Does Libertarianism have a Philosophy?

[Jonathan13]

Libertarianism does not have much of an underlying philosophy...

Which works by which libertarain philosophers have you read? Have you read any?

...allowing people like Paul to hold mystical Christianity as being consistent with their other beliefs. So, I guess one cannot fault him for inconsistency, just for being anti individual rights.

You seem to be saying that libertarianism is at fault because some people who call themselves libertarians are tolerant of the irrational views promoted by others who call themselves libertarians. If so, couldn't the same be said about Objectivism? After all, you and other adminstrators/moderators here call yourselves Objectivists, and you've held anti-Objectivist views (I've even personally tried to disabuse you and other moderators a few times of your mistaken opinions about what Objectivism does or does not stand for), and yet here you are being tolerated by others who call themselves Objectivist, and not only that, but you're allowed to be administrators/moderators at an Objectivist site! Doesn't that mean that Objectivism and Objectivists are "allowing people like" you "to hold" contradictory, anti-Objectivist positions and to treat them as "being consistent with their own beliefs"? Shouldn't others here be joining me in correcting your mistakes, condemning your behavior and opposing your having the positions of administrators/moderators?

J

[2046]

Yes, you have a point there. Libertarianism does not have much of an underlying philosophy, allowing people like Paul to hold mystical Christianity as being consistent with their other beliefs. ...

Which works by which libertarain philosophers have you read? Have you read any?

Well, if I may, I think I can offer some thoughts on this. First, it doesn't really make much sense to say "libertarianism doesn't have an underlying philosophy" (I know SN said "very much of" and not "any," but I am proceeding against the "any" position) as libertarianism is only one single political principle. That would be like saying "vegitarianism (the principle one should not eat meat products) doesn't have an underlying philosophy." Well, it can have an underlying philosophy, as many as can negatively cohere with it, eg., I can be a Christian who thinks God wants me to not eat meat products, or I can justify it on principles of rational nutrition, or whatever. You can disagree with someone's justification for a principle and still support the principle itself, obviously, but where the problem comes in is that on different grounds for believing something might undermine what one person views as being entailed by that principle, and that can lead to disagreements. But that's certainly different from saying there a philosophy lacks any kind of grounding.

[Mikee]

I think Libertarianism has quite a no. of different philosophies underlying it.

[Nicky]

I think Libertarianism has quite a no. of different philosophies underlying it.

Libertarianism is based in the same philosophy/philosophies conservatism and liberalism are based in. That's why its proponents, while having stumbled on a few good ideas by chance, are just as much driven by their whims as conservatives and liberals.

[Jonathan13]

Will those of you opining on the philosophical basis of libertarianism please answer the questions that I asked of softwareNerd:

"Which works by which libertarain philosophers have you read? Have you read any?"

I think that Objectivists would have a much better chance of promoting their ideas if they didn't attempt to do the history of philosophy (or of any other subject) by whim or fiat. You see, it's quite easy for people to spot when someone is merely repeating what he has been told by an authority figure and hasn't actually studied the subject in depth for himself. It's easy to spot when someone is giving opinions and judgments beyond his actual knowledge base. Although it may not be intended as bluffing, that's what it comes across as.

J

[DonAthos]

I think that Objectivists would have a much better chance of promoting their ideas if they didn't attempt to do the history of philosophy (or of any other subject) by whim or fiat. You see, it's quite easy for people to spot when someone is merely repeating what he has been told by an authority figure and hasn't actually studied the subject in depth for himself. It's easy to spot when someone is giving opinions and judgments beyond his actual knowledge base. Although it may not be intended as bluffing, that's what it comes across as.

J

I'm not here to speak about "libertarianism," but what you've said here reminds me of my own introduction to Rand. She was being name dropped and dismissed among certain of my acquaintances as being brilliant-but-wrong with outrageous claims. I decided that I should investigate her claims, and her reasoning, for myself by going to the source.

I didn't respect those people who, at the time, were content to dismiss her without first seriously considering her ideas (or honestly even understanding her ideas), nor did I take it seriously when they would claim to understand her ideas without needing to read her presentation of them. I still don't.

Edited January 29, 2013 by DonAthos

[Nicky]

Will those of you opining on the philosophical basis of libertarianism please answer the questions that I asked of softwareNerd

No. I don't like feeding trolls.

