Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does Libertarianism have a Philosophy?

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

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

I can't find the quote sorry, but I remember him saying that he didn't think that everybody needed to agree that A is A to promote liberty. If that is a misquote sorry.

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

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

Rothbard did have some similar beliefs, and he wasn't a whim worshiper for sure. I just think that him and Ayn Rand had some disagreements with one another and that explains a lot of the attitude between Objectivists and Libertarians, how often hold each other in mutual contempt.

Most of my personal negative opinions of Libertarians come from Mises.org. The United States is important to me, and those people have a lot of anti-american attitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

EDIT: I throw my lot in with Johnathan and 2046. Libertarianism is a political philosophy with a long history of underlying philosophical justifications going back to Locke.

So, if Murray Rothbard has basically the same philosophy as Rand, and Libertarianism is built on Locke), then what you're really claiming that Rand and Locke are nearly identical? Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

ruveyn1

Who is John Galt?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are libertarian philosophers, is there a group that states this is libertarianism and based on its core principles and tenets...? Objectivism is recognized as distinct self contained philosophy, yes? I would agree that individuals can misunderstand what Rand was saying(and or purposely misrepresent), but that just makes them wrong about a particular philosophy. It seems libertarian philosophy is understood as a loose amalgemation of various views , or am I mistaken? If thought that is the case, then couldn't someone say that it has no philosophic basis, or at least no one such basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if Murray Rothbard has basically the same philosophy as Rand, and Libertarianism is built on Locke), then what you're really claiming that Rand and Locke are nearly identical? Seriously?

I don't know how you constructed that syllogism. I said the underlying metaphysics/epistemology/ethics between Rothbard and Rand were nearly identical. The major separation between the two started with the leap from ethics to politics. The Lockean basis for libertarianism refers almost entirely to politcs with only a bit of ethical justification. Both Rothbard and Rand certainly took a few key principles from Locke, but they are by no means identical to Locke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are libertarian philosophers, is there a group that states this is libertarianism and based on its core principles and tenets...? Objectivism is recognized as distinct self contained philosophy, yes? I would agree that individuals can misunderstand what Rand was saying(and or purposely misrepresent), but that just makes them wrong about a particular philosophy. It seems libertarian philosophy is understood as a loose amalgemation of various views , or am I mistaken? If thought that is the case, then couldn't someone say that it has no philosophic basis, or at least no one such basis?

I define a "libertarian philosopher" as an individual who holds the political philosophy of libertarianism, and then attempts to justify it by fleshing out its foundations (ie. ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, deontology, etc.) regardless of the order of discovery. By this standard, Rand is a libertarian philosopher. As are Mises, Nozick, Hayek, Rothbard, and others to varying degrees. I agree that there is no single libertarian philosophy, like there is a single Objectivist philosophy. Rather, libertarian philosophy is a field of study. For instance, John Locke is probably the first libertarian philosopher (depending on how loosely you define, "libertarian"). He first theorized the case for homestead based private property. From there, other enlightenment philosophers like Thomas Jefferson to modern philosophers like Rand refined his view point. This is a progression of libertarian philosophy.

Johnathan's main point is that Objectivsts often dismiss libertarianism as shallow and baseless while ignoring the long hisotry of foundational development for the political philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define a "libertarian philosopher" as an individual who holds the political philosophy of libertarianism, and then attempts to justify it by fleshing out its foundations (ie. ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, deontology, etc.) regardless of the order of discovery. By this standard, Rand is a libertarian philosopher. As are Mises, Nozick, Hayek, Rothbard, and others to varying degrees. I agree that there is no single libertarian philosophy, like there is a single Objectivist philosophy. Rather, libertarian philosophy is a field of study. For instance, John Locke is probably the first libertarian philosopher (depending on how loosely you define, "libertarian"). He first theorized the case for homestead based private property. From there, other enlightenment philosophers like Thomas Jefferson to modern philosophers like Rand refined his view point. This is a progression of libertarian philosophy.

Johnathan's main point is that Objectivsts often dismiss libertarianism as shallow and baseless while ignoring the long hisotry of foundational development for the political philosophy.

So your answer to the topic question is then, no, correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Actually I, unlike many Mods, never personally reprimand or delete when I am having an argument with someone on a post. I will only warn in the post that forum rules are being violated and that likely action will be taken. At that point I hit "report" like anybody else and let the other mods decide. So much for the conspiracy theory.

As to your taking issue with my stating "you don't anger me, you bore me" that was in direct response to *your* personal attack and assumptions about my emotional state. You stated a false presumption, I corrected it.

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

As it turns out you are partially correct, when some mods have already warned you repeatedly about the same thing they don't contact you multiple times. I guess we'll split wo's right on that 50/50. I know I have personally wasted a great deal of time attempting to politely get you to follow forum rules so that you don't have to feel so frequently persecuted and the rest of the forum doesn't have to listen to your seemingly ceaseless complaining.

