also be the property of the individual. The natural result of this ownership is manifested in a social context, through trade and production, in property. Through these deductions derive the two major rights of action and rights of property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it would be benificial to both Objectisism and Libertarianism if we established more meaningful dialogue and searched for some commonality ...

You did not acknowledge with a reply my previous post, wherein I pointed out that Ayn Rand and Objectivism consider Libertarianism as an avowed enemy. And now here you are asking to establish "some commonality" between the two? How can you so flagrantly ignore the fact that one does not seek "commonality" with one's political and ethical enemies, whether they be Communists or Libertarians? Your continued disregard for the views of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, while attempting to co-opt parts of Objectivism, is insulting and demeaning to her ideas, her wishes, and her name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of libertarian Christians, Secular Humanists, Moral Relativists, and theists.  As the nature of those groups, they do not practice a morality of self-interest. Neither do you, as a theist.

You have no idea of my beliefs, none whatsoever. I am a deist, which if you knew anything remotely about what deism is, you would recognize the ignorance of this statement. Deists reject fully the idea of revealed religion or faith, as we also reject the idea that the Bible or any other religious book as literal. So now you seek to score points using the tired old bandwagon fallacy, not realizing the ignorance of your statement. Go ahead, say what you want. You and your fellow cultists here can continue to pat each other on the back. Enjoy your mutual admiration society, for no one else out in normal society takes you are anything you say seriously. You have no idea the scorn and ridicule most objectivists are subjected to in circles political or societal. Stay wrapped up in your insular little world. You all do a real disservice to the vision and genius that was Ayn Rand. I'm through with you all, I have encountered a greater degree of maturity, and a more developed sense of etiquette from junior high kids. Great screen name, btw, it is befitting someone who is just one step up on the evolutionary ladder from your nearest ancestor. No wonder you all have a schism within your ranks that has basically assassinated any credibility your movement may have garnered amongst society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not acknowledge with a reply my previous post, wherein I pointed out that Ayn Rand and Objectivism consider Libertarianism as an avowed enemy.

It wasn't worth the reply, that is why. It is based on misquotation, hyperbole, and half-truths, spun by minions who worship at the feet of Dr. Peikoff. Don't bother engaging me again, I have no use for you are your ilk. Apparently civility, decorum, and manners are not traits to be honored around here. Goodbye and good riddence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't worth the reply, that is why. It is based on misquotation, hyperbole, and half-truths, spun by minions who worship at the feet of Dr. Peikoff.  Don't bother engaging me again, I have no use for you are your ilk. Apparently civility, decorum, and manners are not traits to be honored around here. Goodbye and good riddence!

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You complain in several posts of ad hominem attacks, as well as berate others for their supposed lack of grace and manners. Yet my two postings to you were all statements of fact, and your only reply to me is to demean my character and act in the very same manner that you accused others of doing. I submit this as evidence that your actions reveal you are not at all the sort of person that you pretend to be.

It is quite clear from your postings that you have a very poor grasp of Objectivism, which is why I would indeed encourage you to continue to embrace your Libertarian friends. As a very smart woman has often said, in the long run you get the kind of friends and enemies that you deserve.

For the sake of any rational people interested in the facts about Libertarianism, I refer you to Peter Schwartz' excellent essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" in the book The Voice of Reason. And, for reference, here is the entire content of the Ayn Rand letter that I quoted, from The Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 664. The letter is dated June 20, 1974.

"Dear Mrs. Maethner:

"You have good grounds to be concerned.

"Please tell your daughter that I am profoundly opposed to today's so-called libertarian movement and to the theories of Dr. Murray Rothbard. So-called libertarians are my avowed enemies, yet I've heard many reports on their attempts to cash in on my name and mislead my readers into the exact opposite of my views.

"Please call to your daughter's attention my article 'The Nature of Government,' in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea of my beliefs, none whatsoever. I am a deist, which if you knew anything remotely about what deism is, you would recognize the ignorance of this statement. Deists reject fully the idea of revealed religion or faith, as we also reject the idea that the Bible or any other religious book as literal.

You are not even near an Objectivist in any way if you believe a God created the universe. You don't accept reason, therefore you don't accept what rests upon it. Whatever morality you have is based on whim worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarians hold sacrosanct the idea that we own and control our own bodies and I suppose that the most basic right is that of self-ownership and that since ownership implies control, we logically can conclude that our actions must also be the property of the individual. The natural result of this ownership is manifested in a social context, through trade and production, in property. Through these deductions derive the two major rights of action and rights of property.

