Libertarianism

[ers]

First- a little about myself. I've only ever read one book by Ayn Rand, which was "Anthem", and that was many years ago in high school. I'm pretty sure my teacher only had us read it because she wanted to criticize it. In any case, I remember very little about it. I don't consider myself and Objectivist by any stretch of imagination. I don't really like reading about moral and political theory. Rather, I come up with my own ideas based on daily observation. Ideas such as "competition drives innovation" makes sense to me because it works in the real world, not because I read about it in some book.

My fiancee is an Objectivist. Her brother and his significant other are also both Objectivists. So I hear about it quite often.

When people ask me what my political affiliation is, I say "Libertarian", because that's about the closest thing to describing my beliefs. Basically I want the government out of my life; I don't want the government acting like it's my parent and I'm some idiot junior in high school that doesn't know how to take care of myself. I strongly believe in personal responsibility, liberty and choice as long as it doesn't violate others' rights. That being said, I'm not an anarchist. The government's place should be to maintain a police and military force to protect individuals from those who would violate their rights.

When I talk about being a Libertarian, any Objectivist around immediately says that they hate Libertarianism because it has no basis and no definition of morality. This I do not understand, because it seems to me the primary outcome of both Libertarianism and Objectivism are one and the same, which is the protection of individuals' rights.

Why do I have to define my morals from anywhere? Why should it even matter? It troubles me because it is reminiscent of conversations I had with really religious no-compromise people. They told me that even if a person lived moral, ethical life and was a good person, they would never get into heaven simply because they didn't believe in Jesus.

Anyone care to comment?

[Greebo]

Wrong Libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianis...8metaphysics%29

Philosophical Libertarianism denies the concept of cause and effect. Objectivists believe that cause and effect is self evident (axiomatic). If it weren't, you could chop down a tree and still have it remain standing.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Greebo

[dianahsieh]

When I talk about being a Libertarian, any Objectivist around immediately says that they hate Libertarianism because it has no basis and no definition of morality. This I do not understand, because it seems to me the primary outcome of both Libertarianism and Objectivism are one and the same, which is the protection of individuals' rights.

Why do I have to define my morals from anywhere? Why should it even matter? It troubles me because it is reminiscent of conversations I had with really religious no-compromise people. They told me that even if a person lived moral, ethical life and was a good person, they would never get into heaven simply because they didn't believe in Jesus.

Your morals matter because without a foundation in morality (and epistemology and metaphysics), you can't defend liberty -- and you can't even say what liberty is. That's been shown -- in spades -- by the modern libertarian movement. For more than that, I'd strongly recommend that you read my husband's essay The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon and the Organization of Health Practitioners.

[dianahsieh]

Wrong Libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianis...8metaphysics%29

Philosophical Libertarianism denies the concept of cause and effect. Objectivists believe that cause and effect is self evident (axiomatic). If it weren't, you could chop down a tree and still have it remain standing.

Greebo, libertarianism in metaphysics means something completely and totally different than libertarianism in politics. So your post isn't even relevant to the question asked.

(Also, only one form of metaphysical libertarianism -- namely indeterminism -- denies causation. It's not true of libertarianism per se. In fact, although the standard philosophic categories are somewhat confused, I'd say that the Objectivist view of free will is a form of libertarianism -- metaphysical, not political.)

[Greebo]

Greebo, libertarianism in metaphysics means something completely and totally different than libertarianism in politics. So your post isn't even relevant to the question asked.

(Also, only one form of metaphysical libertarianism -- namely indeterminism -- denies causation. It's not true of libertarianism per se. In fact, although the standard philosophic categories are somewhat confused, I'd say that the Objectivist view of free will is a form of libertarianism -- metaphysical, not political.)

I stand corrected.

[Benpercent]

When I talk about being a Libertarian, any Objectivist around immediately says that they hate Libertarianism because it has no basis and no definition of morality. This I do not understand, because it seems to me the primary outcome of both Libertarianism and Objectivism are one and the same, which is the protection of individuals' rights.

It is true that the primary goals between the two are the same, but the problem with Libertarianism is that it accepts the conclusions of Objectivism, but ignores what supports them (in politics, for instance, the support is ethics). It accepts Capitalism while rejecting the morality underlining it. Many have gone so far as to plagiarize Objectivism in this fashion while at the same time claiming to hate Ayn Rand.

