Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarianism vs Objectivism

Rate this topic


Dániel Boros

Recommended Posts

Dániel, perhaps you should answer the one direct question I asked: Did you change your mind on Capitalism, under which the government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force? You used to be against that.

If not, I don't see the point of this conversation. If you think Objectivist Politics is similar to the things you argue for in some of the other threads, you're pretty obviously wrong.

I guess you are right. In my version of capitalism government would hold absolute force, but would not have a monopoly. However the state would still defend the rights of the people through contractors, and would punish the contractors if needed be so it is still capitalism. The role of the government is still to defend the rights of man, and it is still done through objective law. Just as any objectivist would want it.

By the way in the U.S. prisons are often operated by contractors and while in that case that's not a very good idea it is still a fact that a private force keeps people in jail. Supposedly such a thing should lead to something very bad if what I propose is wrong.

Anyway I don't see how my personal opinion matters in this case. It's not like I am recruiting for anybody. I am only talking about policy, whether it's objectively right or wrong has little to do with me.

Support? I never heard Peikoff or anyone at ARI suggest that we ought to support any political parties. As far as I know, they've all been consistently urging Objectivists to reject all bad policies and ideologies, even as they vote for/ contribute monetarily to the lesser evil in an effort to avoid the greater one coming to power.

The OP isn't suggesting that we merely vote Libertarian this year (which I plan on doing, as my avatar might betray - in fact I consider Johnson a great candidate, not just a "lesser evil"), he wants us to work together towards some supposed common goal because Libertarianism and Objectivism are supposedly similar ideologies.

Well I do think objectivism and libertarianism in some way are similar, but that's not my point. My point is that as long as there is a common political goal there's really no reason to join together as long as ones principles don't have to be changed. The philosophy is different, if we can call libertarianism a philosophy, but the goals the real goals are mostly the same. Except for the war issue. As I said it's a trade.

Look et christians. The only reason they are a political force is because they can put aside their differences in politics for their common goals. Even a mormon could become a president, but not an atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I do think objectivism and libertarianism in some way are similar, but that's not my point. My point is that as long as there is a common political goal

What common political goal? Just because you call something the same thing, doesn't make it the same thing. Your version of capitalism has nothing in common with Rand's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Support? I never heard Peikoff or anyone at ARI suggest that we ought to support any political parties. As far as I know, they've all been consistently urging Objectivists to reject all bad policies and ideologies, even as they vote for/ contribute monetarily to the lesser evil in an effort to avoid the greater one coming to power.

You don't consider voting for/ contributing monetarily to the lesser evil as "supporting" them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[OL] is a site which allows the freedom of its members to express their ideas on any and every subject.

It's not my intention to derail the thread with this, but if that's true, I wonder why it's called Objectivist Living. Intellectual discussions end when you start criticising the person instead of the ideas the person is advocating. That's why I always find it suprising to see the former on 'philosophy' forums, when it's obviously just gossip. I know I don't go on these sites to hear old men complain about Hsieh's body.. gross! Especially when it's done under the name Objectivism. You can call that whatever you want, "offering a polite but dissenting opinion," but that's not what it is. I'm sure the site wasn't specifically set up for the purpose of insulting DH, but because that stuff is allowed, it makes the site look 'anti-Hsieh' (or to be fair, not-Hsieh-friendly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Support? I never heard Peikoff or anyone at ARI suggest that we ought to support any political parties. As far as I know, they've all been consistently urging Objectivists to reject all bad policies and ideologies, even as they vote for/ contribute monetarily to the lesser evil in an effort to avoid the greater one coming to power.

You don't consider voting for/ contributing monetarily to the lesser evil as "supporting" them?

I ask this because of another statement you made on Peikoff's call to vote for Clinton in 92. He also called to vote for Republicans in 2010 because he saw the Dems as an immediate threat (the greater evil).

He isn't supporting Democrats, he's trying to get George Bush out of the White House, because he was the worst of both the Left and the Right at the time.

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't consider voting for/ contributing monetarily to the lesser evil as "supporting" them?