[SapereAude]

Will those of you opining on the philosophical basis of libertarianism please answer the questions that I asked of softwareNerd:

"Which works by which libertarain philosophers have you read? Have you read any?"

I think that Objectivists would have a much better chance of promoting their ideas if they didn't attempt to do the history of philosophy (or of any other subject) by whim or fiat. You see, it's quite easy for people to spot when someone is merely repeating what he has been told by an authority figure and hasn't actually studied the subject in depth for himself. It's easy to spot when someone is giving opinions and judgments beyond his actual knowledge base. Although it may not be intended as bluffing, that's what it comes across as.

J

Ok, I'll throw some chum.

Murray Rothbard

Ludwig von Mises

Milton Friedman

Thoreau

Max Stirner

Friedrich Hayek

Bastiat

William Godwin

are the major ones often grouped in as being "libertarian" that I've personally read.

I think, Jonathan, that you are misinterpreting what SWN said.

I don't believe he was saying that there aren't libertarian philosophers, or that philosphy doesn't come up as a basis for some libertarian policy or thought.

While not desiring to put words in his mouth I think what was being said by "libertarianism doesn't have much of an underlying philosophy is that libertarianism is too poorly defined and not terribly cohesive or coherent at this point to have anything that one could rightly call an underlying philosophy.

You have thousands of people claiming many contradictory things to be "libertarian", therein lies the problem.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SapereAude

[Jonathan13]

You have thousands of people claiming many contradictory things to be "libertarian", therein lies the problem.

The same is true of Objectivism. You have all sorts of people claiming contradictory things to be "Objectivism." And I'm not just talking about any old random person who calls himself an Objectivist. Rand contradicted herself. Her heir and his officially designated spokesmen contradict her views. Even the moderators here at OO have contradicted Objectivism. Not only that, but they've occasionally deleted posts of mine in which I've accurately reported the Objectivist position on certain subjects.

Any complaint that can be made about libertarianism and libertarians as a group can also be made about Objectivism and Objectivists as a group. Objectivists' accusations of philosophical inadequacy among libertarians are nothing but emotional sectarianism and the parroting of Rand's jealousies and inappropriate rivalries.

J

[SapereAude]

Your statements bolded, my response to each follow

The same is true of Objectivism. You have all sorts of people claiming contradictory things to be "Objectivism." And I'm not just talking about any old random person who calls himself an Objectivist. Rand contradicted herself. Her heir and his officially designated spokesmen contradict her views. Even the moderators here at OO have contradicted Objectivism.

Your tu quoque fallacy does not change the facts of what I just stated about Libertarianism. Please stay on topic.

Not only that, but they've occasionally deleted posts of mine in which I've accurately reported the Objectivist position on certain subjects.

Your argumentum ad nauseam fallacy in regard to moderator actions fails to impress as well. You have been informed of the reason for every post of yours that has been deleted, and I have in the past often defended you and tried to remain objective with you. And again, this has nothing to do with whether Libertarians can be said to have a unifying philosophy so please stay on topic.

Any complaint that can be made about libertarianism and libertarians as a group can also be made about Objectivism and Objectivists as a group. Objectivists' accusations of philosophical inadequacy among libertarians are nothing but emotional sectarianism and the parroting of Rand's jealousies and inappropriate rivalries.

And now we have tu quoque ad nauseam? Is that even a thing? Apparently so. >>golf claps<<

Again, even if what you are saying about Objectivists was true it would still be irrelevent to the fact it is true of libertarians.

You know the forum rules pertaining to your above statement and you know you are pushing it.

Please use proper arguments and please stay on topic.

I honestly think that a person of your abilities and intelligence would have better things to do than to troll a forum whose beliefs and members you hold in such contempt. I will not use this time and place to speculate on your reasons.

But you will stay within the forum rules or your participation will be limited.

edit:typos

Edited January 29, 2013 by SapereAude

[425]

But is it not also true that Objectivism is a closed philosophy with set principles, whereas libertarianism is a blatantly open philosophy with no established principles (I am not convinced that all those who call themselves libertarians even believe in the non-aggression principle, merely in "limited government")?