I know you have a lot to do this weekend, but I'd like to see an answer to some of these other questions that have been posed. Do animals also own and control their own bodies? How about plants? Do both males and females own and control their own bodies? Or do newborn infants own their own bodies? How about unborn infants? And what about some being from another planet? I understand that if you're talking about fundamental principles and not derivative ones, the answers have to be, at some point "Yes, and that's that". The thing is, I can't predict your answers to these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking the risk of jumping in here because for years I considered myself a libertarian. Extrapolating from Ex_banana-eater's last sentence in his 2:34 AM post, in my view, illustrates the core of the division between most libertarians and Objectivists. Most libertarians, Edward_j_williamson aside, seem to be focused on political economy and seldom, if ever, "check their premises" to evaluate whether their entire philosophy is consistent with reason.

In fact, it's safe to say most self-described libertarians don't even have a complete philosophy as such. But they *think* they do, which is probably why so many react so irrationally when confronted with Objectivism.

In my own case, I read Atlas fifteen years ago and liked it because it meshed well with the laissez-faire economics I'd come to believe in. I called myself a "libertarian" because I accepted it as an appropriate label for the views expressed by economists like Hayek and Friedman. It wasn't until I had the good fortune of running into Andrew Lewis prior to talk he was about to give at University of Iowa in 2000 that I'd even considered how limited "libertarianism" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you have a lot to do this weekend, but I'd like to see an answer to some of these other questions that have been posed. Do animals also own and control their own bodies? How about plants? Do both males and females own and control their own bodies? Or do newborn infants own their own bodies? How about unborn infants? And what about some being from another planet? I understand that if you're talking about fundamental principles and not derivative ones, the answers have to be, at some point "Yes, and that's that". The thing is, I can't predict your answers to these questions.

Professor Odden,

Ironic that you should pose that question in light of the fact that I am right now getting ready to leave on a hunting trip with some buddies that we have been planning for several months. I suppose that if I believed that animals owned their own bodies I'd be right in the middle of a real moral quandry right now. LOL No, ownership is predicated upon sentience, and since animals are not sentient, they have no real ownership of their bodies. Plants? What kind of question is that? I almost get the idea that you are insulting my intelligence with such a question, as the other questions are reasonable.

So, did you predict the answer to that question?

As to the rest of the posters here. First off, my main concern and focus is on politics and the political arena. It is my belief that libertarianism has a step up on objectivism in that regard, and this is not meant as an insult. I am more concerned with the practical, the here and now. I want to see government scaled back to the original scope and intent of the Founding Fathers. I want to see most of what government currently is engaged in either abolished or privatized. I want to see regulations eliminated on the free market. I want to see the income tax abolished. I want to see the day in which government is our servant, not our master. I want to see a society where all land ownership is in private hands, where government has no land ownership. Those are the things that matter. I want to see a society where the rights of the individual are honored above the rights of groups and collectives, where achievement and accomplishment are honored above political correctness and platitudes.

Let me end tonight by saying that I wish the best to you all. I am heartened to see the work that Objectivists are doing on our university campuses. You are all to be commended for that, and certainly our kids will surely benefit. I notice that alot of young kids come to your site, that is a good. I hope they do not become disenchanted with the manners of a few, but in the end I can think that your overall message will certainly make an impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, ownership is predicated upon sentience, and since animals are not sentient, they have no real ownership of their bodies.

This is a perfect concretization of what Peter Schwartz wrote in On Moral Sanctions:

Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means.

Libertarians have to hold "liberty" as an axiom because none of them agree on the nature of rights and their source. But you cannot agree to disagree about the nature of rights and then proceed to build a political system from that. That would be like trying to build a skyscraper with a team of builders who disagree on the dimensions of the base of the tower and on what materials to use in the construction. The only result from this undertaking is an unsound structure that falls as the first person takes a step inside.

Here's an example that clearly illustrates that when a Libertarian does take that step you see that what they mean by "liberty" has nothing to do with real freedom. Animals are not sentient? Neither is someone who can utter such an absurdity as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that if I believed that animals owned their own bodies I'd be right in the middle of a real moral quandry right now. LOL No, ownership is predicated upon sentience, and since animals are not sentient, they have no real ownership of their bodies. Plants? What kind of question is that? I almost get the idea that you are insulting my intelligence with such a question, as the other questions are reasonable. 

So, did you predict the answer to that question?

I couldn't predict your answer to the animal question because I had no basis for predicting the answer. I did have a sneaking hunch that you would not grant rights to plants. I've had various arguments with vegans who are incapable of coherently defending their lunatic position on philosophical grounds, when they persist in murdering lentils by the billions. So I thought it would be useful to test the waters: and I'm glad to see you're planning on bagging some fresh meat.

