Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Libertarian" as a concept

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've often heard Objectivists claim that Objectivists and non-Objectivist libertarians should not be grouped under the common name of "libertarian". I'm going to argue that we must have some concept (which I label "libertarian") that unifies these groups according to their common belief in a minimal state. To me, "libertarian" seems like a good name for this concept.

As Rand defined it in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, a concept is "a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." Many people are united by a desire for a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force. If we treat different people as units and their belief in a minimal state as a defining characteristic, we can arrive at a new concept:

libertarian: one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force

For now, I offer no justification for choosing the label "libertarian" for this concept. Although the choice of label is certainly important, my point is that the concept is a useful integration. (If you think the label "libertarian" is unacceptable even for the sake of argument, substitute "minarchist," "classical liberal," or something else of that sort. I'm arguing for the concept, not the label.)

Now, why is this concept useful? I offer the following sentence as an example.

Libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

Although the sentence is rather obvious, it has a certain elegance. Through the use of the concept "libertarian," it compresses a vast number of concretes into its subject. Through integration, it allows us to focus on just one important characteristic of the group rather than dealing with all the intricacies of millions of human beings.

Now let's see what happens when we fail to make this integration. Suppose we have no concept that unifies all who favor a minimal state; we adopt the common Objectivist view that Objectivists and libertarians are two entirely disjoint sets. Then the example sentence above becomes:

Objectivists and (non-Objectivist) libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

This sentence has little of its predecessor's elegance. In discussing the opposition between farm subsidies and the advocacy of a minimal state, it must introduce the opposition between Objectists and non-Objectivist libertarians. In the context of politics, such a distinction is irrelevant.

We continue down this path at our peril. Suppose that an additional schism erupted among non-Objectivist libertarians. Religious libertarians might object to being lumped in with atheistic ones. They might think that a common label masked too many crucial differences (sound familiar?). If we admit this argument, we must again rewrite our sentence:

Objectivists, religious libertarians, and (non-Objectivist) atheistic libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

Of course, I don't claim that Objectists and other libertarians are alike in all meaningful ways. However, they are alike in one very important way, which is enough to justify the formation and selective use of a concept which unifies them.

What do you think? Is my concept of "libertarian" valid and/or useful?

Edited by counter-drone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian: one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force

Force, retaliation, initiation, and state are words naming concepts that are not held in common between Objectivism and whatever the hell 'libertarianism' is. A purely linguistic similarity between sentences that Objectivists and libertarians might use conceals a significant difference in meaning and intent. Don't be superficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, your choice of terminology does need defending. Suppose I discover a new concept and define it.

socialist: one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force

And now I can utter a sentence.

Socialists oppose farm subsidies.

I can also define a new concept a different way.

Objectivist: a person who voted again Palin in the last presidential election.

This allows me to utter the following sentence.

Most Objectivists voted for Obama.

And for that matter, I can invent any new concept and name it whatever I want.

Car: any person who prefers to wear yellow clothing, opposes the draft, likes Rachmaninoff and grows their own potatoes.

Now I can utter the sentence

My mother is a car.

The problem is that your definition of "libertarian" is wrong. A libertarian is a person who holds that liberty is an absolute good. No Objectivist believes this; therefore by definition, the intersection of the sets "Objectivist" and "libertarian" is null.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, he *did* say you could reject the word if you wanted to. He's trying to form a concept for "one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force". Let's say he coined the word "gronk" for it.

Is gronk an invalid concept, like Peikoff's example of "encirclist" is? If not, why not? (I tend to argue it is a valid concept *when one is discussing politics* as it will tend to group people likely to vote the same way on referenda or people likely to lobby or write their congresscritters in the same direction. As in "gronks are opposed to the new regulations on financial institutions, arguing that the existing regulations should be repealed.)

If it IS a valid concept, do Objectivists and/or Libertarians not fit it? Why not? (And remember the definition says nothing about favoring a minimal state being a primary or axiomatic or anything like that; it denotes those who believe this for whatever reason, or even no particular reason or a whim). I will, by the way, accept that some people who label themselves as libertarians in fact do not fit this concept. (But then there are a number of phony Objectivists out there too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do indeed reject his word: making up totally new words, as you did, is the intellectually honest way to approach this.