Moreover, we're talking about a political movement (and a political movement only) that's doomed to fail. Under this system the things it advocates are treated as self-evident when in truth it is not. Take for instance the "non-aggression axiom", which isn't an axiom to begin with. This pseudo-axiom states that it is self-evident that one should not use force against other people, but of course it is not self-evident. An example of a proper axiom would be existence. Taking a momentary glance at your surroundings will show you existence is self-evident.

The reason this system is doomed to fail is because it's fighting against full blooded philosophies, that is, philosophies which hold a number of stances in every branch of philosophy (e.g. ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and so on). All Libertarianism has is the "non-aggression axiom". People will reject this system because their held philosophies will always influence them to do so, because ethics trump non-ethics, metaphysics trump non-metaphysics, and so on.

If you want to change something in this world, you have to do it through the changing of ideas. That means changing the popular thinking in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and anesthetics. People aren't going to abandon their way of thinking just because someone told them it is "common sense" to do so. Take suicide cults for instance (the only example I could think of, sorry). Telling them their drinking of cyanide kool-aid is ridiculous won't stop them. On the other hand, using persuasive arguments involving a thorough knowledge of epistemology (proving the comet God is arbitrary) and ethics (why their morality is invalid and inapplicable) just might convince them to believe otherwise.

Why do I have to define my morals from anywhere?

If you don't define them, then you won't know what they are, and thus you are more likely to cross the blurry line of established principles. Definitions make that line precise and clear.

Why should it even matter?

Ethics are a guide to how we should live. So it's a matter of survival.

-----

Since you're not well-versed with Objectivism, you might be interested in this lexicon. It contains a basic outline of all the positions held in Objectivism, and will serve to get you your answers faster than we can. There's even an entry for Libertarianism.

[Zip]

I'm not a huge philosophy type either (though I’m plodding my way through some of it) but my personal problem with Libertarians, and what has led me here was the seeming inability of Libertarians to agree on what their ideal should look like. I personally believe that O'ism's philosophical roots leads to a more cohesive view of what the ideal should look like.

Are there disagreements? Yes, but because the standard of reason is so high it doesn't collapse into name-calling and other foolishness.

I’d also like to take the time to say that of the O’ist sites I’ve visited, this one is by far the friendliest, is among the most active and has the best discussion.

[Pyotr]

The Founding Fathers of the Unites States were brilliant but they made the mistake of saying individual rights are God given. They didn't offer any reality based justification for them. That left the most benevolent country on earth vulnerable to statism. The Libertarians claim they support liberty but they completely dispense with philosophy and offer no justification for anything. They want freedom because they want it. That makes them very dangerous to liberty.

[DavidOdden]

Why do I have to define my morals from anywhere? Why should it even matter?

Here's why. You understand, I assume, that "morals" refers to a set of ethical principles that guide your choices. Should you kill your sister?; steal the car?; shoot your cat?; kill that rat?; be honest today?; be honest tomorrow? be honest the day after tomorrow? The answer to these, and many more questions, have to come from somewhere. What are those principles that you follow? They aren't just random computer-generated choices. They have a specific nature -- you have to define that nature.

This I do not understand, because it seems to me the primary outcome of both Libertarianism and Objectivism are one and the same, which is the protection of individuals' rights.

The appearance of similarity between libertarianism (minarchism variety) and Objectivism only exists at the political level. Morality is a broader concept which includes questions such as "what is right for my life" -- out of reach for libertarians -- and also "what are proper rights-respecting ways of dealing with other people", again something outside of libertarian concepts of morality. The essential difference between the two is that Objectivism focuses on the principles that guide man’s actions, evaluated in terms of his life an a proper end, and libertarianism focuses on "liberty".

[ers]

Thanks for the replies.

I agree with the existence axiom that Benpercent mentioned. I exist (I am self aware), and therefore, I have a right to continue my existence, and that is that basis for my own personal morality. Do I have a right to have food because I am hungry? No- unless I can somehow grow or produce the food myself, through my own existence. And by simple extension, you can deduce that it is immoral to steal or otherwise illegitimately obtain food that someone else has grown or produced. And thus, an entire moral foundation can be formulated.

