Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Guest Bob

Recommended Posts

What most of you (Mr. Williamson is a notable exception) seem to be overlooking is that libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy.  It doesn't pretend to be a fully integrated philosophical system like Objectivism is.  Quite a few libertarians derive their political beliefs from Objectivist ethics; many others arrive at them some other way.

IF you look strictly at political positions on political issues, without regard to how either camp justifies its opinions, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between libertarians and Objectivists.

Why would you look at only part of the picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why would you look at only part of the picture?

It's also not true. Our support of the War on Terror is an "extreme" difference compared with most Libertarians, Larry Elders being a major exception to that rule.

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What most of you (Mr. Williamson is a notable exception) seem to be overlooking is that libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy. It doesn't pretend to be a fully integrated philosophical system like Objectivism is. Quite a few libertarians derive their political beliefs from Objectivist ethics; many others arrive at them some other way.

IF you look strictly at political positions on political issues, without regard to how either camp justifies its opinions, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between libertarians and Objectivists.

and therein lies the flaw of libertarianism. Without a proper philosophical base, it is subject to the whims of the majority. Libertarians support free market capitalism. the next questions is, why do they support free market capitalism? that is where everything starts breaking apart. some say it's the greatest good for the greatest number. Some say god intended there to be Capitalism. Only Objectivists would say that capitalism is the only moral system, because only Objectivists have the Ethical and Metaphysical foundation to stand on that claim.

are are alot of things that seem similar on the surface. Immanual Kant, for example, held that there is a universal code of ethics that we can only understand what this code is when we use our reason. That is very similar to the Ethical philosophy Rand held. But things started to break down (big time) when you go deeper.

Karl Marx set up a metaphysical base very similar to Rand's. I don't think we need to go into the differences between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand.

Objectivists and (most) Libertarians are coming from completely different philosophical backings, they just happen to arrive at similar political philosophy.

Larry Elders being a major exception to that rule.

Larry Eldar has actually gone so far as to disassociate himself with the Libertarian party, and instead refer to himself as a "Republitarian." John Stossel has done this as well, though he refers to himself instead as a Classical Liberal.

Edited by the tortured one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you look at only part of the picture?

Because it's the part that's relevant. Criticizing libertarianism for its lack of metaphysics or ethics is like criticizing the Mona Lisa for its lack of depth (actual physical depth, not visual "depth"). It's a painting, not a sculpture; it's not supposed to have depth.

Now, if you're judging a particular candidate for office, it makes sense to consider all aspects of his character and beliefs, not just his politics. For instance, suppose a given candidate favors free-market capitalism, but you decide he'd be an unreliable advocate for that position because he believes in God. That's a valid reason not to vote for him (although chances are his opponents explicitly oppose capitalism and also believe in God, so best of luck. . .).

A couple of points regarding the War on Terror issue. First, "War on Terror" is a nebulous term which can cover a lot of ground. I only found this forum yesterday, so I don't know what opinions on the subject are held by most of the members. But if the prevailing view is an uncritical support for any and every action taken by this administration in the name of fighting terrorism, I must say I'm disappointed.

Second, while the Libertarian Party may have an official position, individual libertarians are all over the map. I don't think there's been an issue of the LP News since 9/11 that didn't have a heated debate in the letters column on the subject.

Final nitpick: it's Larry Elder, not Elders or Eldar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's the part that's relevant.  Criticizing libertarianism for its lack of metaphysics or ethics is like criticizing the Mona Lisa for its lack of depth (actual physical depth, not visual "depth").  It's a painting, not a sculpture; it's not supposed to have depth.

Invalid analogy. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and according to Objectivism, politics is but one branch of a whole philsophy, which consist of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Furthermore, a philosophy, in order to be valid, must be an integrated, coherent system of principles and theories, not a hodgepodge of ideas taken from anywhere and anyone, completely detached from its rich context and from its basis in theory and in reality, with one brach completely separate or outright ignored or even non-existent.

With Libertarianism having no metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical basis, it is a floating, disintegrated system, with no real understanding or powerful defense of liberty. With Libertarianism having no rational ethical basis for its political theories, it is indefensible on a moral basis, and hence ultimately defenseless.

And most importantly, Libertarianism can do most to discredit capitalism by falsely presenting it to the public as a morally indefensible and non-reality based social system.

A couple of points regarding the War on Terror issue.  First, "War on Terror" is a nebulous term which can cover a lot of ground.  I only found this forum yesterday, so I don't know what opinions on the subject are held by most of the members.  But if the prevailing view is an uncritical support for any and every action taken by this administration in the name of fighting terrorism, I must say I'm disappointed.

