"Libertarian" as a concept

[A is A]

You do all the time. You buy groceries from them, watch movies in the same theater, live in the same country. You go to work with them, perhaps sell to them. Why do you do this? Because you have a goal, and they can help you reach that goal (and their other philosophical positions do not eliminate their usefulness).

How do you know this about me? Assumptions. I deal with people to the extent that their actions fall within the moral conditions that I require of others. A grocer may want to live in a free country, but I will not patronize his store if he puts poison in his food. I would not go into a theater if I knew the owner was a man with a machine gun standing in the back claiming he's going to fire at the end of the movie. I work with people who are productive in their capacity as employees. My goals for association vary in each case, depending upon context, and have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the individuals want to live in freedom. I have no idea who steals from his mother or banker. In each case, the context for my association is that others are acting selfishly and rationally to the extent of my knowledge.

Besides, this is completely irrelevant to the issue: whether the concept 'libertarianism' applies to Objectivists.

The goal in this case is a proper government and the growth of the number of people who accept Objectivism. Libertarians a) want many of the same present policy proposals as Objectivists as well as many long term goals and b ) for that reason would be relatively easy (at least I should think) to get interested in Objectivism. Oh, and at least in general, most libertarians do not reject reason as such (at least not any more than anyone who believes in any sort of deity does, or conservatives or liberals generally).

Libertarianism is a term describing a class of political positions (or broadly, political philosophies). If we are discussing politics, Objectivism falls under libertarianism. Communism does not. As for religion, we have a term to describe Communism and Objectivism, it is atheist. How dare we associate with communists by calling ourselves atheists?! (Joking). Perhaps people would be happier if there was a broad term like atheist that described both libertarians and Objectivists? That name has already been taken though, and it is libertarianism. You can make up a word if you like, but it doesn't mean anyone would ever use it.

What is the basis for concept formation here? If Objectivism derives position D from A, B, and C, and a libertarian comes along and screams out "D" we are now supposed to subsume Objectivism under liberatrianism? If Objectivism demonstrates that D is only supportable based upon accepting A, B, and C, and libertarianism reject A or B or C, we are supposed to subsume Objectivism under libertarianism?

Communism does fall under libertarianism. Who do you think came up with the idea of anarchy ("withering away of the state") to which many libertarians subscribe? See Libertarian communism.

[nanite1018]

What is the basis for concept formation here? If Objectivism derives position D from A, B, and C, and a libertarian comes along and screams out "D" we are now supposed to subsume Objectivism under liberatrianism? If Objectivism demonstrates that D is only supportable based upon accepting A, B, and C, and libertarianism reject A or B or C, we are supposed to subsume Objectivism under libertarianism?

Communism does fall under libertarianism. Who do you think came up with the idea of anarchy ("withering away of the state") to which many libertarians subscribe? See Libertarian communism.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about Communism, not a desire for a world of voluntary communes. Communism, as in rule be Communists, results in total destruction. Someone who wants to live in a totally voluntary commune is not a problem, so long as it is indeed totally voluntary (it won't last for long after all, or it will cease to be voluntary, in which case people can do something about that). If you reject the validity of libertarianism as a concept, than you must also reject ALL concepts of political viewpoints, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, progressive, populist, etc. as none of them are based on a complete system of philosophy in the way Objectivism is. Indeed, the only meaningful distinction would then be "Objectivist" and "non-Objectivist", as that would delineate what is (according to most Objectivists, it seems) the only relevant distinction in the realm of politics: a correct defense of individual rights (degrees and differences in problems are irrelevant apparently).

The basis for concept formation is the political positions of the person at hand, and whether they are generally supportive of government intervention into 1) business affairs 2) social affairs 3) neither 4) both. It is clear that in general the groups in each of those categories would be more similar to each other in other respects than they would be similar to groups in the other categories. A libertarian (group 3) will have far more in common with an Objectivist, in general worldview, then a conservative, liberal, or total collectivist. Certainly, the classifications are necessarily loose and are not all-encompassing systems of philosophy. But I don't see why that necessarily destroys their essential differences in the area of politics.