I agree that a lot of Libertarians offer differing ideas on a wide range of subjects. But at the same time, that is why I consider it to be somewhat more practical than from what I understand about Objectivism. I don't think Libertarians can agree on what an ideal looks like because no such ideal truly exists- human beings differ far too greatly. That's why you'll find gun enthusiasts who hate marijuana in the same room as pot smokers who hate guns when the two would normally not interact; they simply want to be left alone to live out their lives as they see fit.

In reality, I don't spend my time pondering over the great questions of morality and existence. It's interesting sometimes, but not all the time. And I think that many people are the same. In real life, we carry out every day tasks, and we are concerned about how decisions made by governments will affect us.

I guess that's what I don't understand about Objectivism- is that it's an ideal. Is it practical? Maybe. But in order for it to be truly practical it would require everyone on the planet to actually *be* an Objectivist. That won't happen. Whereas people from all different backgrounds can agree that competition is good, that government involvement in private affairs is usually disastrous and inefficient, and that personal responsibility should be championed- they don't necessarily have to agree about God or morality of using drugs or whatever else.

But I can see where you guys are coming from and why it's unappealing to you from a simple "lack of cohesion and true definition" standpoint.

And my own views about personal choice and free will are even crazier; the more I program and read about artificial intelligence and quantum computing, the more I am convinced that we are nothing more than finite automata state machines- and that our behavior is ultimately determined through our biological programming.

[Pyotr]

I don't think Libertarians can agree on what an ideal looks like because no such ideal truly exists- human beings differ far too greatly.

The requirements for survival are the same for everyone. The Objectivist ethics and politics are derived from the nature of man and his requirements for survival as a rational being.

[KendallJ]

I guess that's what I don't understand about Objectivism- is that it's an ideal. Is it practical? Maybe. But in order for it to be truly practical it would require everyone on the planet to actually *be* an Objectivist.

What makes you say that? You contradicted yourself in the next sentence.

[khaight]

I guess that's what I don't understand about Objectivism- is that it's an ideal. Is it practical? Maybe. But in order for it to be truly practical it would require everyone on the planet to actually *be* an Objectivist.

You seem to be operating from a strange definition of "practical" here. It is obvious that most people today are not Objectivists. Nevertheless, I have been guiding my own life in accordance with Objectivist ethical and epistemological principles for many years and I have found them an excellent foundation for success and happiness. In fact, those principles are extremely helpful in dealing with people who want me to make sacrifices, or who act irrationally -- i.e., with people who are not Objectivists. They are, in short, eminently practical.

Since I have years of direct, first-hand experience with the practicality of Objectivist principles, I don't understand what you mean by "truly practical". Could you clarify?

On the original topic, one of my practical reasons for supporting Objectivism rather than Libertarianism flows from my assessment of what's driving the growth of statism in the world. People reject freedom because it conflicts with the morality and epistemology (or lack thereof) they have accepted as true. Effective defense of freedom in the culture requires effective defense in the culture of the deeper principles on which freedom depends. Because Libertarianism has no position on those deeper principles, it literally has nothing to say on what I consider the crucial issues of our time. It has no value to offer me. I don't hate Libertarianism. I do my best to ignore it because it is, at root, useless.

Edited April 30, 2008 by khaight

[ers]

You seem to be operating from a strange definition of "practical" here. It is obvious that most people today are not Objectivists. Nevertheless, I have been guiding my own life in accordance with Objectivist ethical and epistemological principles for many years and I have found them an excellent foundation for success and happiness. In fact, those principles are extremely helpful in dealing with people who want me to make sacrifices, or who act irrationally -- i.e., with people who are not Objectivists. They are, in short, eminently practical.

By practical, I don't mean helping an individual in his or her every day life. I mean on a large, workable, political scale. I find it doubtful you will ever convince Christians, Muslims, Environmentalists, or whoever else that their morals should be based on rational self interest rather than their current definitions. Cognitive dissonance prevents even the most intelligent people from recanting their absurd ideas about life and religion. I do think, however, you still may be able to convince those same people in the *practical* outcome - (i.e., Libertarianism). As I said before, practical ideas stemming from capitalism like competition and personal responsibility do not necessarily have to be grounded using the same moral foundation in order to be beneficial or workable. A Christian Libertarian and an Atheist Libertarian may not agree on the morality of say, abortion, but they both may be able to agree that it's not the government's duty to intervene with a personal decision like that.