Objectivism and libertarianism cannot accurately be paralleled in this respect. Sure, there are people who claim to be Objectivists who hold views inconsistent with Objectivism, but that makes these people dishonest (since Objectivism is a closed philosophy; that of Ayn Rand). But there is no set system of basic principles behind libertarianism, which is about as open as a philosophy can get (in fact, if you told someone in Europe that you are a libertarian, they would assume that you are a socialist who believes in "personal freedom" but not "economic freedom". I've debated socialists who claimed to be "socially libertarian" but "economically socialist").

Libertarianism is philosophically inadequate because it is a political philosophy with little to say ethics and nothing to say about metaphysics and epistemology. I have nothing against cooperation with libertarians to achieve common political goals; I contributed to the campaigns of both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in 2012. But libertarian activism without another philosophy as a basis in the areas where libertarianism is lacking is a philosophically inadequate position.

This isn't "emotional sectarianism"; I haven't had enough time in the Objectivist community to become emotional about a sect. But interaction with libertarians on libertarian activist websites (DailyPaul, for example) tells me that the views of these people vary wildly and that many of them do in fact hold inadequate philosophical views. I'm also not parroting Rand's jealousies; I held her characterization of libertarians as a view that I opposed for a long time, and I still think her words against them were too harsh. This is my honest evaluation based on knowledge of libertarian philosophy and interactions with libertarians.

(Side note: Yes, this is my first post. I registered a while ago but hadn't posted yet because I feel like many of the conversations here are over my head intellectually. This is a response I knew I could make, so I elected to do so.)

[Jonathan13]

Your statements bolded, my response to each follow

The same is true of Objectivism. You have all sorts of people claiming contradictory things to be "Objectivism." And I'm not just talking about any old random person who calls himself an Objectivist. Rand contradicted herself. Her heir and his officially designated spokesmen contradict her views. Even the moderators here at OO have contradicted Objectivism.

Your tu quoque fallacy does not change the facts of what I just stated about Libertarianism. Please stay on topic.

Not only that, but they've occasionally deleted posts of mine in which I've accurately reported the Objectivist position on certain subjects.

Your argumentum ad nauseum fallacy in regard to moderator actions fails to impress as well. You have been informed of the reason for every post of yours that has been deleted, and I have in the past often defended you and tried to remain objective with you. And again, this has nothing to do with whether Libertarians can be said to have a unifying philosophy so please stay on topic.

Any complaint that can be made about libertarianism and libertarians as a group can also be made about Objectivism and Objectivists as a group. Objectivists' accusations of philosophical inadequacy among libertarians are nothing but emotional sectarianism and the parroting of Rand's jealousies and inappropriate rivalries.

And now we have tu quoque ad nauseum? Is that even a thing? Apparently so. >>golf claps<<

Again, even if what you are saying about Objectivists was true it would still be irrelevent to the fact it is true of libertarians.

You know the forum rules pertaining to your above statement and you know you are pushing it.

Please use proper arguments and please stay on topic.

I honestly think that a person of your abilities and intelligence would have better things to do than to troll a forum whose beliefs and members you hold in such contempt. I will not use this time and place to speculate on your reasons.

But you will stay within the forum rules or your participation will be limited.

Just checking briefly. I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll respond more substantively later, but I thought that for now I'd just mention a few things.

First, it's "ad nauseam."

Secondly, I'm sorry that you're angered by my post to the point of not being able to recognize that I am staying on topic. Please re-read my post with maybe a little less emotion, and I think you might see that my argument is not an example of tu quoque as you've falsely claimed.

Additionally, no, I have not been informed of every one of my posts that have been deleted and why. Perhaps there are too many moderators here, such that the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing? Perhaps OO needs someone to keep an eye on what some of the moderators are doing and not telling others about? Perhaps OO needs moderators who are less driven by their emotions and who are less eager to pick fights and secretively punish those with opposing views?

J

[SapereAude]

First, it's "ad nauseam."

1) Yes, I caught that after posting the typo was contained in the link I was trying to have the words link to (which I failed to pull off being poor at computers) as many who check out the forum may not be familiar with these terms.

2) I am not angered by you, I am bored by you.

3) I have personally taken part in the many, many, many interactions involving mods warning you about your posts.

4) You are not in fact on topic. Like all the other things you repeat over and over, your repetition does not make the falsehood true.

I'll finish by saying that you repeatedly asked that someone name the libertarian philosophers they had read, as you were claiming that the users of this forum criticise things they do not have firsthand knowledge of.