One prerequisite for concept formation is that the new concept serve the cognitive function of concepts (the economy function). This is why we have the concept "hammer" and don't call them "those pieces of metal with a flat surface, attached to a handle, which you hit things with, especially nails, to make them go into wood". When there is an independent need for such economizing, concepts are formed. I do not see the evidence of a need, not even political, to form a concept "gronk" referring to "one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force". Conservatives are not gronks, but like Objectivists, conservatives oppose taxation. So "gronk" erroneously excludes individuals who have some similarity to Objectivism, politically.

Another concept that one might form, if one is in the mood to invent new concepts, is "flornt", which refers to those persons who, politically speaking, oppose any mixing of religion and government. This would include Objectivists and communists, among others. This would group together people likely to vote the same way on issues of freedom from religion. We could call all those who support a woman's right to abortion "skleep", and refer to those who oppose Islam as evil as "fralmp".

As for who is subsumed under the new label "gronk", that would include Objectivists, and some but not all libertarians, and some (fewer) but not all conservatives. The "but not all" is quite important. "Gronk" refers to an essential characteristic of Objectivists, but an accidental characteristic of some libertarians (and it is even less essential of conservatives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the terms: Individualist and Collectivist

Individualist may be a broader concept that would, as the OP seems to be trying to do, allow for a grouping of Objectivists and Libertarians. However, individuals who classify themselves as liberals, socialists, conservatives or libertarians are all likely to claim themselves as individualists.

I think this exercise will illustrate the difficulty of collective identifications of the political philosophies of unique individuals (many of whom do not consciously hold to, or have identified for themselves, any fundamental premises).

I had a conversation yesterday with an older man (self described conservative) who said that he is pro-capitalism but does believe that "there are needs for tough regulation on business in some cases". I told him that he and I would diverge if he could name any regulation on business that he could support which could NOT be specifically justified by that rule's protection of individual rights. He thought for a while and came back and told me he could not think of one... And even mentioned that "people think everything is a right nowadays". So, on to the proper definition of rights. :thumbsup:

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A libertarian is a person who holds that liberty is an absolute good."

That’s a reasonable definition. If you believe that for reasons of etymology or tradition, the word “libertarian” must be attached to that particular concept, I can live with that. But in popular usage, a libertarian is no more “a person who holds that liberty is an absolute good” than a socialist is “a person who holds that social welfare is an absolute good”.

If you choose to reject the popular meaning of a term and use it instead to label another concept, the burden is on you to show that there's something wrong with popular usage. Sometimes, the popular label must be rejected. For example, it may run counter to traditional usage (e.g. “liberal”), or it may not make etymological sense (like your example of a misapplication of “socialist”). But if you go around rejecting terms without a good reason, you hinder attempts at communication without gaining any additional consistency in language. For example, suppose I insisted that cats were dogs and dogs were cats. I would still be consistent, but I would be disrupting communication for nothing.

Let’s assume you get to keep “libertarian” for your concept, and I have to go with “gronk” for mine (I would prefer "minarchist"). Instead of attempting to show again that “gronk” is a meaningful integration, I’ll go after “flornt “, “skleep”, and “fralmp,” hopefully showing by analogy that “gronk” is also conceptually useful. A “flornt” is just a secularist, a very useful integration already in widespread use. A “skleep” is pro-choice, another useful concept also in widespread use (but with an unfortunately euphemistic label). A “fralmp” has no widely accepted label yet, apart from the pejorative “Islamophobe”. However, “fralmp” is still a useful integration, identifying a large and growing group of supporters by an important characteristic. In ten years, I predict that you’ll see a concept formed and labeled for “fralmp” as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you choose to reject the popular meaning of a term and use it instead to label another concept, the burden is on you to show that there's something wrong with popular usage.
Actually, I wasn't addressing popular usage, and I didn't think you were either, since your "uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force" doesn't correspond to popular usage, which would be something like "rejects authority".