Second, while the Libertarian Party may have an official position, individual libertarians are all over the map.  I don't think there's been an issue of the LP News since 9/11 that didn't have a heated debate in the letters column on the subject.

If you've ever read the op-eds in the Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org) and capmag.com about the War on Terror, as well as read the topics in the subforum "Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism", then you'd know that your assumption that "the prevailing view is an uncritical support for any and every action taken by this administration in the name of fighting terrorism" is wholly unfounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I'm not sure that the arguments voiced here against the LP make sense. The chief complaint appears to be that the LP does not ground its political principles in some deeper philosophical structure. But I wonder if such a grounding can be practical. Politics, after all, is about mass movements and building large coalitions in a population that is highly diverse.

I had the pleasure of knowing James Blanchard, who led the successful movement to legalize gold in the 1970s. Blanchard was a fan of Ayn Rand, but he did not build his movement on Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Blanchard made the simple argument that gold ownership offered the average citizen a means to prevent his wealth from being destroyed by rampant inflation. In his movement he enlisted individuals with widely varying philosophical principles: Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Murray Rothbard, Robert Bleiberg, and William F. Buckley.

I can only wonder how successful Blanchard would have been if everyone working for gold legalization had been required to share the same views on, say, free will vs. determinism.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's the part that's relevant.  [...]

I do not agree. All the parts are relevant. You cannot separate philosophy from politics, or any other part of human life. Philosophy is always relevant, it underlies everything. To look at a political philosophy while ignoring the rest of philosophy is to drop the context that makes politics possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chief complaint appears to be that the LP does not ground its political principles in some deeper philosophical structure.  But I wonder if such a grounding can be practical.  Politics, after all, is about mass movements and building large coalitions in a population that is highly diverse. 

Politics is a branch of Philosophy. How practical is a branch without any roots? Without even the trunk? Doesn't matter how many people try to call the dead branch a tree, it still isn't going to bear fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you look strictly at political positions on political issues, without regard to how either camp justifies its opinions, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between libertarians and Objectivists.

???!

As far as the more important issue of this decade--the war on Islam--is concerned, libertarians are as far apart from Objectivism as can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???!

As far as the more important issue of this decade--the war on Islam--is concerned, libertarians are as far apart from Objectivism as can be.

As I mentioned above, this is one issue on which there isn't a solid libertarian consensus. However, your choice of words is interesting. If most Objectivists favor a war on Islam, rather than on the militant fascist subset of Islam, then there is indeed a big gap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned above, this is one issue on which there isn't a solid libertarian consensus.  However, your choice of words is interesting.  If most Objectivists favor a war on Islam, rather than on the militant fascist subset of Islam, then there is indeed a big gap.

I would say most Objectivists do think we are at war with Islam and not just some "extreme" version. We are atheists and are at war with all religions, including Christianity. But don't take that do mean we don't understand that it is the Islamofascists that are actively engaged in the "hot" war versus the U.S. It is this enemy that we need to destroy with overwhelming force *before* they can hit us *again*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is a branch of Philosophy. How practical is a branch without any roots? Without even the trunk? Doesn't matter how many people try to call the dead branch a tree, it still isn't going to bear fruit.

In 1978, Howard Jarvis spearheaded a campaign which bore fruit. His efforts resulted in the passage of Proposition 13, which slashed property taxes by fifty-seven percent in California. Jarvis did not attach his campaign to any philosophical groundwork. The short and long of his message was, "Taxes are way too high."

Should Jarvis have based the referendum on lengthy philosophical pamphlets about the concept of value, the primacy of existence, consciousness, man's survival qua man, etc.? Were Objectivists who voted for Proposition 13, immoral because the proposition was not based on Objectivist philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1978, Howard Jarvis spearheaded a campaign which bore fruit.  His efforts resulted in the passage of Proposition 13, which slashed property taxes by fifty-seven percent in California.  Jarvis did not attach his campaign to any philosophical groundwork.  The short and long of his message was, "Taxes are way too high."

Should Jarvis have based the referendum on lengthy philosophical pamphlets about the concept of value, the primacy of existence, consciousness, man's survival qua man, etc.? Were Objectivists who voted for Proposition 13, immoral because the proposition was not based on Objectivist philosophy?

That is a straw-man. No one here has argued that any good policy or politician that reduces or totally eliminates rights-violations should not be supported because their basis is not Objectivism. The topic of the thread is why Objectivists, Ayn Rand in particular, condemn Libertarianism and its adherents. Libetarianism is a political philosophy based on moral subjectivism. As such it is subject to moral condemnation just as Kantianism, Marxism, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libetarianism is a political philosophy based on moral subjectivism. 

