clarus

Please see my latest post on why I think Objectivists would and/or should. What intimidation? Indeed, and many people are in a similar position as you are. However, there are many ways to aid and steer this project other than moving. Recruiting members, donating money (join as a friend of the FSP), writing essays or OpEds, etc. are what others have done. -Rich

Oh, I'm sorry, I assumed, with the typical result, that was your site and that you were, as a corollary, a member of the FSP. And I have no idea about them either, I've never seen it before or seen anyone connected with it. -Rich

Wow, um, can you please explain what flow of logic led you to this conclusion. I could possibly see utopians, idealists, or dreamers, but a secular cult? That I missed. -Rich

Is what I said in my earlier post an incorrect assessment? (i.e. "I didn't say you'd be stealing, I said you'd be second-handing. You will be reaping the benefits of the state we will have created while you have done nothing to aid us. You consume, but do not create.") My point to you and this forum is that the FSP is an excellent project for Objectivists to actively become involved in. Consult the literature on the thinking behind the FSP and New Hampshire. Objectivists are just as marginalized as us activists for liberty in the shaping of laws and the culture we live in. We have so many goals and values in common (if you ever check your premises and come to a local FSP meeting). The FSP (or some more overtly Objectivist project to similarly move to NH) presents a unique opportunity for our ideas to flourish and be actively involved in the shaping of the society we live in. Am I wrong? Is there another plan to bring Objectivism into the fore? -Rich

First off, your warning is unjustified. I had not noticed it until you pointed it out. Please quote me where I am out of line. Read this discussion again. I did not bring Libertarianism into this discussion, others did and I have attempted to move away from it (the discussion of Objectivism and the hostility to Libertarianism, which I hope to have time to reply to also tonight, is appropriately under political philosophy). I am focusing on the Free State Project itself and why Objectivists should sign on, or at the very least, be friendly to and/or support the project. Moreover, I intentionally placed this thread under misc. becuase it is a topic that didn't fall under the other categories but was relevant to Objectivists. Your threat of removal is uncalled for. Now, as for your preceding remarks, am I wrong, or does Rand not hold freedom to be an instrinic value/desire of man? Is this desire of freedom not a reflection of man's will or self? Moreover, is it not possible and true that different men have differing individual justifications for their freedom? Francisco wished to be free to mine copper, Rearden metal, Roark building, etc. This is my point: individuals justify their low-level specific need for liberty differently, but all fall under the heading of justifications for liberty and are valid. Bringing this back to the FSP, we know that for men of reason to flourish and their values met, this necessitates a government for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Rand expressed this similar sentiment in the oath to enter the gulch and join the strike. That one will not live one's life for another nor ask one to live theirs for yours is an oath, just as our statement of intent is an oath. It is given meaning by the later actions of the men saying it and is only as good as their character. Moreover, while the words are different, I challenge you to show me how our statement of intent is contrary to what I presume the adherents on this forum would have taken to enter the gulch. I will discuss how defined Objectivist Capitalism is in our other discussion. -Rich

Of course it's a blank-slate, because the Free State Project is not about a specific political platform/slate of policies. It is solely about getting 20,000 activists to support a society for the protection of life, liberty, and property to move to NH. It is up to the people that move to bring these abstract ideas into eventual existence and meaning through political activism. We do not know what the eventual Free State that is created will look like..(free) societies are chaotic systems. So, I ask you to ask yourself, do you have in your mind what a society that protects life, liberty, and property would look like? That is your working definition. Now, how do you plan to achieve this society. I impeach you to attend a local meeting of FSPers/porcupines in your area to check your premises and see whether your hostility towards joining the FSP is justified. I think you will find your (Objectivist) vision is aided, not hindered, by us. Because most of us don't use the label Objectivist to describe ourselves doesn't mean many of us do not follow most of, if not all of, Objectivism. I would hate for you to be getting upset (disregarding us) over semantics. -Rich

I didn't say you'd be stealing, I said you'd be second-handing. You will be reaping the benefits of the state we will have created while you have done nothing to aid us. You consume, but do not create. I'm as selfish as you, but I guess I am not as short sighted and/or idle when an opportunity to live in and create a state for individual freedom to flourish comes knocking. I will take that as a no. And I have no problem with you advocating Objectivism. What I am saying is that talk is cheap. How about you and the others on this list create an Objectivist Project to get Objectivists to move to New Hampshire. Come show us up... By your definition, since it's you who decide what to work to create. I think it's your problem that you think abstractions can be made absolute, consistent across all people, and perfectly concrete (no greys) without artificial/man-made definitions and continual acceptance by the individuals within a community. Capitalism is no more well defined than life, liberty, and property. Both are words which (can) trigger differing definitions and behavior. Rand's definition of Capitalism is one, mine is another (that it is simply an economic system whereby the means of production are owned/controlled privately), but individuals decide which they will choose to use. Funny, Rand recognized the intrinsic characteristic of men to be free, do you? They see that they are not living in a free society where they can rise to be the best they can be and live the life they want to live, and decided to do something about it. Isn't that obvious -Rich