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

I did not take part in that and therefore am not qualified to comment. I believe SWN made the decision to split it off and if you message him perhaps he will take the time to explain. Private messages of explanation are often not given for splitting topics because it is an organizational choice, not a disciplinary action.

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

Simply inaccurate. I have no problem with libertarians and I explained already why your argument didn't work. I do not enjoy repeating myself as much as some people do, so I will decline to do so here.

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

Their books are on my fireplace, and I reread them frequently stop making ridiculous assumptions.

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

Well, we've already determined that I do not take moderator action when I am personally engaged in an argument so your point is moot already.

I assure you, I do not regard you as a shark. I cannot explain why that is silly without getting personal.

As to chum, offense is in the eye of the beholder and you do take offense more frequently than I have seen in most people.

In using "chum" to mean a lure I was referring to trying to get others to respond to your question. By throwing out the names of some I've read I'd hoped others would respond with more.

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

You do so constantly and have been constantly warned about it. You complain of bias when ironically it is only a slight bias in your favor that allows you to keep posting as you do despite constant breach of forum rules.

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

At no time did I taunt you. I reminded you of forum rules as many here often need to do. That you believe your attacks to be facts does not make them so, as you have been repeatedly warned of by moderators other than my self on multiple occassions. And again, I repeat, I do not take mod action in arguments in which I engage so again, moot point.

I have edited to remove typos + an error I made in framing the quotations

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "underlying". I'm curious to how contradictory philosophies can all "underlie" the same thing.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head Nicky. Improper use of "underlying" in this context is what is causing so much sturm und drang here.

I tried explaining it earlier in the thread but it didn't stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intitial questions on this thread still remain unanswered:

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

And that suggests to me that participants here have probably read very few works, if any.

J

Damn dude, I suspect that most people on this forum have. These are just some of the works that I have read personally.

Max Stirner (German idealism's Asshole)

Spooner (Mixes Socialism and Liberarianism)

Proudohn (Mutualism)

Tucker (Stirner + Libertarianism)

Spencer (Some really good ideas)

Rothbard ("Anarcho"-"capitalism")

Walter Block (Good critic of racism and feminism)

Bastiat (French Classical Liberal).

Mises ( Kind of kantian, but Human Action was a good read)

Hoppe (Monarchy is Fun!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never got around to this one.

What were your impressions?

He was a proponent of Market Socialism. So imagine a world where there is complete free trade, and no regulaition, but all businesses are consumer owned, worker owned, or are so small they are owned by familes or individuals.

He didn't believe in private property in the same sense an Objectivist would, and he believed in the labor-theory of value. These kinds of innacuracies led him to think that absentee land ownership was eploitative and that it led to a class of businessmen who didn't earn their income in the same way that small businessmen did.

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was a proponent of Market Socialism. So imagine a world where there is complete free trade, and no regulaition, but all businesses are consumer owned, worker owned, or are so small they are owned by familes or individuals.

He didn't believe in private property in the same sense an Objectivist would, and he believed in the labor-theory of value. These kinds of innacuracies led him to think that absentee land ownership was eploitative and that it led to a class of businessmen who didn't earn their income in the same way that small businessmen did.

Wow! All the contradictions make the head spin!

I can't believe so many people see this as plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "underlying". I'm curious to how contradictory philosophies can all "underlie" the same thing.

Someone covered this previously in regards to vegitarianism. While all philisophical categories are properly integrated, they can also be heierarchical. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and therefore deals with the philosophy of the use of collective force. While libertarians and Objectivists can believe in a specific principle, they don't have to agree with the justification for said principle. For instance, it is a libertarian principle that it is wrong for the state to give financial bailouts to failing private companies. Amongst libertarian scholars, a number of different rationales with vary degrees of importance can be used to justify this principle.

An Objectivist would say that such a bailout would be an improper use of the state, which given its role as a legitimate monopoly on force, is tasked with the protection of individual rights. Pressing further, and Objectivst would qualify why such right exist and where they come from.

An "utilitarian" libertarian would probably start and stop with the suggestion that bailouts are counterproductive to the economy and therefore make everyone poorer. An Objectivist would agree with this assertion, but not its importance as a primary argument.

Meanwhile, someone over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/) would oppose bailouts on the grounds that they are anti-egalitarian and lead to a society with more social injustice. While these libertarians hold the same premises as progressives, they come to the same action principle conclusions as Objectivists.

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say generally that libertarianism is a valid political philosophy, but it is subject to a great deal of confusion (as illustrated by the previously mentioned "market socialists") due to it being an open philosophy. I also want to stress that when I previously said that libertarianism was "philosophically inadequate", a statement responded to by 2046 who compared it to vegetarianism, I meant that it would be philosophically inadequate for an individual to be a libertarian but reach that conclusion without any basis in other philosophies. Since libertarianism is only a political philosophy, an individual who was a libertarian but held no explicit philosophy in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics would certainly be trying to uphold a philosophically untenable position - libertarianism is justified through the aforementioned other three branches of philosophy, it cannot stand in a vacuum.