I agree, though, that "minarchist" would be a better identification if you're hoping to find a smidgen of similarity between a subject of libertarians, conservatives and Objectivists, since it excludes the anarchists. However, the question of the concept being useful is still open -- I don't see any point in making such an identification, any more that I see the point of inventing a concept "encirclist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s assume you get to keep “libertarian” for your concept, and I have to go with “gronk” for mine (I would prefer "minarchist"). Instead of attempting to show again that “gronk” is a meaningful integration, I’ll go after “flornt “, “skleep”, and “fralmp,” hopefully showing by analogy that “gronk” is also conceptually useful. A “flornt” is just a secularist, a very useful integration already in widespread use. A “skleep” is pro-choice, another useful concept also in widespread use (but with an unfortunately euphemistic label). A “fralmp” has no widely accepted label yet, apart from the pejorative “Islamophobe”. However, “fralmp” is still a useful integration, identifying a large and growing group of supporters by an important characteristic. In ten years, I predict that you’ll see a concept formed and labeled for “fralmp” as well.

'Secularist' is only a useful integration to a religionist, someone who already thinks in terms of nonessentials. 'Pro-choice' only has meaning relative to its opposite 'pro-life'. Being anti-Islamic necessarily has meaning only relative to Islam. In each of these examples the intrinsicist position (religion, pro-life, Islam) has the privilege of being the true standard against which all other positions are measured. Grouping together the secular governments of the United States and the Soviet Union by a trick of language aborts any attempt to find an essential difference between them. Grouping together those who defend abortion as an instance of defending individual rights (a pro-man perspective) with those whose defend abortion as a population control or racist eugenics measure (a collectivist anti-man perspective) is more clearly a rhetorical play to smear the intrinsicist's opponents with guilt by association. Grouping together those who are anti-Islam can only be narrowly useful in the same way as Churchill and Stalin were anti-Nazi, it otherwise is also a smear attempt as "Islamophobe" and "crusaders" are plainly attempts to draw moral equivalence between Islam and all of its opponents.

Libertarianism no matter how it is defined ignores differences in what people mean by liberty and why they advocate it. It only makes sense from the intrinsicist perspective on morality and authority, which sees all libertarians as subjectivist rebel scum, sometimes by people who want nothing more ambitious than to embrace being rebel scum. Effectively defending freedom with rights requires more than incessant argumentation to be persuasive, it requires teaching the methods of thought. There is a crucial difference between defending freedom objectively and advocating freedom because of uninspiring moral relativism. People who can't see the difference will never make a difference.

Don't accept being relegated into a ghetto with the subjectivists by the intrinsicists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often heard Objectivists claim that Objectivists and non-Objectivist libertarians should not be grouped under the common name of "libertarian". I'm going to argue that we must have some concept (which I label "libertarian") that unifies these groups according to their common belief in a minimal state. To me, "libertarian" seems like a good name for this concept.

As Rand defined it in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, a concept is "a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." Many people are united by a desire for a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force. If we treat different people as units and their belief in a minimal state as a defining characteristic, we can arrive at a new concept:

libertarian: one who favors a minimal state, which uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force

But an Objectivist is not one who favors a minimal state. He favors a state in which individual rights are protected. And the views of the function of the state are, for an Objectivist, a consequence of its views on man's nature, his means of knowledge, and his proper moral status in relation to others. Such a definition as yours is a definition by non-essentials.

For now, I offer no justification for choosing the label "libertarian" for this concept. Although the choice of label is certainly important, my point is that the concept is a useful integration. (If you think the label "libertarian" is unacceptable even for the sake of argument, substitute "minarchist," "classical liberal," or something else of that sort. I'm arguing for the concept, not the label.)

Now, why is this concept useful? I offer the following sentence as an example.

Libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

What about this sentence? "Libertarians hold reason as an absolute, selfishness as a cultural value, egoism as a basic ethical framework, and rationality as an individual's greatest virtue." All of a sudden, your concept of "libertarian" is not true, not applicable to a whole range of individuals. Again, comparing essentials with your non-essentials shows you your errors.

Although the sentence is rather obvious, it has a certain elegance. Through the use of the concept "libertarian," it compresses a vast number of concretes into its subject. Through integration, it allows us to focus on just one important characteristic of the group rather than dealing with all the intricacies of millions of human beings.