Its as well defined as the Objectivist political philosophy of Capitalism (care to argue this one?) It is justifiably presumed that people have the intellectual basis for liberty or else people wouldn't be pissed off or motiviated enough to move. A dare say you should come to a Free State Project meeting in your area and meet some of us. -Rich

It is not libertarian sponsored, but please enlighten me as to what is so contrary to Objectivism in the following statement: I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. -Rich

I know that is what you said, but it strikes me as un-objectivist. You will be second-handing the state we build, not by the point in time you were born, which you cannot help, but by conscious choice. And you are going to wait until that point so that everything has to be rebuilt and billions of people die instead of getting involved now? Not quiet yet, but look around...is this the United States you wish to support? Do not go gently into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Build your life in NH and help build a Free State. -Rich

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully you can help me in convincing more Objectivists (on this forum) to sign the statement of intent -Rich

Yes, because we realize that there is not one absolute system which uniquely leads to individual liberty. Moreover, there are individual differences in how people define having liberty and what rights entail. We recognize this and build a political structure around it: live and let live. I'd say Captialism holds resources should be owned/controlled by private individuals. It is Objectivism which holds reason as absolute. But it's late and I could be wrong...I'll talk to you all tomorrow. -Rich

Hi. Thanks. I'll try and find some time to read or at least skim that discussion. -Rich

argive99: Ehh, I think I will blame you Yes, and if you read their thinking, Libertarian Socialism, which while contrary to Objectivism, is a consistent idea. While I disagree with its justification for this, it views economic socialism as the path to achieiving liberty. Libertarianism is simply the political philosophy which holds liberty and freedom as the highest political value. Of course various ideologies embrace libertarianism, freedom is a basic desire of man and there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Heh, Objectivism is no more in its infancy that libertarianism. Rand has been around since the 30s, though I'll start at the 1960s with the peak of her popularity, and the LP wasn't formed until the 1970s, I'm not sure when the term was coined. Moreover, many of Rand's philosophical ideas had been stated previously by other philosophers and have been out there for awhile. The power of Ayn Rand to me is the presentation and synthesis of these ideas into a powerful outlook on life and humantiy. I'll ignore the alley into the debate of America's moral superiority for another time I'll close by asking you whether your hostility to libertarianism is that it is not Objectivism or whether it really produces a political structure that you cannot live in as an Objectivist. -Rich

RadCap: Okay, Objectivism is the entire philosophy, the moral part is what is relevant to the arguement. You are right that libertarianism does not advocate any particular ethic, epistomology, or metaphysics, but this is for the same reason a toaster does not have an input for dishwasher fluid. Both are appliances, but a toaster and a dishwasher seek to do different things. Objectivism takes a solid position on ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, etc as it must. Libertarianism is a political philosophy however and only deals with man's relation to his government. In this respect, it is very real with very firm positions and logic. I do not assert Libertarianism to be Objectivism, but as an acceptable corolloary of "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," which in fewer words is the libertarian adage "live and let live." I do not use the term Capitalist because liberty is my political goal, not capitalism, which is an economic system. Capitalism is not a political value, Freedom is. Consequently, politically, Capitalism is of secondary importance. After all, you would agree that people can and have lived purposeful and selfish lives in private communes? Capitalism is the overarching economic system, but it does not require homogeneaty throughout. Perhaps you disagree (as I suspect you might, but I'd prefer to have this discussion in a later thread). Without writing a complete review (I'll forward you to http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn031.pdf for that), what stood out as propogandistic and unwarranted of Schwartz was his conclusion of libertarianism as anti-morality and anti-capitalism. That we feel morality can/should be left for individuals to decide for themselves and not politics/society is not anti-morality. It is a reflection of the free mind that individuals have to decide their lives. That we feel individuals should be allowed to distribute their resources as they deem fit is not anti-capitalism, but a testament to private property. But all these positions presume freedom from physical force, which is the realm of politics. As you can guess, from my reasoning, libertarianism is the political philosophy that Objectivism warrants and should not be given he hostility and cold-shoulder it is often given. I think I've addressed your points, but let me know if I missed something...I have a lot of replies to write. -Rich