Certainly, you could agree that if one was a vegetarian and held no explicit philosophy to support this, it would be rationally untenable. To justify vegetarianism as a philosophy, one would have to present an argument that went something like this: "Because animals are conscious beings with souls (metaphysical statement), it is immoral to subordinate animals to human interests (ethics and metaphysics - animals are equivalent to humans, therefore the NAP applies to them)." [This is of course excepting those individuals who do not eat meat because they cannot digest it or do not like its taste, or perhaps because they feel it is detrimental to their health. In those cases, they are not holding vegetarianism as a philosophy necessarily, they are acting in their own rational self-interest by not eating meat. Sorry for the tangent, I just felt the need to define the limits of the vegetarianism analogy.]

Objectivism could be argued to hold a libertarian view in politics, if one considered "libertarian" to refer to "support of the non-aggression principle". Of course, Ayn Rand would never have said this due to her dislike of those who called themselves libertarians, but, unless anyone can point out where I am mistaken, American libertarian philosophy is identical to capitalism as a form of government as Ms. Rand described it. But, it is important to note, Objectivism and libertarianism are not synonyms. Objectivism is a closed philosophy with defined principles in all major branches of philosophy, while libertarianism is an open philosophy with principles only in the branch of politics.

[As a brief response to another point made by 2046, this one being somewhat tangential, I would contend that so long as one agreed with and understood entirely all of Objectivism's basic principles in the various fields of philosophy, they could rationally call themselves "Objectivist." However, if the person wished to be honest, they would make it clear when they used these principles to arrive at specific conclusions not made by Rand and especially conclusions contradictory to those made by her (see: homosexuality, woman president). Additionally, an honest student of the philosophy who is not an expert in it engaged in a debate with an outsider would make it clear to the outsider that they are not an expert and that they do not speak for Ayn Rand. I feel that these measures are important to ensure the integrity of Objectivism as Ayn Rand's philosophy and to avoid dilution of people who agree with some of the principles and decide to use the term "Objectivist" to refer to their related but different philosophy (see: closed system), and of people who misrepresent Objectivism through no intended dishonesty, merely their own inexperience (see: young students of Objectivism who finish Atlas and believe they understand the whole philosophy while in reality holding a number of mistaken premises and who wind up turning people off of Objectivism through misrepresentation).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way there was a Peikoff podcast on libertarianism not too long ago:

http://www.peikoff.com/2012/10/22/a-discussion-with-yaron-brook-on-libertarianism/

I think his claim that liberty as an "-ism" is "intrinsically invalid" is simply laughable. But there it is. You could say the same thing about Egoism, Atheism, or even Romanticism, and that hardly gets the list started.

ARI came out with a new position on its website, one which I more or less predicted here, in the wake of the John Allison Cato thing.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_libertarianism_qa

1. Has ARI changed its position on libertarianism?

No. But the meaning of the term “libertarian” has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves “libertarian” may or may not hold the ideas we oppose.

Unlike in the bad old days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI came out with a new position on its website, one which I more or less predicted here, in the wake of the John Allison Cato thing.

http://www.aynrand.o...bertarianism_qa

1. Has ARI changed its position on libertarianism?

No. But the meaning of the term “libertarian” has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves “libertarian” may or may not hold the ideas we oppose.

Unlike in the bad old days!

That just makes the use of the term 'libertarianism' worse, not better. It renders it meaningless, because it identifies nothing essential in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone covered this previously in regards to vegitarianism.

Someone defined "underlie"? Who?

Meanwhile, someone over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/) would oppose bailouts on the grounds that they are anti-egalitarian and lead to a society with more social injustice. While these libertarians hold the same premises as progressives, they come to the same action principle conclusions as Objectivists.

You haven't defined underlie. So I'm gonna have to guess. From the examples you've given, it sounds like you might mean that to underlie means to "coincidentally be associated with". In that case, you are absolutely wrong that Objectivism "underlies"(is coincidentally associated with) Laissez-faire Capitalism (which you, also mistakenly, are referring to as Libertarianism).

And "action principle" is also not an expression I've ever heard before. I see you're using it as an adjective (principle is a noun), which further confuses me.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take nonaggression as an axiom instead of a conclusion it becomes an axle with its meaning is determined by the wheel of misfortune rotating on top of it.

The show JustRight has some good stuff on libertarianism in my opinion.

http://www.justrightmedia.org/blog/archives/category/politics/libertarianism-politics?doing_wp_cron=1359710672.5553820133209228515625

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't believe in private property in the same sense an Objectivist would, and he believed in the labor-theory of value. These kinds of innacuracies led him to think that absentee land ownership was eploitative and that it led to a class of businessmen who didn't earn their income in the same way that small businessmen did.

And sure enough, that is true. Do the head bankers of the main ill managed financial banks (who run a casino, rather than an economy) do one blessed thing of constructive use? Collecting rent as such is not all that useful. Building and designing the houses that people rent to live in is.

ruveyn1

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...