JJJJ Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 I used to be a libertarian, and ive wondered why so many objectivists always use the anarchy vs. government argument when discussing libertarianism. Obviously, libertarianism is a bunch of crap, but of the 10-15 people i know/knew that call themselves libertarians/classical liberals, maybe 2 are anarchists. Most of them are some sort of utilitarian minarchists, or egoistical/hedonistic minarchists. So why is it that the anarchy argument is always brought up when objectivists discuss libertarianism, as i have found it really rare that libertarians are anarchists? The arguments brought up against anarchy are obviously correct, but why is libertarianism=anarchy for most objectivists, when clearly that isnt the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 I haven't really seen a lot of Objectivists equating libertarianism and anarchy . . . it's just that usually when you talk to a libertarian, you wind up explaining that government isn't a "necessary evil" or something like that. Libertarianism, to most of the people I know, equates to a complete lack of fundamental principles, not necessarily to anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJJJ Posted June 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 I haven't really seen a lot of Objectivists equating libertarianism and anarchy . . . it's just that usually when you talk to a libertarian, you wind up explaining that government isn't a "necessary evil" or something like that. Maybe, but i feel like everytime libertarianism pops up on this, and other O'ist forums, it always becomes a discussion about anarchy. But yeah, even the minarchists tend to be quite anti-government, but just Libertarianism, to most of the people I know, equates to a complete lack of fundamental principles, not necessarily to anarchy. Yeah. I was a "libertarian", and i understood that objectivist principles are good for my life, but for some reason i wasnt willing to make the logical step, and admit that objectivism is best for all people. So, i was a libertarian, that supported freedom because "it just felt right", while at the same time understanding what is good for my life. Its tough to try and understand my own reasoning before i became an objectivist, as it feels completely insane for me to think about why i wasnt able to make that logical step. The libertarians i hung around were a quite colorful bunch. Some were former leftists that now where some sort of libertarian utilitarians, while others were some sort of hedonistic egoistic elitists. And we all hung around with each other in complete harmony, never caring about the fact that we lacked any sort of philosophy or moral code to explain why the freedom we supported, was actually good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 So why is it that the anarchy argument is always brought up when objectivists discuss libertarianism, as i have found it really rare that libertarians are anarchists?Well, it could be that it's the anarchist subset of libertarians who stick out and engage in anti-Objectivist debates. If some unprincipled libertarian who believes in government which only acts to protect the rights of the individual from initiation of force were to wander in here and start spouting his beliefs, it would not be obvious that he's spouting minarchism. It's the anarchists who distinctly stick out as representatives of libertarianism, and otherwise, we might just think "That guy doesn't really get the Objectivist ethics or the nature of government yet". Since the roots of libertarian philosophy only go an inch deep, it's often hard to distinguish a quiet, neophyte Objectivist from a minarchist libertarian, if all they talk about is the concrete question of what the actual laws should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 The first question of Libertarianism is what the role of the government ought to be, the first question of Objectivism is what the nature of reality is. I say "ought to be" because Libertarianism is "defined" top-down while Objectivism is defined bottom-up. The Libertarian idea starts usually with the premise "government should not initiate force". But such a statement is completely arbitrary if you haven't defined any of those words yet. In Objectivism on the other hand the definition of words (especially of "force") comes first. That is why you see anarchists agreeing with Libertarianism while arguing at the same time that anarchy is the only form of "government" that fulfills the definition, because they assume that any form government automatically iniates force (which is not true). So basically, by not properly defining (i.e. by not starting with Axioms/Metaphysics and move your way upwards to politics) what they actually want, they support indirectly the message of anarchists even if they 'mean' differently. It could be compared to a big carneval of fascists, communists, anarchists and objectivists all shouting "Freedom!" while each group has a completely different definition of what they mean with that (free of foreigners (or something like that), free of material needs, free of government, individual rights). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.