Now let's see what happens when we fail to make this integration. Suppose we have no concept that unifies all who favor a minimal state; we adopt the common Objectivist view that Objectivists and libertarians are two entirely disjoint sets. Then the example sentence above becomes:

Objectivists and (non-Objectivist) libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

This sentence has little of its predecessor's elegance. In discussing the opposition between farm subsidies and the advocacy of a minimal state, it must introduce the opposition between Objectists and non-Objectivist libertarians. In the context of politics, such a distinction is irrelevant.

We continue down this path at our peril.

Actually, you've imperiled us quite sufficiently by your non-essential definition.
Suppose that an additional schism erupted among non-Objectivist libertarians. Religious libertarians might object to being lumped in with atheistic ones. They might think that a common label masked too many crucial differences (sound familiar?). If we admit this argument, we must again rewrite our sentence:

Objectivists, religious libertarians, and (non-Objectivist) atheistic libertarians oppose farm subsidies.

Of course, I don't claim that Objectists and other libertarians are alike in all meaningful ways. However, they are alike in one very important way, which is enough to justify the formation and selective use of a concept which unifies them.

What do you think? Is my concept of "libertarian" valid and/or useful?

No, it is invalid and not useful. Your definition fails to fulfill the requirements of a proper definition. A concept is not formed to unite two entities with one common attribute (let alone an attribute which you misidentify as belonging to one of the entities).

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

------------

A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.

-------------

A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. But it is important to remember that a definition implies all the characteristics of the units, since it identifies their essential, not their exhaustive, characteristics; since it designates existents, not their isolated aspects; and since it is a condensation of, not a substitute for, a wider knowledge of the existents involved.

Clearly, your definition does not condense a wider context of knowledge about the existents involved.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Secularist' is only a useful integration to a religionist, someone who already thinks in terms of nonessentials. 'Pro-choice' only has meaning relative to its opposite 'pro-life'. Being anti-Islamic necessarily has meaning only relative to Islam. In each of these examples the intrinsicist position (religion, pro-life, Islam) has the privilege of being the true standard against which all other positions are measured. Grouping together the secular governments of the United States and the Soviet Union by a trick of language aborts any attempt to find an essential difference between them. Grouping together those who defend abortion as an instance of defending individual rights (a pro-man perspective) with those whose defend abortion as a population control or racist eugenics measure (a collectivist anti-man perspective) is more clearly a rhetorical play to smear the intrinsicist's opponents with guilt by association. Grouping together those who are anti-Islam can only be narrowly useful in the same way as Churchill and Stalin were anti-Nazi, it otherwise is also a smear attempt as "Islamophobe" and "crusaders" are plainly attempts to draw moral equivalence between Islam and all of its opponents.

When I posited that the gronk (minarchist) concept was useful, I tried (and perhaps failed) to suggest that it was useful in a political context *only*... say as a way to describe a voting bloc. This would be true of both pro-choice and pro-life as well (though in those cases the labels are problematic). Certainly it's quite possible that two "pro life" people might have nothing else whatsoever in common than the fact that they will vote for candidates that want to ban abortion. But in the context of describing the dynamics of an election, that is enough to make that concept useful in that context. So it's legitimate to speak of "pro-lifers" in that context. Or "minarchists" (though presently when someone wants to identify that concept they will typically say "libertarians"; I've also heard the term used for certain members of the conservative movement whose primary concern is the size of government, not religious issues or foreign policy).

Would I go to a "minarchist convention" and join the "minarchist party"? Nope. Would I vote like a minarchist if some referendum of concern to Objectivists and the better sorts of Libertarians comes up on the ballot? You bet. And as such political commentators could say "the minarchists voted against Proposition 666" and I would agree that they were talking about me and Joe Libertard at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But an Objectivist is not one who favors a minimal state. He favors a state in which individual rights are protected. And the views of the function of the state are, for an Objectivist, a consequence of its views on man's nature, his means of knowledge, and his proper moral status in relation to others. Such a definition as yours is a definition by non-essentials.

Characteristics essential to a concept are not always essential to broader concepts encompassing additional concretes.

Consider the concept "mammal", defined as (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mammal.html):

a class of warm-blooded vertebrate animals that have, in the female, milk-secreting organs for feeding the young [...]