[DavidOdden]

The basis for concept formation is the political positions of the person at hand, and whether they are generally supportive of government intervention into 1) business affairs 2) social affairs 3) neither 4) both.

Why is that the basis for concept formation. Please try to relate your answer to Rand's theory of concepts. What does Rand say the "basis" of concept formation is?

[JayR]

What is the basis for concept formation here? If Objectivism derives position D from A, B, and C, and a libertarian comes along and screams out "D" we are now supposed to subsume Objectivism under liberatrianism? If Objectivism demonstrates that D is only supportable based upon accepting A, B, and C, and libertarianism reject A or B or C, we are supposed to subsume Objectivism under libertarianism?

.

This is a good explanation of the issue. Also, to assume "libertarian" is a wider concept due entirely to its vagueness is not a good starting point. Objectivism is a very specific thing, Objectivist subsumes a very specific set of referrents, Liberterian is a mish-mash of ideas that arrive at "the most freedom" by default.

j..

[nanite1018]

Why is that the basis for concept formation. Please try to relate your answer to Rand's theory of concepts. What does Rand say the "basis" of concept formation is?

The basis is the conceptual common denominator, the essential commonality between all units of the concept which differentiates them from the others. If you are trying to classify someone's political positions, then what are the essential differences/commonalities? It is impossible to be extremely precise about it, as even with Objectivists political positions (as to who to go to war with, etc.) vary. But in general, you can classify government action as predominantly of three types. 1) Enforcement of individual rights. 2) Intervention in social matters. 3) Intervention in economic matters. Now, essentially, everyone wants 1, at least generally, in the sense that we have a defense of property rights (though they are vague on that) and a defense of personal sovereignty. Libertarians want 1 but reject 2 and 3. Liberals want 1 and 3 (though they don't realize that is contradictory), and conservatives want 1 and 2 (again, same as liberals). Totalitarians/collectivists/statists want 2 and 3 (and may pay lip service to 1). And that is about it. Those are the essential classifications of government action, and those are the various groups in terms of what the support. What separates an Objectivist/libertarian in terms of these broad classifications of government action from others? They only support 1. Indeed, by looking into how people think on some few subjects, you can broadly classify them in one of those regions (though of course there are wide borderline cases). What separates an Objectivist from a libertarian? Perhaps a different derivation of 1 and what 1 means. While that might affect positions on various issues, in general people in the "only 1" camp are quite alike politically (in comparison to the other groups. It is similar to colors I suppose. Various shades of green may be very very different, but they are still, basically, green as opposed to blue, yellow, or red.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I think this concept would be useful in a political context... and ONLY a political context; anywhere else (like discussing ethics) the criticisms of it are valid. By "political context" I am referring to things like discussing segments of the voting populace and whether they will like or dislike a proposal or candidate. (Any deeper analysis of why a person holds the political positions he does, of course will show differences between Objectivists and the typical libertarian. And for that matter between the typical libertarian and the very next typical libertarian.)

[DavidOdden]

The basis is the conceptual common denominator, the essential commonality between all units of the concept which differentiates them from the others. If you are trying to classify someone's political positions, then what are the essential differences/commonalities?

I don't understand your answer; maybe I should have asked you to define the word "basis". It doesn't seem to me that you've said anything about the basis for concept formation. A minimal requirement for the ability to form a concept is that the units must have something perceptible in common. So are you saying anything more than that "a collection of individuals which includes Objectivists and non-anarchist libertarians could be subsumed under a new concept X, based on the common belief that government should be restricted to the protection of the individual's right to choose, free from force"? In the same way, you could define a new concept Q as "men between age 25 and 45 who wear short-sleeve white shirts", or Z might be "steel tools weighing between .25 and 2 lbs, with a spray-on foam grip"? So if that is what you're saying, then yes, such a term could be so defined.