I politiely gave you a list and pointed out where you may have erred in interpreting SWN's post. Polite, the whole time.

Your response ignored my answer to your question and turned into an off topic attack, yet again, on this forum and Objectivists in general.

You are not using this forum in an appropriate manner.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SapereAude

[2046]

But is it not also true that Objectivism is a closed philosophy with set principles, whereas libertarianism is a blatantly open philosophy with no established principles (I am not convinced that all those who call themselves libertarians even believe in the non-aggression principle, merely in "limited government")?

Objectivism and libertarianism cannot accurately be paralleled in this respect. Sure, there are people who claim to be Objectivists who hold views inconsistent with Objectivism, but that makes these people dishonest (since Objectivism is a closed philosophy; that of Ayn Rand). But there is no set system of basic principles behind libertarianism, which is about as open as a philosophy can get (in fact, if you told someone in Europe that you are a libertarian, they would assume that you are a socialist who believes in "personal freedom" but not "economic freedom". I've debated socialists who claimed to be "socially libertarian" but "economically socialist").

Libertarianism is philosophically inadequate because it is a political philosophy with little to say ethics and nothing to say about metaphysics and epistemology. I have nothing against cooperation with libertarians to achieve common political goals; I contributed to the campaigns of both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in 2012. But libertarian activism without another philosophy as a basis in the areas where libertarianism is lacking is a philosophically inadequate position.

This isn't "emotional sectarianism"; I haven't had enough time in the Objectivist community to become emotional about a sect. But interaction with libertarians on libertarian activist websites (DailyPaul, for example) tells me that the views of these people vary wildly and that many of them do in fact hold inadequate philosophical views. I'm also not parroting Rand's jealousies; I held her characterization of libertarians as a view that I opposed for a long time, and I still think her words against them were too harsh. This is my honest evaluation based on knowledge of libertarian philosophy and interactions with libertarians.

(Side note: Yes, this is my first post. I registered a while ago but hadn't posted yet because I feel like many of the conversations here are over my head intellectually. This is a response I knew I could make, so I elected to do so.)

Why do you say it is "blatantly" open? What is the distinction of "blatantly" supposed to convey here? But I mean, yeah sure but so what?

Why aren't you convinced that "those who call themselves" libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle, I mean sure again, you can have an individual who may not be committed to principles that he supposedly espouses, but the word for this is "hypocrite," and it is unclear how it follows from such instances that libertarianism, as a political doctrine, lacks "established principles." (I can assure you there are people who take very seriously adherence to the non-aggression principle, and you can find copious volumes of scholarship written by these people which far exceeds the amount coming from people who self-identify as Objectivists, unfortunately.)

Secondly on claiming Objectivism as a philosophical interest but disagree with Rand being inconsistent, I am not so convinced. We can of someone being a "___-ist" or advocating "____-ism" in a number of different ways. We call Rand an Aristotelian, herself taking exception to numerous of Aristotle's doctrines. One of the meanings we have by "Aristotelian" someone who is generally in this tradition. We don't even usually consider the meaning of such statements to be "This person agrees with every single point Aristotle ever said." That would be weird. And creepy. So I think this is the meaning we most often have of such words, empiricist, Marxist, Platonist, libertarian, Baconian, post-modernist, etc. Why should we make an exception for Objectivist, especially if by that term we simply mean what we would otherwise call Randianism but for Rand's idosyncratic insistence on not using her own name? Philosophers often have quite a few quirks, we cannot insist on following them all.

Then you state that libertarianism is "philosophically inadequate" for lacking content in the realm of a personal ethics or metaphysical and epistemological speculations. Well this seems a strange claim. I can't imagine someone faulting, to use the same example, vegitarianism as being "philosophically inadequate" for lacking content in metaphysics or epistemological claims. That is for the individual vegitarian to decide, limited only by what may negatively cohere with vegitarianism. Where in vegitarianism do we find the attempt to even make an entire system or integrated worldview; after all it is just but one principle. Especially strange would be that worry coming from someone who even claimed to believe in that principle.

Edited January 30, 2013 by 2046

[DonAthos]

Insofar as a person declares himself a "libertarian" by which he means that he believes in minimal government, but does not care to understand the moral basis of his political beliefs, or, more widely, ground them in metaphysics and epistemology, he is mistaken. He is equally mistaken if he asserts that he needs no philosophy apart from politics, even to do political good alone.