This definition does not represent the essential characteristic of man, defined as "a rational animal". Is the concept "mammal" thus invalid or useless?

What about this sentence? "Libertarians hold reason as an absolute, selfishness as a cultural value, egoism as a basic ethical framework, and rationality as an individual's greatest virtue." All of a sudden, your concept of "libertarian" is not true, not applicable to a whole range of individuals. Again, comparing essentials with your non-essentials shows you your errors.

Of course that sentence isn't true. "Libertarian" (or perhaps "minarchist" would be better, see my exchange with David in this thread) is a class of which "Objectivist" is a subclass. Not everything that is true of Objectivists will be true of all libertarians. Any concept omits some characteristics. The characteristics listed in your example sentence are among those omitted from "libertarian". "Libertarian" covers only that which is directly essential to politics, just as "Objectivist" covers only that which is directly essential to philosophy.

Are you taking the view that philosophy is always essential, even in areas like politics (philosophy is related to politics, but is not within its scope)? I wonder how this principle can be consistently applied. How can you speak of "socialism" when it rests on such diverse foundations as utilitarianism, religion, and social metaphysics? How can you speak of "theocracy" without differentiating between the goals of different religions? Even the simple concept "evil" would seem like a gross violation of the principle that philosophical motives may never be integrated away.

Philosophy is an essential attribute in a general context, but it is not essential in every specific context.

Edited by counter-drone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Characteristics essential to a concept are not always essential to broader concepts encompassing additional concretes.

Consider the concept "mammal", defined as (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mammal.html):

a class of warm-blooded vertebrate animals that have, in the female, milk-secreting organs for feeding the young [...]

This definition does not represent the essential characteristic of man, defined as "a rational animal". Is the concept "mammal" thus invalid or useless?

----------

No, but everything that is true of the concept mammals is true of man as well as each subclass concept. In the definition of the "wider" concept 'libertarian' given above, the same cannot be said. Is there any characteristic of mammals that man does not possess? Remember, a concept stands for (means) all of the units subsumed under it, including all of their characteristics. Is there any characteristic of 'libertarian' (as defined above) that Objectivists do not possess? Absolutely!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can be libertarian and be for or against freedom in the abortion issue. See Libertarians for Life and Ron Paul as the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate. Since the whole purpose of even considering voting blocs as concepts is to track and predict votes across time, libertarianism that completely fails to take a clear stand on even this issue is a useless construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the only issue that matters to one, sure.

I knew many Libertarians who thought the right to life (on the part of the fetus) trumps the mother's right to choose; I can't fault them as being anti rights, though I fault them for not reaching the correct conclusion about the fetus not having rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the only issue that matters to one, sure.

I knew many Libertarians who thought the right to life (on the part of the fetus) trumps the mother's right to choose; I can't fault them as being anti rights, though I fault them for not reaching the correct conclusion about the fetus not having rights.

This is just another manifestation of not bothering with thinking clearly. People who don't understand what rights are can hardly avoid being anti-rights on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-----------

Of course that sentence isn't true. "Libertarian" (or perhaps "minarchist" would be better, see my exchange with David in this thread) is a class of which "Objectivist" is a subclass. Not everything that is true of Objectivists will be true of all libertarians. Any concept omits some characteristics.

On the contrary, the definition omits characteristics, but the concept includes all the characteristics of the units subsumed by the concept. (See ITOE)

The characteristics listed in your example sentence are among those omitted from "libertarian". "Libertarian" covers only that which is directly essential to politics, just as "Objectivist" covers only that which is directly essential to philosophy.

Are you taking the view that philosophy is always essential, even in areas like politics (philosophy is related to politics, but is not within its scope)?

Of course philosophy is essential to politics. To form a political concept that omits or denies essential ethical differences among the entities being subsumed under the concept is invalid.

I wonder how this principle can be consistently applied. How can you speak of "socialism" when it rests on such diverse foundations as utilitarianism, religion, and social metaphysics?

Those are not essentials of socialism. Socialism rests on altruism and the denial of property rights.

How can you speak of "theocracy" without differentiating between the goals of different religions?

All religions have one fundamental goal: to control the thinking of individuals in society or of those who fall under the influence of the leader.