We are talking about two separate areas here: philosophy (including political thought) and current day politics. In the sphere of philosophy (especially political thought) I only support Objectivism and ideas that are compatible with Objectivism. There is no reason to support anything else, because Objectivism isn't lacking in any way (again, especially not in political thought).

In the sphere of current day politics, there is not such thing as Objectivism. In that sphere, our option are to stay out or pick a non-Objectivist that has the platform we consider most beneficial for the country. In this next Presidential election, I think that that man is the Libertarian Party candidate, but, ironically enough, only because he's 1. not a career politician, 2. not entrenched in Libertarianism in any way (his time in politics was spent in the Republican Party). Even though he doesn't have a chance to win, a good show on his part will set up a better Republican platform, and possibly even a better Democratic one, in the future.

But the OP is not trying to convince us to vote for Gary Johnson. He never even mentioned his name. He simply doesn't see the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism, and thinks the two have a common goal: to establish Capitalism. Except that Libertarians don't define Capitalism the same way Ayn Rand did. Not only would what they want to establish be a mess, but it's so obvious that it would be a mess, and it's so obviously disconnected from reality, that no rational person could ever take their message seriously. Associating Objectivism with that in any way would be a great disservice to Miss Rand's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the arguments raised against Libertarianism (in this thread and on other Oist sites):

1) They don't have any interest in secular philosophy

2) The word Libertarian encompasses many different ideologies

3) They ignore ethics to be more inclusive - ("Because of that, the NIOF principle cannot be put into the context of a wider value hierarchy. Without the ability to relate the NIOF principle to a wider standard of value, it turns into a context-free rule.")

4) They misrepresent Rand's ideas

5) They're irrational

6) Subjectivism is the core of Libertarian philosophy

7) Joining the party would sanction their subjectivism

8) Objectivists have nothing to gain from joining the LP

1, 2, 4, and 5 can be said of many other political philosophies/their members. (You're going to get people on all sides of the fence no matter how clear your philosophy is: an example would be self-proclaimed theistic objectivists.) 8 is untrue by the OP's standards, since he believes there is some common political goal worth uniting for. But 3, 6, and 7 are very concerning problems, with 3 and 6 being inherent in Libertarianism. (Edit: Actually there's a really good example of this subjectivism in dream_weaver's thread - Russell Means, a complete socialist, ran for the LP ticket and placed 2nd in the LNC. See his most popular speech, "For America to Live, Europe Must Die." That is something you really don't want to be associated with.)

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about two separate areas here: philosophy (including political thought) and current day politics. In the sphere of philosophy (especially political thought) I only support Objectivism and ideas that are compatible with Objectivism. There is no reason to support anything else, because Objectivism isn't lacking in any way (again, especially not in political thought).

In the sphere of current day politics, there is not such thing as Objectivism. In that sphere, our option are to stay out or pick a non-Objectivist that has the platform we consider most beneficial for the country. In this next Presidential election, I think that that man is the Libertarian Party candidate, but, ironically enough, only because he's 1. not a career politician, 2. not entrenched in Libertarianism in any way (his time in politics was spent in the Republican Party). Even though he doesn't have a chance to win, a good show on his part will set up a better Republican platform, and possibly even a better Democratic one, in the future.

But the OP is not trying to convince us to vote for Gary Johnson. He never even mentioned his name. He simply doesn't see the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism, and thinks the two have a common goal: to establish Capitalism. Except that Libertarians don't define Capitalism the same way Ayn Rand did. Not only would what they want to establish be a mess, but it's so obvious that it would be a mess, and it's so obviously disconnected from reality, that no rational person could ever take their message seriously. Associating Objectivism with that in any way would be a great disservice to Miss Rand's work.

OK I see. I agree. Most libertarians, and I know I am generalizing, are anti war and are pro "capitalism" (yet are pro state rights to do whatever) for the basis that it will get better results, not on moral grounds. They don't have a developed system of ethics.

However, I don't see Gary Johnson as much different. He has almost the same foreign policy as Ron Paul. He makes some good points, and then some very bad ones.