I know I'm breaching topics here I really have no way of defending or backing up because I don't read much about philosophy. But I'm trying to stand back and look at everything from a third person standpoint. How can we as a society get people to work together in the most productive manner? Are the uncompromising and unyielding ways of Objectivism really workable for large scale society, where opinions on everything are so incredibly diverse?

Wotan mentioned "Even the best Objectivists tend towards a kind of religiosity, frankly. It isn't fun to say. But it is true.".

I can definitely agree with this. Some of the Objectivists I know attend lectures where they visit places that Ayn Rand gave speeches. One particular Objectivist, when I asked her about her philosophical ideas said something along the lines of "For years I was a Christian but then I came to know the way of Ayn Rand." When she uttered those last two words, she literally had *stars* in her eyes- the kind of blank, scary look that religious people get when they talk about how god speaks to them. Very creepy and unsettling.

[KendallJ]

I do think, however, you still may be able to convince those same people in the *practical* outcome - (i.e., Libertarianism). As I said before, practical ideas stemming from capitalism like competition and personal responsibility do not necessarily have to be grounded using the same moral foundation in order to be beneficial or workable. A Christian Libertarian and an Atheist Libertarian may not agree on the morality of say, abortion, but they both may be able to agree that it's not the government's duty to intervene with a personal decision like that.

I used to think this way and I now think it is incredibly naive. If a Christian libertarian and an Atheist libertarian agree on something about capitalism it is because one or both of them is contradicting the principles of their philosophies. i.e. it is simply because it's a lucky situation.

It is true that you may be able to find many people who can hold these contradictions, but if someone takes ideas seriously, then moving forward in life is about removing them, and when you work to remove contradictions you inevitably end up with the principles (i.e. the philosphy behind them).

This is a real fundamental difference between Objectivists and Libertarians. Libertarians want to drop fundamental principles in favor of creating large popular movements, without realizing that in doing so, the teeth get taken out of the movement. Objectivists don't believe that political movements create the fundamental change. It is ideas and philosophy that do there fore, dropping those to start the movement is counterproductive.

There will probably never be an Objectivst party. That's fine. I'm more concerned the that the right ideas are continually fought for on the right basis, and someday all parties will look more "objectivist".

BY the way a good essay to read to get this perspective is the title essay from Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" (spoiler: the answer is "everyone")

Edited May 1, 2008 by KendallJ

[Pyotr]

I find it doubtful you will ever convince Christians, Muslims, Environmentalists, or whoever else that their morals should be based on rational self interest rather than their current definitions.

There are certainly a lot of people who will never be convinced. The Ayn Rand Institute spends its resources getting books to students and training new intellectuals for teaching jobs. The goal is to reach young minds before they become too entrenched in the other belief systems you mentioned. It's a slow process but it will work in the long run.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Pyotr

[khaight]

A Christian Libertarian and an Atheist Libertarian may not agree on the morality of say, abortion, but they both may be able to agree that it's not the government's duty to intervene with a personal decision like that.

Or the Christian Libertarian will conclude that, on their moral premises, abortion constitutes a violation of the NIOF principle and thus is not a "personal decision". Consider organizations like Libertarians For Life. This issue goes to show that, without specifying pre-political premises, it isn't possible to determine which political policies are or are not compatible with liberty. Is abortion a violation of liberty, or not? There is no coherent answer to that question if the only premise you have to work from is "Liberty is good."

Abortion isn't special in this regard. Are copyrights a violation of liberty? Depends on whether you think they're a protection of a legitimate property right, or a government grant of monopoly privilege. Can you determine which it is if all you have to work from is the premise that "Liberty is good"? No. Similar kinds of disputes can be constructed on a wide range of political issues, from foreign policy to environmental regulations to second-hand smoke. Libertarianism is only plausible when people import their own moral premises to enable concretization of the abstraction "liberty", and that importing of moral premises is exactly what libertarianism prohibits by its claim that grounds don't matter.

How can we as a society get people to work together in the most productive manner? Are the uncompromising and unyielding ways of Objectivism really workable for large scale society, where opinions on everything are so incredibly diverse?