While laissez-faire capitalism is correct, it cannot be properly defended or implemented when divorced from those wider philosophical principles from which it is derived. Viewing Objectivism through a strictly political lens, this is what it contributes to the discussion.

However, insofar as "libertarianism" is the advocacy of minimal government, of individual rights, of "liberty," then Objectivism is rightly thought of as a "libertarian philosophy." An Objectivist is a libertarian, while not all libertarians are Objectivists.

Similarly, there are atheists for all sorts of reasons, good and bad. While atheism could not be said to have one "philosophy" -- like libertarianism, "atheism" merely reports one's position with respect to a delimited topic -- it is certainly true that Objectivism is atheist. This does not mean that an Objectivist will find common cause with any or all other atheists; Marxism is atheist as well. And other libertarian philosophers or adherents generally are as apt to diverge with Objectivism as anyone else. But it is also not the case that Objectivism is somehow antagonistic to libertarianism or atheism, as such. Rather the opposite: it provides the best case for both libertarianism and atheism.

[Jonathan13]

2) I am not angered by you, I am bored by you.

I'd like to politely suggest that it would be a good policy here at OO that moderators should not be acting as moderators on threads on which they are participating. It's a conflict of interest for them to have the power to delete discussion opponents' posts. I'd think that the Objectivist concept of justice should apply, even to something as minor as this, and that only a neutral moderator should be doing such things.

3) I have personally taken part in the many, many, many interactions involving mods warning you about your posts.

I don't doubt what you say, but that doesn't address the issue at hand, which is that posts of mine have indeed been deleted without notification or explanation, and recently. The fact that I sometimes have received notification from moderators doesn't mean that I always do. The fact that you have had discussions with other moderators about their actions against me doesn't address the fact that other moderators have taken actions against me without notification, and apparently without informing you or other moderators.

4) You are not in fact on topic. Like all the other things you repeat over and over, your repetition does not make the falsehood true.

It's interesting that this thread has been split off to a new thread, apparently because it is "not on topic," yet the initial statement, by a moderator, which changed the subject is still on the original thread. So, on a thread about Rand Paul, apparently when a moderator brings up the issue of whether or not libertarianism is a philosophy, his doing so in "on topic," but if anyone responds in disagreement to his views, their participation is "not on topic"?

Anyway, I mentioned earlier that I wanted to explain why my argument is not tu quoque. In order for my argument to be an example of tu quoque, I would have to be saying that Objectivism has contradictions and not much of an underlying philosophy, and therefore it is okay that libertarianism has contradictions and not much of an underlying philosophy. That's not what I'm saying. I don't accept the unsupported assertion that libertarianism doesn't have much of an underlying philosophy, and I don't take the position that Objectivism doesn't have much of an underlying philosophy, or that any errors that Objectivism has excuses or exempts any errors that libertarianism or any other philosophy has.

Rather, my point was simply to apply, as an act of reductio ad absurdum, your apparent chosen standards of judgment in this thread equally to both Objectivism and libertarianism. Apparently my doing so struck a chord. Clearly you don't like it when the standard you use to judge libertarians is applied equally to Objectivists.

I'll finish by saying that you repeatedly asked that someone name the libertarian philosophers they had read, as you were claiming that the users of this forum criticise things they do not have firsthand knowledge of.

That's not quite accurate. I did not ask people to name the libertarian philosophers they had read, but rather, more precisely, I asked them to identify which works by libertarian philosophers they've read. See, anyone can read a few snippets of libertarian philosophers online, and then report the names of those philosophers, but that's not what I was asking for. I'm interested in hearing which works have been read, absorbed and understood in their entirety. If one has read only a few works (or a few snippets) of, say, only five or ten libertarian philosophers, one isn't in the position to claim that libertarianism doesn't have much of an underlying philosophy.

I politiely gave you a list and pointed out where you may have erred in interpreting SWN's post. Polite, the whole time.

I disagree. I don't think that your characterizing your response to me as "throwing some chum" was polite. It means that you're tossing bait, and that you view me as something like a shark to be toyed with or caught. Quite rude, adversarial and taunting. To me it comes across as someone who is enjoying her position of acting as both prosecutor and judge, and is pre-judging her opponent as unworthy of full attention and respect.