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I see. I agree. Most libertarians, and I know I am generalizing, are anti war and are pro "capitalism" (yet are pro state rights to do whatever) for the basis that it will get better results, not on moral grounds. They don't have a developed system of ethics.

However, I don't see Gary Johnson as much different. He has almost the same foreign policy as Ron Paul. He makes some good points, and then some very bad ones.

I don't think Gary Johnson is perfect, but I think he's significantly better than Ron Paul. You'll have to list some of those "very bad: ideas he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What common political goal? Just because you call something the same thing, doesn't make it the same thing. Your version of capitalism has nothing in common with Rand's.

What gave you the idea that libertarians agree with my version of capitalism? I never said or implied such a thing. You're the one who brought up my old topics. No Libertarian not even anarcho-capitailsts would agree with me on that topic just like no objectivist does, which again is another example of the two being similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1, 2, 4, and 5 can be said of many other political philosophies/their members. (You're going to get people on all sides of the fence no matter how clear your philosophy is: an example would be self-proclaimed theistic objectivists.) 8 is untrue by the OP's standards, since he believes there is some common political goal worth uniting for. But 3, 6, and 7 are very concerning problems, with 3 and 6 being inherent in Libertarianism. (Edit: Actually there's a really good example of this subjectivism in dream_weaver's thread - Russell Means, a complete socialist, ran for the LP ticket and placed 2nd in the LNC. See his most popular speech, "For America to Live, Europe Must Die." That is something you really don't want to be associated with.)

He is not running now am I right? I mean that was like what 25 years ago? If that guy were the candidate I would see no reason to support the LP, but he's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you started this thread to find out why Objectivists don't support the Libertarian political philosophy, not to talk about the current LP. But I see you haven't responded to any of the major points raised against the party (ie: ideological subjectivism) so maybe I'm wrong.

The reason I mentioned that guy from 25 years ago (Russell Means) was to show an example of how wide-ranging Libertarian views were and still are. Maybe a better, more recent example would be Mary Ruwart, an all out anarchist, who ran for the president under the LP just four years ago. Besides being an anarchist, she also believed that, "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life." (No kidding- she didn't say this on the spot while she was nervous in a debate or anything- she really doesn't believe in the concept 'age of consent.')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not wish speak about any particular group like the LP, but since my argument was attacked from the point of view that there are many who claim to be libertarian, but are socialists and anarchist I had to point out that there are those who aren't and that the groups no objectivist would support aren't the ones I was referring to with the label libertarian.

I did not start this topic to find out why Objecitivists don't support libertarians. I am fairly aware of the reason. I made a positive argument for the "unification" on the political level not on the epistemological or moral levels. Just as individually objectivists can support this guy or that guy so can they the support a group. By support I mean vote or provide money or join. I do not see any moral difference between the methods of supporting a party. Support is support. A is A. We also know that doing something alone or in a group won't make any difference in a moral context. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

Mary Ruwart or any other anarchist never got the nomination in the end. There is a anarcho capitalist wing of the libertarian party just like there is a libertarian wing of the republican party. Those kind of things are normal even in a one party socialist system. What is more interesting is why there isn't an objectivist wing of the libertarian party. What could we loose? My argument is that we would gain and not loose. They are subjectivist? Teach them objectivism. They misrepresent ideas? Put their ideas in the right place. An anarcho capitalist is running for nomination? Vote for an objectivist. These things happen because objectivists aren't there. If the people with objective moral values are not in a party than the party will not have objective values.

I have been part of a political organisation for many years and I think the objectivist view of politics is a bit naive. If you discriminate people too much in a party that can only survive on votes you will eventually destroy the whole movement the same way objectivists split again and again. That may be fine for a movement and for objectvism but for a political party, not so much. A party needs votes a party needs numbers a party needs majority, a movement does not. Different contracts need different terms. The irony here is that because objectivists refuse to be active and take risks their ideas will never be at the place they were meant to be.

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (sarcastically) apologize. I never meant to suggest that OL's forum software or bandwith-provider is anti-Hsieh.