I'd start by noting that it isn't the task of "we as a society" to get people to do anything. People aren't pawns to be moved around by collective social judgments. Beyond that, I'd say that each person must exercise their own judgment about what ideas are true and what the effects of ideas are on their interactions with other individuals. My own experience leads me to conclude that rationality and principled, long-range self-interest are true ideas which lead to beneficial results, and that faith, emotionalism and sacrifice are false ideas which lead to bad results. What possible reason is there for me to pretend that those conclusions I have drawn are not true, when my best judgment indicates that they are?

Wotan mentioned "Even the best Objectivists tend towards a kind of religiosity, frankly. It isn't fun to say. But it is true.".

You can find people in any movement with this kind of attitude. Really, it's almost orthogonal to belief system. Look at the libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, or the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama. (There are reported instances of the latter actually fainting at his campaign appearances because they were so overwhelmed by emotion.) Often, religious people who discover Objectivism adopt the content of the philosophy but don't change their way of thinking. They pick up Objectivism as a new system of dogma to replace their old religion. Fundamentally, that's a problem with them, not with the philosophy. I don't assess the truth of ideas by looking to the personalities of individuals who claim to accept them.

Some of the Objectivists I know attend lectures where they visit places that Ayn Rand gave speeches.

Is visiting places where Ayn Rand did significant things fundamentally different from visiting other places where people you value did significant things? Right now my brother and parents are on a trip to France, where my brother intends to visit the grave of a relative who died during the D-Day invasion in 1944. He's wanted to do this for many years. I don't see anything weird or creepy about that. It's just a more personal version of visiting historical monuments with connections to one's own value hierarchy, like a veteran visiting the Vietnam Memorial.

[ers]

I'd start by noting that it isn't the task of "we as a society" to get people to do anything. People aren't pawns to be moved around by collective social judgments. Beyond that, I'd say that each person must exercise their own judgment about what ideas are true and what the effects of ideas are on their interactions with other individuals. My own experience leads me to conclude that rationality and principled, long-range self-interest are true ideas which lead to beneficial results, and that faith, emotionalism and sacrifice are false ideas which lead to bad results. What possible reason is there for me to pretend that those conclusions I have drawn are not true, when my best judgment indicates that they are?

No, people aren't pawns, but what people do affects the way I live my life. Right now in my community I face a mandatory recycling program that will consider imposing fees or punishments on me if I refuse to participate. I also face higher property taxes due to this sham of a program. If you try to convince people that this program is immoral or wrong based on the principles of rational self interest... you will probably fail instantly because

A. People don't like to be told their morals are incorrect, no matter how incorrect they are (just look at Muslims)

B. Many people generally believe it is the "right thing to do" to save the planet.

However, if you approach them from an economic or practical standpoint, provide them with real facts about recycling and show them why it's simply not fiscally feasible, people are more receptive. Later, you can try talking to them about their misguided principles and why environmentalism degrades humanity. That is, after you have already stopped the ridiculous legislation that will do nothing but cost the taxpayers money.

That's how I suppose I see Libertarianism... a reaction to the growing statism of our government. You can argue with people until you're blue in the face about morality and at the end of the day you may not have convinced them of anything. But most people can be swayed with real data.

People may not be pawns, but a lot of people certainly behave like them. If you look at interviews with most every day Americans, you find some astonishing facts.

- A lot of people are in favor of flat taxes

- A lot of people dislike Islam- they see it as barbaric and rightfully so

- A lot of people are skeptical of man made global warming

The list goes on... yet we continue to favor candidates that increase government spending and promote statism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, and American defeatism.

Why? Is it liberal guilt? Is it because the general populace is too stupid? Is it because no one has the fucking balls anymore to stand up and say "your need does not entitle you to the fruits of my labor"?

I don't know- these are the questions I ask myself every day. And every day, I see my world getting flushed down the toilet as our dollar is devalued and consumer prices continue to rise and the Muslims propagate their filthy cult. We continue to fight wars with our hands tied behind our backs and give Nobel prizes to imbeciles that buy carbon offsets from their own companies.

You can find people in any movement with this kind of attitude. Really, it's almost orthogonal to belief system. Look at the libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, or the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama. (There are reported instances of the latter actually fainting at his campaign appearances because they were so overwhelmed by emotion.) Often, religious people who discover Objectivism adopt the content of the philosophy but don't change their way of thinking. They pick up Objectivism as a new system of dogma to replace their old religion. Fundamentally, that's a problem with them, not with the philosophy. I don't assess the truth of ideas by looking to the personalities of individuals who claim to accept them.