No, libertarianism is a political philosophy, period. What it is based on depends on who's espousing it. Moral subjectivism in some cases. Religious principles in some cases.

And Objectivist principles in some cases. The political philosophy of every Objectivist is libertarian, whether (s)he cares for the label or vehemently rejects it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The political philosophy of every Objectivist is capitalism.  Capitalism is not libertarianism.

A distinction without a difference, near as I can tell. Give me a specific, concrete example of a political position an Objectivist would take that a libertarian, qua libertarian, would disagree with. (And don't say "supports the War on Terror"; that's not specific for one thing, and libertarians are all over the place on issues related to that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, libertarianism is a political philosophy, period. What it is based on depends on who's espousing it. Moral subjectivism in some cases. Religious principles in some cases.

This is exactly its problem, for one it denies the necessity of basing a political philosophy on a moral basis.

In this respect it is morally relativist in that whatever justification its members want to advance for their political ideas, libertarianism considers them equally valid, if only because it considers them equally irrelevant.

Lib: People should be free

Man: Why?

Lib: Well, because freedom is good

Man: Why?

Their failure to be able to offer a coherent answer to this question precipitates a number of other problems, for example the various and often-contradictory definitions of liberty and freedom advocated by the Libertarian party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, libertarianism is a political philosophy, period.  What it is based on depends on who's espousing it.  Moral subjectivism in some cases.  Religious principles in some cases.

...

Don't you see that this is exactly the point? That libertarians don't seem to care why someone believes something, they only care that they believe it. The problem with this is that it is a clear application of the disgusting principle that "the end justifies the means." They do not care what philosophy(means) people use to *end* up with the Libertarian political view. As long as the *end* is Libertarianism, it is alright.

Or not. :)

Edit to change "I think this is the point:" to "Don't you see that this is exactly the point?" for clarification.

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A distinction without a difference, near as I can tell.  Give me a specific, concrete example of a political position an Objectivist would take that a libertarian, qua libertarian, would disagree with.  (And don't say "supports the War on Terror"; that's not specific for one thing, and libertarians are all over the place on issues related to that.)

The above part of your post that I bolded proves my point. The fact that libertarians qua libertarians are all over the place on an issue as important as the defense of the country, shows how inconsistant libertarian beliefs are.

I can't give you a specific, concrete example of a libertarian political position because libertarians accept so so many different political positions under their big, happy "freedom" umbrella. Some libertarians are capitalists whose political views are completely constistant with Objectivists. Some libertarians are extreme anarchists who want the government to be dissolved to the point there isn't a police force or military. Some libertarians are "one-issue" voters who only want drugs legal and don't care about anything else. Others are "one-issue" voters who only want shoulder-mounted rocket launchers legal and don't care about anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a straw-man.  No one here has argued that any good policy or politician that reduces or totally eliminates rights-violations should not be supported because their basis is not Objectivism.   The topic of the thread is why Objectivists, Ayn Rand in particular, condemn Libertarianism and its adherents.  Libetarianism is a political philosophy based on moral subjectivism.  As such it is subject to moral condemnation just as Kantianism, Marxism, et al.

Thanks for your reponse, Tom, but I'm afraid this does not clear things up. In post #88 you wrote, "With Libertarianism having no metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical basis, it is a floating, disintegrated system, with no real understanding or powerful defense of liberty." If you are now (Post #97) claiming that "Libetarianism is a political philosophy based on moral subjectivism," do you wish to revise your earlier claim that it has no metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis? Furthermore, can you point us to some evidence that in order to be a libertarian one must subscribe to moral subjectivism? I've never encountered any libertarian organization that has such a rule.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is really something that Objectivists seriously believe

I was exaggerating (I don't know enough about Ron Paul to say he's a traitor, but if he got a fair trial, I wouldn't be surprised if he were found guilty). But you got the point--which was that we absolutely DON'T like the anti-"Imperialist" stances of "some" libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my Ethics professor gave a good example of means vs. ends.

two people start their own businesses. a man comes to both of them (independently) and offers each of them a bribe. One of the men chooses not to accept the bribe because he was afraid of getting caught. The other man chooses to not accept the bribe because he has a moral conviction against theivery.

now the question is: who is the moral one?

they both did the same thing, but was their justification for not accepting the bribe moral?

same situation here. Objectivists want Capitalism, Libertarians want Capitalism. Does the ends justify the means?

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...