Libertarians

[The Wrath]

I recently finished VoR, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Schwartz's essay as an expose of Libertarianism. The part that I found was most convincing was how he says that Libertarians represent a variety of ideologies, all of whom want "liberty" but none of whom agree on the proper moral basis for it. There's another message board that I post on and, when I read that essay, I immediately thought of this thread that someone had started.

Enjoy.

[nimble]

I really don't see the point of your post. I don't see the correlation between Peter Schwartz and that thread you posted. Also, people having different moral grounds for being libertarians has nothing to do with the validity of anyone of those particular libertarian arguments.

[The Wrath]

It's a perfect example of what Peter Schwartz said. This guy is talking about socialists voting libertarian. How is that not an example of people with radically different ideologies supporting the same end result, but with a different basis?

[nimble]

I think his motive was to get votes for the Libertarian Party. I don't think he cares that socialist have different ideologies, just in the same way that Republicans and Democrats don't care where their votes come from, so long as they win. And truthfully, I think organized political parties are stupid for the reasons displayed above; voting just doesn't work.

[Tom Robinson]

It's a perfect example of what Peter Schwartz said.  This guy is talking about socialists voting libertarian. 

I'll cheer anytime a socialist votes libertarian. Would you rather have them vote for Hillary?

How is that not an example of people with radically different ideologies supporting the same end result, but with a different basis?

So what? Ronald Reagan was elected twice by appealing to people with different ideologies. He won the support of labor unionists, CEOs, farmers, soccer moms, Southern Baptists, and even a few Objectivists. As I've said on a different thread, politics is the art of building coalitions among people with differing beliefs. The surest way not to win office is by purging the impure from the ranks.

[The Wrath]

Did you even read the post? He said socialists should vote libertarian, because libertarians are big on states rights, and it would be easier to acheive socialism on a state/local level.

[Tom Robinson]

Did you even read the post?  He said socialists should vote libertarian, because libertarians are big on states rights, and it would be easier to acheive socialism on a state/local level.

So what? I think Christians, Muslims, monarchists, tree-huggers, rap artists, hobos, and vegans should vote libertarian too. The fact that I disagree with someone does not mean that I would want them to favor big government in the voting booth.

[The Wrath]

Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian, I guess it makes sense that you support it.

[nimble]

Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian, I guess it makes sense that you support it.

Who is a libertarian?

[Tom Robinson]

Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian, I guess it makes sense that you support it.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party. I'll support whatever candidate is likeliest to increase my freedom. Since attaining the age of majority, I've cast ballots for Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians.

On a different subject, regarding your signature quote, Churchill was wrong when he wrote, “The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Orwell demolished this myth in Animal Farm. Some people do very well under socialism. Stalin, for example, lived quite comfortably.

[Bryan]

On a different subject, regarding your signature quote, Churchill was wrong when he wrote, “The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Orwell demolished this myth in Animal Farm. Some people do very well under socialism. Stalin, for example, lived quite comfortably.

Tom,

You never cease to amaze me. You care to qualify the above statement? Stalin didn't live under socialism. Once again, you take something somebody completely out of context to make a nonsensical point for no reason whatsoever.

I'm also amazed at your ability to broach the subject of your libertarianism. Moose says, "Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian," you say, "I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party."

Did he say you were a member of the libertarian party? Why did you respond to his claim with a refutation of something he didn't say?

[nimble]

Yes, Bryan is right a libertarian is not the same as a Libertarian. Moose asked if you were a libertarian, and not with the capital L that implies party affiliation.

Edited April 7, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[The Wrath]

I have a novel idea. How about we discuss the topic of my thread?

[DavidV]

I deleted the off-topic and sarcastic posts. Also, please observe the rules regarding excessive quoting.