This can be said of any role models. Think of the way people react when seeing the Pope, Brad Pitt, the President of the United States. Some people idolize someone so intensely that seeing that individual, or even speaking of that individual invokes some very deep emotions. If you knew me in person, you'd see that my appreciation of Beethoven becomes almost religious in it's emotional intensity. (indeed, this little bit gets me a little choked up every time I read it).

Hero-worship is something encouraged in Objectivism. Not in the religious sense, but in an extreme form of admiration. Many Objectivists would count Rand as one of their heroes, and there's no doubt that many would get "starry eyed" when talking of Objectivism, just as, as a boy, I used to get starry eyed talking about Michael Jordan (I still hold a great deal of admiration for him).

Role models are one thing, but I have no idols or heroes. I think the very idea of idolatry is stupid (that's just a personal thing). Barack Obama, Brad Pitt, the Pope, Ron Paul, Jesus, Bush, Clinton- they're all just people, and none of them are better than me, as far as I am concerned. My hero is myself.

[Zip]

My hero is myself.

Why the LOL? You are absolutely correct.

[khaight]

However, if you approach them from an economic or practical standpoint, provide them with real facts about recycling and show them why it's simply not fiscally feasible, people are more receptive. Later, you can try talking to them about their misguided principles and why environmentalism degrades humanity. That is, after you have already stopped the ridiculous legislation that will do nothing but cost the taxpayers money.

There's an interesting implicit premise here that I'd like to make explicit. You seem to think that there's an either-or decision to be made in argument -- either you argue from moral principles, or you argue from economic/political principles. But it's possible to do both, and doing both makes the argument more powerful. Look at the approach that FIRM takes in opposing the spread of socialized medicine. It's a seamless blend of moral and political argument, and the moral framework is fundamentally Objectivist. (Lin Zinser is an Objectivist.) Their combined deployment of moral and political opposition to socialized medicine has already substantially reframed that debate in Colorado, and (for the moment) stopped a movement towards exactly the kind of ridiculous legislation you seem to oppose.

The lynchpin of this style of argument is the unity of the moral and the practical. You identify the impracticality of the policy, and then you tie that impracticality to its underlying immorality, using Objectivist moral standards expressed in a way that is understandable in the context of your target audience. Merely identifying the impracticality alone is not enough. People have been identifying the impracticality of statism for generations, and our freedom keeps slipping away.

That's how I suppose I see Libertarianism... a reaction to the growing statism of our government.

Then why isn't Libertarianism growing in influence as the government grows more statist? The political high-water mark of the Libertarian Party was in 1980, and I'm pretty sure statism has grown more influential since then.

You can argue with people until you're blue in the face about morality and at the end of the day you may not have convinced them of anything. But most people can be swayed with real data.

In my experience, people are generally unwilling to act in ways they consider immoral in their own terms. People want to be good, as they understand the good. If their understanding of the good is that it conflicts with freedom, they'll never feel comfortable with freedom and they'll always support whacking out some other piece of it in the name of some higher value.

I'd also note that, on the Objectivist analysis, the principles of morality are real data. They're identifications of the actual, factual consequences of particular courses of action on human life. That's why, as I mentioned above, you don't need to choose between making moral arguments and making practical ones. Properly understood, they're the same thing. Morality is practical.

The list goes on... yet we continue to favor candidates that increase government spending and promote statism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, and American defeatism.

I think a significant part of the cause is precisely that a lot of people don't feel morally secure in their views, and as a result are unwilling to stand up proudly and defend them. They are morally disarmed. To say "your need does not entitle you to the fruits of my labor", you need some understanding of why that view of entitlement is wrong, i.e. you need a moral defense of the individual's right to keep what he earns. The solution to the problems caused by a morally disarmed population is to provide them with moral armament -- and that's exactly what Libertarianism cannot do, and that's why I don't support the Libertarians.

Role models are one thing, but I have no idols or heroes. I think the very idea of idolatry is stupid (that's just a personal thing). Barack Obama, Brad Pitt, the Pope, Ron Paul, Jesus, Bush, Clinton- they're all just people, and none of them are better than me, as far as I am concerned. My hero is myself.