[nanite1018]

I don't understand your answer; maybe I should have asked you to define the word "basis". It doesn't seem to me that you've said anything about the basis for concept formation. A minimal requirement for the ability to form a concept is that the units must have something perceptible in common. So are you saying anything more than that "a collection of individuals which includes Objectivists and non-anarchist libertarians could be subsumed under a new concept X, based on the common belief that government should be restricted to the protection of the individual's right to choose, free from force"? In the same way, you could define a new concept Q as "men between age 25 and 45 who wear short-sleeve white shirts", or Z might be "steel tools weighing between .25 and 2 lbs, with a spray-on foam grip"? So if that is what you're saying, then yes, such a term could be so defined.

Well that would be the concept, yes. But it is a result from my analysis that the possible actions of government can be broken into essentially three categories, and of the various possible political viewpoints with reference to those categories, each has important differences that make it relevant for discussion of political views. The people in the "individual rights only" camp are very different in terms of their political views and aims than those in the other camps with respect to those categories. They also share a lot in common with respect to political views and aims.

Classifying political positions/views is important, as it allows one to find people similar or different to you in political views, and to carry on discussions about political subjects (voting, interest groups, blocks of voters, etc.) in a concise and clear way. It is valid to classify sets of political positions and aims, based on the fundamental types of possible government action. IT isn't the same as your concept Q, because the concept Q is based on non-essentials and has no use (well, provided you aren't in some business that could, somehow, only deal with such people or something like that; perhaps advertising might find a value in such a term). But the conservative, liberal, totalitarian, and libertarian terms I came up with are based on essential differences with respect to political positions- views with respect to the fundamental types of possible government action. They are useful and based on essentials, they are valid concepts (when discussing political positions).

[DavidOdden]

Classifying political positions/views is important, as it allows one to find people similar or different to you in political views, and to carry on discussions about political subjects (voting, interest groups, blocks of voters, etc.) in a concise and clear way.

I'm very skeptical about the importance of such a classification. I very much doubt that it allows you to find people similar to me in political view (and "allows" implies that I won't be able to find such people if I don't have a special term that covers our similarity). For example, the actual prior existence of a term "Objectivist" does not thereby empower me to find such people, and one of the first people that I ever met who was (in fact) an Objectivist did not know that she was an Objectivist, she just liked the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It's not the label that makes it possible to find people who share your values, it's the existence of a public venue such as OO, a Tea Party event, a public lecture or whatever that brings people with shared values into proximity.

As for allowing or even facilitating concise and clear discussion, that is exactly why constructing a term to describe a shared superficial outcome (a position on what governments should do) is contrary to the function of conceptualization. It is the brute-force welding of unrelated perspectives, and the implication that there is common ground is very misleading. The union "Objectivists and libertarians" is, like my construct "Q", based on non-essentials. The reason is that once you go past the superficial similarity in how we would characterize our beliefs about government, there is no similarity in the underlying causal principles behind our identifications of the proper role of government. For example, there is no libertarian position on abortion, and while many libertarians seem to support a woman's right to abortion (as do most socialists), the most famous libertarian politician opposes abortion. That means that libertarianism is actually compatible with the initiation of force by the government, which is clearly inconsistent with Objectivism. Another example is the well-known libertarian concept of "free market of force", whereby Tannahelp and any number of other companies are allowed to compete to protect your rights. This is diametrically in opposition to the Objectivist position on the monopoly of force.

Thus a new construct that refers to agreement with a particular sentence ("The role of government should be restricted to the protection of rights") obscures more than it reveals; it fails to fulfill the cognitive function of concepts, because it omits essential measurements.

Now, suppose that you decide (as I think you have) that you want to work with anyone who shares certain similarities in politics. If your state is considering a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the recognition of gay marriage, then you could join with the libertarians in working against this amendment. But you can also join with gays and liberals, who will also oppose such an amendment. Thus if you goal is to find those people that you agree with, this new terminology will prevent you from seeing that you have a specific short term goal in common with certain other people. Is there a proposal to raise taxes? It's not just the libertarians who will oppose raising taxes -- go find the conservatives, if you're interested in talking to people who are like you on that point. So again, cooking up a word to make you think that there's a similarity between Objectivists and libertarians will just make it harder for you to realize that you have issue-similarities with other non-libertarian people.