Re Stalin: While I do not recommend learning economics from Churchill, it’s accurate to say that Stalin lived a miserable life. In a socialist or totalitarian system, everyone is miserable, including the political elite. It’s a system where every man is a threat to each other, and the politburo is especially vulnerable to being stabbed in the back. Just observe that Stalin killed of most of his closest allies, kept the rest in constant terror, and probably lived in a private hell of paranoia and delusion himself. He was never able to engage in normal human relationships (he killed his wife and sent his son to die in a Nazi concentration camp as a traitor) and was worse off psychologically than the millions he sent to the gulags.

[Gabriel_S]

On a different subject, regarding your signature quote, Churchill was wrong when he wrote, “The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Orwell demolished this myth in Animal Farm.  Some people do very well under socialism.  Stalin, for example, lived quite comfortably.

Stalin was a complete paranoid. The descriptions and history that I've read, don't indicate that he lived comfortably at all, and certainly don't support the notion that he experienced happiness (I realize you didn't maintain that he did).

[Tom Robinson]

To the Administrator: I regret my use of sarcasm, excessive quotations and deviation from the topic.

Whether or not we wish to use Stalin as an example, contrary to Churchill, it is simply not true that misery is spread about evenly in a socialist country. As under any dictatorship, those issuing the commands in a command economy enjoy comforts far beyond the reach of the average prole. For exhaustive documentation of this see Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (1980) by Michael Voslensky. More importantly, whatever "private hell of paranoia" Red tyrants may have suffered, it was nothing compared to the evils experienced in their death camps, torture chambers, and artificially engineered famines.

As for Bryan’s criticism of my earlier post:

1. Restoring the first sentence in the Churchill quote does not make the second sentence any less erroneous.

2. I did not broach the subject of my libertarianism; Moose did.

3. I said, "I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party" in the context of a discussion about “voting libertarian” and Moose’s statement “Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian, I guess it makes sense that you support it” (which I reasonably took to be a reference to the LP).

[The Wrath]

I have a novel idea.  How about we discuss the topic of my thread?

[Lemuel]

The part that I found was most convincing was how (Schwartz) says that Libertarians represent a variety of ideologies, all of whom want "liberty" but none of whom agree on the proper moral basis for it.

Sadly, this is the reality of the Libertarian Party. Check out many discussion forums for Libertarians - like the one at www.badnark.org - and you'll see that there is a lot of disagreement about "hot" political topics. Look a little deeper, and you'll see that these disagreements flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis", or even a well-defined, axiomatic platform.

While I personally agree with a majority of platform stances, and consider myself a (lower-case 'l') libertarian, and even vote libertarian, I find this lack of a solid foundation off-putting.

It's as if the LP is a support group for disenfranchised Republicans, the same way the Green Party is for mega-liberals. The danger is that, if enough people who indulge in irrational political beliefs can influence the Party, then the LP could just become a sect of Republicanism.

Libertarianism should not be about that at all. The LP needs a champion to not only clarify what the root libertarian positions are, but put them into a rational context in a manner that religious zealots and stoner hippies alike can understand.

I remember reading somewhere that in the LP's early days, the Party founders wanted Ayn Rand's endorsement. Finding their positions weak and without a solid foundation, she refused, stating that she never would do so unless the political party was built upon principles of logic, reason, and practised a vigorous defense of laissez-faire capitalism. (Bear with me, I'm paraphrasing from memory here.) The LP refused, and Rand Shrugged.

This party gains more visibility each year, raises very important questions about the nature of freedom, responsibility, and our own Constitution, and even provides some good surface-level answers. But the frustrating part is knowing that beyond the facade still lies a great deal of chaos and turmoil.

Hopefully it's growing pains, though. The Party is 30-something years old, but it has yet to have a real, passionate, articulate, deeply principled ... and massively funded ... leader.

[Tom Robinson]

Sadly, this is the reality of the Libertarian Party. Check out many discussion forums for Libertarians - like the one at www.badnark.org - and you'll see that there is a lot of disagreement about "hot" political topics. Look a little deeper, and you'll see that these disagreements flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis", or even a well-defined, axiomatic platform.

I've seen political disagreements on this board, at Google Groups HPO, and at SoloHQ. We just went through an election season where there was sharp disagreement among prominent Objectivist luminaries about which candidate to support. Would you say these differences flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis"?