Even the simple concept "evil" would seem like a gross violation of the principle that philosophical motives may never be integrated away.

Philosophy is an essential attribute in a general context, but it is not essential in every specific context.

"Integrated away"??? Sounds like an oxymoron. Please explain.

When dealing with areas that come under the subject of philosophy, such as politics, there is no specific context in which it is not essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be more accurate to find a term that actually describes both parties under which to organize. Perhaps something referring to the belief in a minimal government or a proper government? Since most problems with our state involve property rights violations perhaps something concerning the 'market' should be in the name? I think its a worthwhile idea to explore, but I don't think its effective to try to change the meaning of a commonly used word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, the definition omits characteristics, but the concept includes all the characteristics of the units subsumed by the concept. (See ITOE)

You are correct. What I meant was that a concept only requires its units to share some characteristics. I should have just said that what is true of one unit in a concept is not necessarily true of all other units in that concept.

Those are not essentials of socialism. Socialism rests on altruism and the denial of property rights.

You're just taking the discussion back one step. OK, altruism and the denial of property rights are essentials of socialism. What's essential to altruism and the denial of property rights? Utilitarianism, religion, and social metaphysics. You can keep identifying intermediate steps, but you will eventually run into the fact that these philosophical motives are not at all alike. A similar argument could be made for the example of theocracy and religion.

I could also turn your argument to the subject of libertarianism and Objectivism, like this: "Objectivism, utilitarianism, cultural relativism, etc. are not essential to libertarianism (i.e. minarchism). Instead, libertarianism rests on the affirmation of property rights. Thus, the concept of libertarianism does not gloss over important ideological differences."

If you throw out "libertarianism", you have to throw out "socialism" as well, along with a host of other terms. There's no reason why your means of conceptualizing other political philosophies should be unsuited to conceptualizing your own.

"Integrated away"??? Sounds like an oxymoron. Please explain.

When I speak of philosophical motives being integrated away in a concept, I mean that the concept involves such sharply different philosophical motives. You can't really say anything general and non-trivial about the many different motivations for evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be more accurate to find a term that actually describes both parties under which to organize. Perhaps something referring to the belief in a minimal government or a proper government? Since most problems with our state involve property rights violations perhaps something concerning the 'market' should be in the name? I think its a worthwhile idea to explore, but I don't think its effective to try to change the meaning of a commonly used word.

Why do you need a concept joining people who hold that the function of government is to protect individual rights because man's mind functions volitionally and needs freedom to make judgments to guide his actions, with those who hold that the function of government is to "uses force only in retaliation against those who initiate force" so that people can do whatever they feel like doing without the presence of a state, which by its nature exerts coercive force against individuals? Or, as Murray Rothbard put it in For a New Liberty (p16), "Most libertarians also reject the laissez-fairist position of ... FEE's patriotic devotion - held by most American laissez-fairists - to the United States Constitution and to the American State." And, "no government may legitimately use coercion to preserve itself." (p18) (Is al-Qaida a libertarian organization?)

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. What I meant was that a concept only requires its units to share some characteristics. I should have just said that what is true of one unit in a concept is not necessarily true of all other units in that concept.

I still don't get it. How can units of a concept share only some characteristics? If you're referring to the essential characteristics, then all units must possess them. If you're referring to the specific measurements (you're 6 feet, I'm 5 feet 10 inches tall), then those measurements get omitted but we share the characteristic of height. Please give an example of something being true of one unit and not other units of a concept, unless you mean the specific measurements. In which case your point is moot since the nature of a concept omits the measurements.

Perhaps you mean, for example, man walks on two legs and a dog walks on 4 legs, yet both are mammals. Is that what you are referring to? If so, what is common to both (and to mammals) is the characteristic of locomotion.

You're just taking the discussion back one step. OK, altruism and the denial of property rights are essentials of socialism. What's essential to altruism and the denial of property rights? Utilitarianism, religion, and social metaphysics. You can keep identifying intermediate steps, but you will eventually run into the fact that these philosophical motives are not at all alike. A similar argument could be made for the example of theocracy and religion.

Sorry, I don't get your point here. Not all utilitarians, religionist, or social metaphysicians are socialists. How are you deriving what is essential?