I think that's a bit sad. There are people, both in history and in the contemporary world, who have achieved great things -- often in the face of great opposition. Admiring such people for their achievements is an act of justice. (I don't think any of the people you listed qualify for such admiration, however.) Heroism is inspirational, and provides much-needed spiritual fuel in a world that too often seems (as you put it) to be spiraling down the toilet bowl.

[ers]

There's an interesting implicit premise here that I'd like to make explicit. You seem to think that there's an either-or decision to be made in argument -- either you argue from moral principles, or you argue from economic/political principles. But it's possible to do both, and doing both makes the argument more powerful. Look at the approach that FIRM takes in opposing the spread of socialized medicine. It's a seamless blend of moral and political argument, and the moral framework is fundamentally Objectivist. (Lin Zinser is an Objectivist.) Their combined deployment of moral and political opposition to socialized medicine has already substantially reframed that debate in Colorado, and (for the moment) stopped a movement towards exactly the kind of ridiculous legislation you seem to oppose.

I think a significant part of the cause is precisely that a lot of people don't feel morally secure in their views, and as a result are unwilling to stand up proudly and defend them. They are morally disarmed. To say "your need does not entitle you to the fruits of my labor", you need some understanding of why that view of entitlement is wrong, i.e. you need a moral defense of the individual's right to keep what he earns. The solution to the problems caused by a morally disarmed population is to provide them with moral armament -- and that's exactly what Libertarianism cannot do, and that's why I don't support the Libertarians.

From my personal experience, most of the people I end up arguing with are not only emotionally passionate about what they believe, they also maintain the authority of their respective "morality" (as misguided as it might be). I understand your point about morality strengthening an argument, but a lot of people can take it the wrong way and you end up souring them because they feel as if they are being attacked personally. Dealing with irrational people takes some finesse... you don't assault the values and ethics that an environmentalist holds dear in order to get him to listen to you. If you do that, he'll consider you a crazy oil-industry stooge who hates the Earth (yes, I've been called an oil industry stooge before even though I've never worked for any oil company). Rather, I've had more success bringing data to the table and showing how emotional pandering and poor decision making can lead to terrible consequences.

It's not that I don't think that bringing morality into the fray of an argument is a bad idea, or that morality based arguments and economic based arguments are mutually exclusive. I've just had bad luck in the area- people get too emotional and insulted easily. Facts and data tend to not leave people as upset.

I think that's a bit sad. There are people, both in history and in the contemporary world, who have achieved great things -- often in the face of great opposition. Admiring such people for their achievements is an act of justice. (I don't think any of the people you listed qualify for such admiration, however.) Heroism is inspirational, and provides much-needed spiritual fuel in a world that too often seems (as you put it) to be spiraling down the toilet bowl.

I recognize the success of individuals, but admire is a strong word. I respect Marvin Minsky, the co-founder of the Artificial Intelligence institute at MIT, but I'm not going to go to great lengths to meet him, if that makes sense. I feel the same way about other people. I respect Alan Turing and think his work in the field of computer science was monumental. But I'm not going to go visit his grave- I have better, more practical things to do with my time, like developing algorithms... or you know... cleaning my house. That's just a matter of personal opinion though.

[khaight]

Dealing with irrational people takes some finesse... you don't assault the values and ethics that an environmentalist holds dear in order to get him to listen to you.

In my opinion, arguing directly with the most passionate opponents of your position is usually a waste of time. You are correct that you aren't generally going to argue someone out of their deeply-held beliefs. But, and this is a key point for intellectual activism, you don't have to do that. The real target of intellectual activism is the set of less committed people in the middle. In the environmentalist case, you should focus on people who are uncomfortable with the costs and unclear on the moral issues at stake. Use the practical concerns to clarify the moral issues at stake, and often you can turn a person in the middle into an ally on your side.

The fact that doing this royally pisses off the committed environmentalists is actually a sign that it's a good approach. When your enemy starts screaming, it means you're hitting him where it hurts. If you've been making your points calmly, rationally and in a factually-grounded manner, then your opponent only discredits himself before the undecided when he flys off the handle and makes obviously unfounded charges against you.

More generally, I'd say that there is no point in getting an irrational person to listen to you. Once he's listening, all you can do is present reasons for your views (whether they're on the moral level or the political/economic level), and as an irrationalist he's already demonstrated a willingness to ignore reasons. That's what makes him irrational.