I didn't suggest that you did mean that OL's software or bandwidth provider is anti-Hsieh. Why are you trying to claim that I did? Having fun knocking down straw men?

But its content is anti-Hsieh. And anyone who can read can verify that.

No, its content is a variety of positions on a variety of subjects. Compared to all of the other subjects discussed, Hsieh rarely comes up, and when she does, there are mixed evaluations, and the evaluations are primarily about Hsieh's ideas and behaviors. Calling the site "anti-Hsieh" implies a bias against the person, regardless of whether her ideas and behaviors are good or bad. And that is simply not true. The members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and bad behavior.

P.S. The content of the forum comes from members, not owners.

Why, because you say so? One of the owners, MSK, contributes very heavily to the content of the site. As I write this, he has 16,625 posts to my 2052, and I'm not considered an insigificant contributor of content. Sorry, Nicky, but your assertion about where content comes from just doesn't reflect reality.

So, unless the owners are willing to select content, their views are irrelevant to whether the site is anti-Hsieh, pro-Hsieh or fair to Hsieh. What makes that site anti-Hsieh is the content, which comes from all the anti-Hsieh content providers.

Many posters who are critical of Hsieh's bad ideas and behavior often state that they still have hope for her and they'd like to see her learn from her errors and make use of her obvious talents. The owners and members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and behavior.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can call that whatever you want, "offering a polite but dissenting opinion," but that's not what it is.

My use of the term "offering polite but dissenting opinion" was not in reference to OL, but to other Objectivist sites which moderate or ban people for offering polite, dissenting opinions. Two such examples: Here at OO I once very politely asked Hsieh to back up one of her assertions with evidence. My post was deleted by a moderator. So, I then visited Hsieh's blog, and very politely asked, on one of her any-question-goes Sunday thread, if she would provide evidence for the assertion she made on OO. Her response was to tell me that she didn't like me, that I wasn't welcome at her site, and that she didn't want me posting there anymore.

I'm sure the site wasn't specifically set up for the purpose of insulting DH, but because that stuff is allowed, it makes the site look 'anti-Hsieh' (or to be fair, not-Hsieh-friendly).

I think that's because you're perhaps reacting too emotionally. Perhaps you're biased in favor of Hsieh because you really like her for some reason. As I said in my last post here to nicky, OL's owners and members are not anti-Hsieh, but anti bad ideas and behavior.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gave you the idea that libertarians agree with my version of capitalism? I never said or implied such a thing. You're the one who brought up my old topics. No Libertarian not even anarcho-capitailsts would agree with me on that topic just like no objectivist does, which again is another example of the two being similar.

Let's say that's true.

So what exactly is you interest in getting these two groups who are opposed to your ideas united? Why would you want to help us work towards ideas that contradict everything you believe in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its content is a variety of positions on a variety of subjects. Compared to all of the other subjects discussed, Hsieh rarely comes up, and when she does, there are mixed evaluations, and the evaluations are primarily about Hsieh's ideas and behaviors. Calling the site "anti-Hsieh" implies a bias against the person, regardless of whether her ideas and behaviors are good or bad. And that is simply not true. The members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and bad behavior.

That sounds nice, but what you're forgetting is that everyone here can read. All they have to do is google "site:objectivistliving.com Diana Hsieh" to find many, many more posts like these:

Waterhead freak. Racial purity-type laws for intellectuals. Two words: Blow Me.

If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

Try not to beat yourself up too much over this, George--one can never predict who one's fans end up being. I wonder what other guilty pleasures she has, that dirty little monkey? If you play it right, you might be able to nail her--then you'll get an answer to your last question.

These are all from the first page of the first page I clicked on. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9525

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it :geek:

Let's say that's true.

So what exactly is you interest in getting these two groups who are opposed to your ideas united? Why would you want to help us work towards ideas that contradict everything you believe in?

Isn't it a bit unfair to say everything. As far as I can tell the difference is only in implementation and not in principle. Also isn't the whole point of this topic is that ideological differences that don't change the common goal of a group don't necessarily matter in politics?