Your response ignored my answer to your question and turned into an off topic attack, yet again, on this forum and Objectivists in general.

You are not using this forum in an appropriate manner.

That's false. I did not attack this forum and Objectivists in general. My complaint was not about this forum, but only about certain moderators' behavior. They are individuals, and not representative of everyone on this forum (and I still don't even know for sure who they are, since they haven't had the courage to identify themselves and their reasons for deleting my posts). And my criticisms about certain Objectivists' methods of promoting their ideas were not about all Objectivists, or about Objectivists in general, but only about those who make judgments and assertions beyond their level of knowledge.

I also identified, very politely, rationally and dispassionately, the fact that prominent Objectivists have contradicted themselves. My doing so was not an "attack," but a statement of fact. Your labeling it as an "attack" is an example of emotional defensiveness, and an example of why people shouldn't be acting as moderators on threads on which they're participating. Your warning me and telling me how to behave while rudely taunting me and mischaracterizing my posts as "attacks" is unjust. I think that a just person would recuse herself from her role as moderator while in discussions, and not lace her comments with warnings about limiting her discussion opponents' posting privileges.

J

[ruveyn1]

Objectivst (the set) is a proper subset of libertarian (the set) Please not the lower case "l" to distinguish it from Libertarian which is a political party. There are libertarian socialists, i.e. minarchists who believe that the means of production should be collectively owned by both the managers and workers of of firm They have take the State out of the ownership loop. I sincerely doubt there are any Objectivists who assent to even this private mode of collective ownership.

he real divergence of opinion occurs that this point: Point --- can politics of a society be cleanly separated from the manner of property ownership in the society or the matter of how business is conducted (regulated/not regulated taxed/not taxed etc.). Again I doubt whether an Objectivist sees any bright line separation between politics and the economy.

My position is this: If a firm which consists of owners and managers and workers decides to make every one an owner (of some percent of the value of the assets of the firm) and give workers a voice in the management of the firm, I so nothing really objectionable provided it is done voluntarily. I am not sure I would be comfortable sharing a firm I founded with the workers but I surely would like to hear what they have to say, after all the workers whom I employ are (if we are successful) helping to make me rich. I cannot be so obtuse that I would not acknowledge the fact.

ruveyn1

[Nicky]

Then you state that libertarianism is "philosophically inadequate" for lacking content in the realm of a personal ethics or metaphysical and epistemological speculations. Well this seems a strange claim. I can't imagine someone faulting, to use the same example, vegitarianism as being "philosophically inadequate" for lacking content in metaphysics or epistemological claims.

Really? Ok, I'll claim that then. Ethical and political "edicts" need an underlying philosophy, to connect them with reality. Otherwise, they're just a whim.

Vegetarianism is obviously such a whim. While acceptance of such whims is based in philosophy (philosophy that attempts to invalidate reason, leaving no alternative to whims), the whims themselves are not. They are just whims, they are not based in any line of reasoning that traces back to philosophy.

Similarly, there are atheists for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.

Not true. Atheism is always good, so is its cause: the recognition of the fact that religion is a fabrication. The purpose of "Atheism" is always to spread that knowledge. That is always good, too.

While atheism could not be said to have one "philosophy" -- like libertarianism, "atheism" merely reports one's position with respect to a delimited topic -- it is certainly true that Objectivism is atheist. This does not mean that an Objectivist will find common cause with any or all other atheists; Marxism is atheist as well. And other libertarian philosophers or adherents generally are as apt to diverge with Objectivism as anyone else. But it is also not the case that Objectivism is somehow antagonistic to libertarianism or atheism, as such. Rather the opposite: it provides the best case for both libertarianism and atheism.

Objectivism provides the best case for atheism, true. But the second part isn't true. Objectivism provides the best case AGAINST libertarianism. Libertarianism, including Locke's philosophy, is a fundamentally flawed framework for Capitalism, and Objectivism proves that by providing a fundamentally sound alternative philosophical framework for Capitalism.

This does not mean that an Objectivist will find common cause with any or all other atheists; Marxism is atheist as well.

claim that Objectivism and Marxism have nothing in common SEMICOLON insert example of the one thing Objectivism and Marxism have in common

Why shoot yourself in the foot like that?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Nicky

[Craig24]

A quick point: Objectivism starts with "existence exists and you know it". What does libertarianism start with? Liberty? Who's liberty? To do what? I think I can see the problem already. The phenomenon of the pro life vs pro choice libertarians would appear to illustrate the problem. I will elaborate further at a later time.