I could also turn your argument to the subject of libertarianism and Objectivism, like this: "Objectivism, utilitarianism, cultural relativism, etc. are not essential to libertarianism (i.e. minarchism). Instead, libertarianism rests on the affirmation of property rights. Thus, the concept of libertarianism does not gloss over important ideological differences."

Again, I don't understand your thinking here. Are these sentences true or arbitrary associations? I'm sure you may find utilitarian libertarians but not utilitarian Objectivists. If you're going to make a sentence and say that three ideas are not essential to a third, you have to demonstrate a relationship among the ideas. I could just as easily say "Pretzels, planets, and tooth decay are not essential to libertarianism."

If you throw out "libertarianism", you have to throw out "socialism" as well, along with a host of other terms. There's no reason why your means of conceptualizing other political philosophies should be unsuited to conceptualizing your own.

I don't get the connection here. Please cite my statements and tie it to your comments. I am not throwing anything out. I am just denying the integration of the concept mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

When I speak of philosophical motives being integrated away in a concept, I mean that the concept involves such sharply different philosophical motives. You can't really say anything general and non-trivial about the many different motivations for evil.

If you can't say anything general and non-trivial about someone's motives, how do you classify them as under the concept 'evil.' The different philosophic motives are abstracted away (perhaps that's what you meant earlier, not integrated away). See ITOE for the process of abstraction. And they are not taken "away", the essential characteristics go into the definition, and the others are contained in the concept but not specified in the definition.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. How can units of a concept share only some characteristics? If you're referring to the essential characteristics, then all units must possess them. If you're referring to the specific measurements (you're 6 feet, I'm 5 feet 10 inches tall), then those measurements get omitted but we share the characteristic of height. Please give an example of something being true of one unit and not other units of a concept, unless you mean the specific measurements.

A good example might be the color of a horse. The fact that one horse is brown does not imply that every other horse is brown. Brownness is not an essential characteristic of a horse. It is not even a necessary one. Other examples might be whether a horse has a limp, or whether it has been bred for racing.

Let's get back to the original issue of "Objectivist" being a subclass of "libertarian" (again, "minarchist" might be better). Every Objectivist believes in his own life as the standard of value, but not every non-Objectivist libertarian shares this belief. However, both groups can be subsumed under a common concept, provided that the concept does not treat the standard of value as an essential.

By the way, if we didn't allow units of a concept to differ except in measurement, few concepts would survive. Think of "law", "food", or "method".

Sorry, I don't get your point here. Not all utilitarians, religionist, or social metaphysicians are socialists. How are you deriving what is essential?

What I've been trying to show is that there is no single philosophical system behind socialism, just as there is no single philosophical system behind minarchism.

I claim that there are many different motivations used by different socialists, with utilitarianism, religion, and social metaphysics being three of the leading views. You counter with the fact that the direct motivation for socialism rests on just one set of political convictions: altruism and the denial of property rights. My response is to ask you to trace these convictions further back. If you do so, you'll find these convictions are based in a variety of philosophical views, including utilitarianism, religious doctrines, social metaphysics, and various others.

No particular comprehensive philosophical system is essential to socialism. Rather, socialism has a diverse set of motivations. Since I don't consider philosophical motivation an essential characteristic in all contexts, I can use the concept "socialism" to integrate politically collectivist views which may have nothing in common on a deeper philosophical level.

Again, I don't understand your thinking here. Are these sentences true or arbitrary associations? I'm sure you may find utilitarian libertarians but not utilitarian Objectivists. If you're going to make a sentence and say that three ideas are not essential to a third, you have to demonstrate a relationship among the ideas. I could just as easily say "Pretzels, planets, and tooth decay are not essential to libertarianism."

For quick reference, the original sentences were:

"Objectivism, utilitarianism, cultural relativism, etc. are not essential to libertarianism (i.e. minarchism). Instead, libertarianism rests on the affirmation of property rights. Thus, the concept of libertarianism does not gloss over important ideological differences."

I believe the first two sentences are true, while the third is false. The logic is meant to mirror your view on socialism.

Sentence 1) Objectivism, utilitarianism, and cultural relativism are all somewhat common justifications for libertarianism, but the essential characteristics of libertarianism include only the prevention of the initiation of force, the abolition of taxation, and other political principles.