While I personally agree with a majority of platform stances, and consider myself a (lower-case 'l') libertarian, and even vote libertarian, I find this lack of a solid foundation off-putting.

Show me a political party that requires unanimous agreement on metaphysics/epistemology/ethics and I’ll show you a party that will never win an office higher than village councilperson.

[The Wrath]

I've seen political disagreements on this board, at Google Groups HPO, and at SoloHQ.  We just went through an election season where there was sharp disagreement among prominent Objectivist luminaries about which candidate to support.  Would you say these differences flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis"?

People disagreed only on who would do more damage to the country. People who tend to vote Libertarian have nothing in common, morality-wise, with Socialists, but this dude doesn't care. There's a difference between disagreeing as to who will best uphold Objectivist principles and having a different moral base.

Show me a political party that requires unanimous agreement on metaphysics/epistemology/ethics and I’ll show you a party that will never win an office higher than village councilperson.

There aren't any. The Libertarian party will never win any offices of consequence either.

[Tom Robinson]

People disagreed only on who would do more damage to the country.

Synthlord advanced the idea that disagreements among libertarians flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis." Accordingly, if everyone is in agreement on the "moral basis," there would have to be agreement on politics, including choice of a Presidential candidate.

People who tend to vote Libertarian have nothing in common, morality-wise, with Socialists, but this dude doesn't care. 

And which "dude" would that be? Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for a libertarian and a socialist to agree about a woman's right to an abortion or assisted suicide?

There's a difference between disagreeing as to who will best uphold Objectivist principles and having a different moral base.

There aren't any.  The Libertarian party will never win any offices of consequence either.

But Synthloard's argument is that political disagreements flow from disagreements about morality. So the only way we can square the fact that one Objectivist voted for Kerry while another voted for Bush, is to stipulate that having different preferences for president is not really a political disagreement. Similarly, one could, erroneously, characterize any disagreements among libertarians as not really political.

Regarding the Libertarian Party’s lack of success in winning important offices, you’re right. I attribute this failing to its inability to build a broad coalition of voters -- which is what every major party (meaning winning party) has done historically. I certainly don’t believe that adding deeper philosophical foundations to its statement of principles is going to get it more followers.

[The Wrath]

Did you read my post? It isn't a difference on morality. It's a difference on who will do more damage to the common Objectivisty ideals. It's based off of analysis of the current state of things in the United States and the positions taken by the candidates. All Objectivists agree that both candidates sucked. The thing they disagree on is who is more likely to screw things up. It's a matter of political prediction, not differences in morality.

[nimble]

Did you read my post?  It isn't a difference on morality.  It's a difference on who will do more damage to the common Objectivisty ideals.  It's based off of analysis of the current state of things in the United States and the positions taken by the candidates.  All Objectivists agree that both candidates sucked.  The thing they disagree on is who is more likely to screw things up.  It's a matter of political prediction, not differences in morality.

It really can't be worse than it is now...no government is better than a tyrannical government.

[Tom Robinson]

Did you read my post?  It isn't a difference on morality.  It's a difference on who will do more damage to the common Objectivisty ideals.  It's based off of analysis of the current state of things in the United States and the positions taken by the candidates.  All Objectivists agree that both candidates sucked.  The thing they disagree on is who is more likely to screw things up.  It's a matter of political prediction, not differences in morality.

Fine. Objectivists agree on morality. Objectivists sometimes disagree on political candidates. Ergo, agreement on morality does not always yield uniform judgments about politics. Synthlord is refuted.

[The Wrath]

But when you tell someone who is opposed to your principles to vote for your candidate for the very reason that they can achieve ends that are opposite to your own...yeah, that doesn't make much sense. If I want to tell people to vote for Bush, I base it off of the reasons that I believe he should be reelected and try to convince them that he is the right choice. I don't go to Jerry Falwell and his ilk and say "yeah, we disagree and I won't try to convince you that I'm right, but at least we're voting for the same guy."