[Grames]

claim that Objectivism and Marxism have nothing in common SEMICOLON insert example of the one thing Objectivism and Marxism have in common

Why shoot yourself in the foot like that?

Reading comprehension failure. No such claim as " Objectivism and Marxism have nothing in common" was made.

[ruveyn1]

A quick point: Objectivism starts with "existence exists and you know it". What does libertarianism start with? Liberty? Who's liberty? To do what? I think I can see the problem already. The phenomenon of the pro life vs pro choice libertarians would appear to illustrate the problem. I will elaborate further at a later time.

We can say this object or that object exists. We can ever say this sort of object or that sort of object exists.

But is existence an object? Is existence a sort of object?

Is existence a -thing-. Is existence a -property- or predicate?

ruveyn1

[2046]

A quick point: Objectivism starts with "existence exists and you know it". What does libertarianism start with? Liberty? Who's liberty? To do what? I think I can see the problem already. The phenomenon of the pro life vs pro choice libertarians would appear to illustrate the problem. I will elaborate further at a later time.

I think a point of contention is that people who are taking the "libertarianism doesn't have a foundation" view are interpreting the concept of "libertarianism" as something like "liberty doesn't need justification." But this not what the concept means, and I know of no one who takes such a position. Libertarianism is just one particular belief, i.e. the political philosophy entailed by the non-aggression principle. In that sense, Objectivism is a subset of libertarianism, and in fact, you can start your justification with "existence exists," since Rand does exactly that.

It would be strange to criticise atheism for the same reason, saying: We're not atheists because atheism lacks a philosophical foundation! How can you start with "there is no God"? Don' t you know you have to start with "existence exists" in order to justify that? But atheism is not a full philosophical system and doesn't claim to be, it is just one belief. Not every belief needs to be, or even can be, an entire system in itself; even if on the dialectical view of Rand, that every belief implies integration into a system.

Edited January 30, 2013 by 2046

[Hairnet]

I think a lot of the Objectivist attitude towards libertarianism comes from Murray Rothbard.. He wanted to eleminate the state and promote alliances between the far right and far left. Then he made some personal attacks on Ayn Rand and that didn't help things. Another thing is that he didn't think that people needed a comprehensive philosophy to support their political position. This is exactly what Ayn Rand criticized in Libertarians. I assume she got this impression from Murray Rothbard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Political_activism

Libertarianism on its own is difficult to define. I could easily talk about the works of Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Tucker, Spencer, and Stirner. Then there are the classical liberal thinkers. However all of these guys believed really different things.

[2046]

I think a lot of the Objectivist attitude towards libertarianism comes from Murray Rothbard.. He wanted to eleminate the state and promote alliances between the far right and far left. Then he made some personal attacks on Ayn Rand and that didn't help things. Another thing is that he didn't think that people needed a comprehensive philosophy to support their political position. This is exactly what Ayn Rand criticized in Libertarians. I assume she got this impression from Murray Rothbard.

http://en.wikipedia....itical_activism

Libertarianism on its own is difficult to define. I could easily talk about the works of Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Tucker, Spencer, and Stirner. Then there are the classical liberal thinkers. However all of these guys believed really different things.

If you don't mind, could you provide a source for the bolded claim? I don't think that gels well with my reading of Rothbard. He quite clearly does and has a detailed philosophical foundation, not at all dissimilar to Rand, and has advocated that position over positions "based on whim."

[Dormin111]

If you don't mind, could you provide a source for the bolded claim? I don't think that gels well with my reading of Rothbard. He quite clearly does and has a detailed philosophical foundation, not at all dissimilar to Rand, and has advocated that position over positions "based on whim."

I would go as far as to say Rothbard has a nearly identical metaphysical/epistemological/ethical basis as Rand, although it was far less developed given his primary role as an economist rather than a philosopher.

EDIT: I throw my lot in with Johnathan and 2046. Libertarianism is a political philosophy with a long history of underlying philosophical justifications going back to Locke. We can certainly critisize those varied justifications, but to claim they do not exist is ignorant.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Dormin111