Sentence 2) Yes, the affirmation of property rights is an essential characteristic of libertarianism.

Sentence 3) Here's the mistake. As with socialism, we can consider libertarianism to be based in a philosophical conviction involving the validity of property rights. If we don't trace this conviction back further, we may think that all libertarians share a similar philosophy. If we do trace it back further, we see a divergence of motivations into Objectivism, utilitarianism, cultural relativism, and many other philosophies sometimes used to justify property rights.

If you can't say anything general and non-trivial about someone's motives, how do you classify them as under the concept 'evil.' The different philosophic motives are abstracted away (perhaps that's what you meant earlier, not integrated away). See ITOE for the process of abstraction. And they are not taken "away", the essential characteristics go into the definition, and the others are contained in the concept but not specified in the definition.

Using the Objectivist concept of "evil", I don't think any particular motive is an essential characteristic. From TVoS:

"that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."

If you believe a person's motive is relevant in assessing his actions as evil, feel free to disregard this example.

I'm not sure whether to agree with you on the use of the word "abstracted", but I think we may agree in principle. Rand gives this example in ITOE:

""Table" is an abstraction, since it designates any table, but its meaning can be conveyed simply by pointing to one or two perceptual objects."

The essential characteristics of a concept are used to form an abstraction. Non-essential characteristics, such as the color of a horse or the deeper philosophical motivation of a libertarian or socialist, are not made part of the abstract form into which all units of the concept must fit. But you're right to point out that they're not taken "away", since they remain a part of the concept. They're just not a requirement for inclusion in that concept.

This will be my last post for the night. Thanks for a engaging argument on concept formation. This topic has had wider implications than I expected.

Edited by counter-drone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "libertarian" is a meaningless/invalid concept, so is liberal, progressive, conservative, and perhaps even socialist. What is a conservative? What do "conservatives" say on issue X? They aren't all the same. Nor do they all have a similar ethical basis, or explicit political philosophy. There are conservatives who are pro-choice (though not many), and liberals who are pro-life. There are conservatives who want a sizable amount of regulation, others who want none. Progressives may want certain industries to be nationalized, or keep them private but regulated. Many conservatives (and some, but far fewer liberals) have a "natural rights" background to their political philosophy. Others are very explicitly utilitarian.

If we are discussing the political sphere alone, not ethics or epistemology, then all of these are valid concepts (though with many borderline cases, and many many sub-groups encompassed within them to describe important differences). If you deny this, then it will be hard to take part in nearly any discussion of politics at all, as it would take a lot of effort to delineate who "conservatives" or "liberals" were without using those words. "Libertarian" may be defined as someone who wishes to ban the initiation of force from human relationships (force being defined as the violation of property rights and "ownership"/control of one's person). Perhaps another definition works better, and I'd be open to suggestions. But the general category of "libertarian" is just as useful a categorization as "liberal", "progressive","conservative", etc. which most of the people on this thread feel perfectly comfortable to use while critiquing "libertarian." So long as you keep the discussion limited to the political sphere, all of those are useful categorizations describing some basic differences in political viewpoints of various voters (though not all positions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "libertarian" is a meaningless/invalid concept, so is liberal, progressive, conservative, and perhaps even socialist.

I'll go there. Liberal, conservative and progressive are all invalid concepts that block clear thought by making distinctions based on nonessentials. To the extent that all of them embrace statism to some degree they are each dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concept-formation is not a top-down deductive process: it is not based on first inventing a term and a definition. It is a bottom-up inductive process, which serves a particular cognitive function of economizing. If you want, you can define a word meaning "spotted animal" which includes particular cows, goats, dogs and wild cats. Such a word will languish unloved and unused, since it does not serve a valid function.

Creating a term which forces together disparate units, based on coincidental similarity, at best is useless. It is actually cognitively harmful because creating the illusion of unity obscures the reality of disunity. The dissimilarity in colors of horses or cows is no impediment to forming the valid concepts "horse" or "cow", because the omitted measurements are not at all important. An attempt to weld Objectivists and libertarians into one class based on a superficial similarity is a cognitive disaster in the making, because Objectivists and libertarians otherwise have nothing in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...