It's not that I don't think that bringing morality into the fray of an argument is a bad idea, or that morality based arguments and economic based arguments are mutually exclusive. I've just had bad luck in the area- people get too emotional and insulted easily. Facts and data tend to not leave people as upset.

I reiterate my earlier point that moral arguments are fact/data based. Moral principles are identifications of facts in just the same way as the principles of physics. Learning to use moral arguments effectively is a skill, and it takes practice. It is better to simply identify the moral basis of one's own views than it is to start out by calling the other person immoral. That introduces a moral dimension into the discussion in a non-aggressive way, and if they criticize your moral assumptions they don't have any sound basis for resenting your criticizing theirs in return. Done well, I've found this style of argument far more effective in the long run than arguments without the moral dimension.

Think of it this way. Imagine a car heading towards the edge of a cliff. Bad moral premises are like the car's engine, providing the motive force pushing the car forward. Non-moral arguments can sometimes convince people to step on the brake, but the engine is still running and the car is still pointed in the same direction. The long range goal has to be to improve the bad moral premises, get that engine turned off, or eventually we're going to wind up at the bottom of the cliff in a pile of flaming wreckage. In particular cases, it may be tactically useful to emphasize the non-moral aspects of the argument, but the morality cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

I respect Alan Turing and think his work in the field of computer science was monumental. But I'm not going to go visit his grave- I have better, more practical things to do with my time, like developing algorithms... or you know... cleaning my house.

I admire Thomas Jefferson for his role in creating the United States and setting its direction during the Founding Era. I wouldn't cross the country to visit his birthplace, but if I were on the right part of the east coast I might very well carve a day out of my schedule to visit Monticello. I think that would be an educational and spiritually rewarding use of my time.

Consider it from a more personal standpoint. When you achieve something significant, don't you want to be admired for it? To know that other people also see the value in what you achieved, and share your pleasure in the accomplishment? I certainly do. And I don't see why that dynamic changes in any way when the achievements are of a monumental scale. (It's possible that the disagreement here is really over what you mean by "respect" vs. "admire". What do you think it means to view someone as a hero?)

[ers]

Consider it from a more personal standpoint. When you achieve something significant, don't you want to be admired for it? To know that other people also see the value in what you achieved, and share your pleasure in the accomplishment? I certainly do. And I don't see why that dynamic changes in any way when the achievements are of a monumental scale. (It's possible that the disagreement here is really over what you mean by "respect" vs. "admire". What do you think it means to view someone as a hero?)

I consider a "hero" as someone that one wants to be more like. I may respect Alan Turing... but I don't want to be more like him. I only want to be like myself, and carve out my own unique existence.

But I do have to say I like Geert Wilders. Anyone who publicly and brazenly says that Islamic culture is "retarded" is a hero in some way.

[khaight]

I consider a "hero" as someone that one wants to be more like. I may respect Alan Turing... but I don't want to be more like him. I only want to be like myself, and carve out my own unique existence.

Depends on what you mean by "more like". To take a fictional character as an example, I might want to be more like Howard Roark in terms of his independence, integrity and moral self-confidence -- but I don't want to be an architect, or dye my hair orange. I take abstract values from heroes and concretize them in my own life in my own unique way.

But I do have to say I like Geert Wilders. Anyone who publicly and brazenly says that Islamic culture is "retarded" is a hero in some way.

If you like Geert Wilders, you really need to look up Ezra Levant.

[Inspector]

Ers,

The problem that Objectivism has with Libertarianism is that it is open to all sorts of people who can pay at least some lip service to "liberty." But without philosophy, it is only lip service and very many of those people are dangerous lunatics who will do nothing but discredit and smear the good name of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. If you doubt this, try having a debate with a Marxist about what he considers "freedom" to be and what he wants to do to achieve it.

Now I don't know how you feel about Ron Paul, but even many libertarians see there's a lot wrong with him and pretty much all of it falls completely within Objectivism's predictions/criticisms of Libertarianism.

More broadly, the dispute is philosophical. Objectivism holds that philosophy matters and that it the most crucial factor in changing the world, the country, and any given individual for the better. Libertarianism holds that philosophy is unnecessary or incidental, and that the wrongness of the initiation of force is self-evident and needs no further justification.