Now to the main course (speaking of meat), notice that you've changed your primary principle, since as you say ownership is predicated on sentience. As a side note, dogs are sentient in one of the widely used meanings of the term. But let's bring that side note to the front: don't you mean that ownership is based on reason? If self-ownership isn't really the primary principle, and comes from something else (being a reasoning creature, one with free will), then rights would not just exist because something is homo sapiens. Man would have rights because they are necessary for man to survive according to his nature -- which is by using reason.

As for your concern with the practical and the here and now, I take it that you don't support Badnarik, because it's clear that he cannot possibly win the election and supporting him is impractical. So either you support Kerry, or you support Bush (frankly, it's unimportant to me which). I agree with your desire to retract the tentacles of government, but what is your practical proposal to accomplish that? It is not practical to eliminate regulations on the free market, since the common citizen needs protection from greedy people who don't care about our lives. Who is going to protect the ordinary citizen from unsafe products and working conditions? Who is going to guarantee social justice so that those in need won't find themselves starving? Someone has to stand up and be the voice of the disenfranchised and the slack of character (oops, that just slipped out). Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "practical". I thought it meant "politically popular".

In other words, philosophical foundations are not just an abstract academic concern, they directly relate to the sad state of contemporary American politics. They also relate to important questions about rights. What are my rights? Concretely, as an author, I need to know what rights I have to the product of my mind. Should I receive the death sentence for short-changing a customer at the grocery store? After all, that is basically theft, which is a violation of rights, and if you believe that a rights-violator should lose all of his rights, then death would be an okay outcome (except, of course, for the poor schmuck who gets killed). The other extreme is to say that murderers should at worst suffer social oprobium. Yeah, yeah, I know, you didn't say that, but you leave those possibilities open. How are the answers to these questions supposed to be answered in the first place, if there aren't any philosophical principles.

So assuming that there should be philosophical principles, exactly what are they? Is liberty the primary principle? Or does it have something to do with reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the rest of the posters here. First off, my main concern and focus is on politics and the political arena. It is my belief that libertarianism has a step up on objectivism in that regard, and this is not meant as an insult. I am more concerned with the practical, the here and now.

That says it all, and explains why you are a libertarian rather than an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That says it all, and explains why you are a libertarian rather than an Objectivist.

Well, you can sit around for the rest of your life debating as to whether or not reality is actually reality while the forces of big government continue to chip away at your basic liberties, taxing you into oblivion for the effort, all the while with continuing to shackle the free market with onerous and disasterous regulations. Perhaps you can philosophize it all away with superfluous language. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowzer,

Just so that you know, I have studied each facet of Objectivism, I am familiar with the basic tenants of Objectivism. I have read Ayn Rand’s major works, and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were two of my favorite books. I also value reason and logic above emotionalism, just like you do. You seem to confuse rational thought with the concept of Rationalism. You would be the type that spends the better part of his life trying to ‘prove’ that reality is real. Theory in its purity takes

precedence over actual observable proof (evidence). I have news for you and all who dwell within your insular little cocoon, the concepts of individual rights, self-ownership (libertarian philosophy) and freedom pre-date Objectivism. Many of the arguments that I have encountered here against libertarianism center around the perception that the concepts of rights are deduced from philosophy, forgetting that natural rights and natural laws are as immutable as are the laws of gravity. It is my experience that many Objectivists equate reason, morality, and rights with sententious phrases, as if that were to pass as truth and wisdom, especially the Peikoff acolytes.

You like to pass off quotes from Peter Schwartz and Dr. Peikoff as absolute truths, it appears to me that for you the ‘wisdom’ that pour from their mouths is somehow omniscient. The way you go about quoting them it makes it appear as if you deify them. Oh, I like the irony of that from an Objectivist. LOL How about searching for something a little more irrefutable, such as evidence to back your assertions. Insinuation and innuendo do not pass for wisdom or truth in the real world.

Now as to philosophy as it relates to the concept of liberty, the possession of a firm philosophical base is important, absolutely, as it helps one to refine the understanding of the details of freedom and liberty, but it is not a necessity to grasp the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Perhaps you can philosophize it all away with superfluous language. :D

That you are "more concerned with the practical" than with the ideas of Objectivism shows you to be as intellectually vacuous as is the Libertarian party that you so vociferously promote. At best you give lip service to your "objectivism," which you have ripped from the heart of actual Objectivism, because you have no real grasp of the philosophy nor of the importance of ideas.

For others: The tripe that is being spewed by this character here in this thread, and elsewhere, is exactly why the issue raised by GC in this thread, should be, in my view, resolved by putting a muzzle on these libertarians, preventing them from promoting their disgusting and offensive views. I think they should be treated in regard to promoting their ideas, just like avowed communists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...