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OL is an interesting site specifically since it is free to have a real discussion of ideas, and has some really brilliant articles printed as well. I'm still reading through George H. Smith's selected reading and it is a tremendous review of classic liberal thinking. His free audio material from CATO is amazing for anyone interesting in classical theory in Liberty.

As for DH, whether it is OL or CP, I read through her site enough to see she has launched rationalized attacks on many Objectivists to the point it was only a matter of time before the blowback came. Obviously some people use poor humor but that is neither here nor there as a standard for judging anyone but the poster. The owner of OL is actually very hopeful she’ll ride the wave and be OK, which is certainly better than say the malevolent sprits at CP who dedicate their time to half the realm of justice, a confession of infinite degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Libertarianism, I understand well the philosophic differences but the fact Objectivists line up to throw their most violent phlegm at them is very puzzling. Sure, we can dissect Ron Paul faults, for example, or Gary Johnson, but at the end of the day they both look a whole lot better than Obama, a fact trivialized in all the anger management tossed at Libertarianism. The principle being, I’d rather be debating Libertarians for control of policy then Democrats or Republicans.

Then again, for some strange reason, Objectivists like to toss their greatest barbs at each other so the issue runs deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the malevolent sprits at CP who dedicate their time to half the realm of justice, a confession of infinite degrees.

I can decode "the malevolent sprits at CP" to the authors of the Checking Premises website, but "half the realm of justice" and "a confession of infinite degrees" are completely opaque idioms to me and are not even grammatical. What does this mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds nice, but what you're forgetting is that everyone here can read.

All here may indeed know how to read, but they may not be very good at comprehending what they read, nor may they be very bright when it comes to understanding that if someone is going to claim that an entire group of members at a website is "anti-Hsieh," one has to do more than read a few posts.

All they have to do is google "site:objectivistliving.com Diana Hsieh" to find many, many more posts like these:

Really? In a dispute about whether or not a site's members are "anti-Hsieh," you think that all one has to do is read only the posts which confirm one's biased opinion, and one doesn't have to read any of the posts which refute that opinion? You don't sound very scientific, rational or objective in your approach.

Quote

Waterhead freak. Racial purity-type laws for intellectuals. Two words: Blow Me.

The above is an expression of disdain for Hsieh's ideas.

Quote

If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

The above was intended as Jeff Foxworthy-type humor, and is in no way critical of Hsieh but of the typical person who calls himself an Objectivist.

Quote

Try not to beat yourself up too much over this, George--one can never predict who one's fans end up being. I wonder what other guilty pleasures she has, that dirty little monkey? If you play it right, you might be able to nail her--then you'll get an answer to your last question.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone labeling the above comment as "anti-Hsieh."

So, let's see, one of the three comments that you quoted might legitimately be called "anti-Hsieh."

Two of your quotes come from the same person. In your mind, do you think that an entire group of people becomes more "anti-Hsieh" when you provide more "anti-Hsieh" quotes from the same person? They're all guilty by association or something? Is it your view that the more "anti-Hsieh" posts that show up on a site, the more "anti-Hsieh" all of the site's members are, even if only one person (of a handful of people) is posting all of the "anti-Hsieh" comments?

You sound quite collectivistic in your desire to label a group of people based on the actions of a few among them. Why are you so attracted to judging others collectively? Why do you bring your collectivist methods here to an Objectivist site? Why not go hang out with your fellow collectivists instead?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon- I really don't think it's necessary to copy and paste every remark about DH to prove the point. A forum consists of writings from all it's members. If I can do a quick search on an Objectivist forum and find multiple derogatory comments about DH, what do you think my impression is going to be? It really shouldn't be that suprising.

Nicky- I think you're perhaps reacting too emotionally. Perhaps you're biased in favor of Hsieh because you really like her for some reason. OL's owners and members are not anti-Hsieh, but anti bad ideas and behavior. Hang on.. does that contradict the 'bad behavior' you quoted above, from OL members? Errr- doesn't matter. You're a collectivist.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...