Libertarians

[Tom Robinson]

1. There are many flaws in Republican policies, but they are nowhere NEAR as evil as Sharia.

2. Running as a Republican would not make the Republican Party seem respectable, because it already does seem such. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the fact that those who are currently in power are currently in power, but it is another matter entirely to help a gang that is currently out of power gain power--especially if that gang is worse than the current powers-that-be.

So a party that wishes to end the federal income tax, end regulation of business, end welfare, end subsidies, end foreign aid, end the drug war -- is worse than a party that not only does not oppose these things but has sought to increase them?

[Capitalism Forever]

No, libertarians support your right to meddle with Islamists to your heart's content, C.F. -- provided that it's your own money and blood that you're putting on the line.

That is a lie.

[Capitalism Forever]

So a party that wishes to end the federal income tax, end regulation of business, end welfare, end subsidies, end foreign aid, end the drug war

The LP wishes to end taxation etc. by the American government. But it helps little to be free from American taxes if one is oppressed by Sharia instead.

[Tom Robinson]

That is a lie.

I am a libertartian, and I support your right to meddle with Islamists to your heart's content, C.F. -- provided that it's your own money and blood that you're putting on the line.

Now prove the above statement is in error.

[Tom Robinson]

The LP wishes to end taxation etc. by the American government. But it helps little to be free from American taxes if one is oppressed by Sharia instead.

Tell us more about the LP's plans to impose Sharia law once the LP occupies the White House and Congress.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am a libertartian, and I support your right to meddle with Islamists to your heart's content, C.F. -- provided that it's your own money and blood that you're putting on the line.

Now prove the above statement is in error.

Who cares about you? I am talking about the ideological leaders of the Libertarian Party.

[Capitalism Forever]

Tell us more about the LP's plans to impose Sharia law once the LP occupies the White House and Congress.

I already did:

Libertarians are opposed to "meddling" with Islamist countries. The result of that kind of policy is inevitably the spread of Islamism.

BTW, even if the LP endorsed a private retaliation against Islam, it would not be enough. A retaliation by the U.S. government is necessary.

[Tom Robinson]

I already did:

Actually the LP explicitly opposes any prohibition on U.S. citizens volunteering their treasure or labor to foreign conflicts. From the LP Platform: "Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments." Every American would then be free to meddle as much as he wanted. A planeload of armed Objectivists could land in Baghdad or Kabul or Riyadh and say, "Howdy ya'll, we're here to fight the Islamists."

BTW, even if the LP endorsed a private retaliation against Islam, it would not be enough. A retaliation by the U.S. government is necessary.

Since Objectivists believe in completely voluntary government revenue collection, fighting Islam by private means would be accomplished no differently than by government means: through the voluntary actions of individual citizens.

[Capitalism Forever]

Since Objectivists believe in completely voluntary government revenue collection, fighting Islam by private means would be accomplished no differently than by government means: through the voluntary actions of individual citizens.

Exactly. But Libertarians would still be opposed to the "meddling" if it were done by the government. They ONLY support non-governmental action, even if the government is entirely private.

What does this say about Libertarians?

[Tom Robinson]

Exactly. But Libertarians would still be opposed to the "meddling" if it were done by the government. They ONLY support non-governmental action, even if the government is entirely private.

What does this say about Libertarians?

But surely, C.F., you do not favor forcing anyone to contribute to a cause they do not support? Thus if all meddling is to be purely voluntary, your position is no different from the libertarian's: no one should be required to give his labor or his property for any purpose against his will. As to whether a Libertarian Congress would authorize a “retaliation against Islam,” that would depend on what you have in mind. How exactly does one physically retaliate against a set of theological assumptions? In any case, there are a number of libertarians who are on record as supporting deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world (“meddling,” if you will): J. Neil Schulman, David Boaz, Tom Palmer, Williamson Evers and Neal Boortz among others.

So your attempt to equate libertarians with Nazis does not bear scrutiny.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[AisA]

Seriously, I'm asking ... I'm really trying to reconcile all this in my head, and much of the anti-Libertarian rhetoric I've read isn't without a few (perceived or unexplained) flaws.

I recommend you read Peter Schwartz's booklet titled, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty." It is available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

You will learn that Libertarians have advocated, among other things, the unilateral disarmament of the United States, negotiations with the Soviet Union (who the Libertarians regarded as "peaceful"), destruction of the state of Israel and recognition of the terrorist PLO as the legitimate government of the area.

Libertarian party leaders have stated that the destruction of the Nazi's and the Japanese imperialists was an immoral act on the part of the U.S., that the overthrow of South Vietnam by the communist North Vietnam was cause for celebration, that both the FBI and the CIA should be dismantled, that the Watergate scandal was the greatest hope for liberty in America, and that the overthrow of the Marxist government of Grenada was unjustified.

Prominent Libertarians have stated that any American attempts to fight communism around the world were "aggressions", that the most warlike nation of the 20th century is the U.S., that the North American Man/Boy Love Association should be free to promote sex between adult males and underage children, that children should be permitted to buy drinks, that the mentally insane should be permitted to wander the streets armed with guns, and that if your next door neighbor acquires a nuclear weapon, that is no business of the state.

The Libertarian Party's most recent presidential candidate states explicitly that rights are a gift from god.

Schwartz's book is full of direct quotes and footnotes substantiating all of the above, and more.

Sure, there are some Libertarians that do not believe these things, but they all believe one thing: that liberty may be promoted while eschewing its philosophical foundations, i.e. that liberty requires no foundation, it can simply be asserted as a subjective value – and Schwartz shows that this is why you wind up with positions like those above being advocated on the basis of liberty.

[Tom Robinson]

I have been placed on warning by the powers that be to stop "promoting" libertarianism. Therefore, I can add nothing further to this conversation.

[Capitalism Forever]

But surely, C.F., you do not favor forcing anyone to contribute to a cause they do not support?  Thus if all meddling is to be purely voluntary, your position is no different from the libertarian's:  no one should be required to give his labor or his property for any purpose against his will.

My position is the exact opposite of that of the Libertarians. The Libertarians hold that America MUST NOT be defended by a government. My position is that it MUST.

[ZeusTKP]

In another thread I said that I want to associate with libertarians to create a better world. This was the response I received:

If that's your goal, then I submit that they are the last people you should look to for guidance.

So what is the deal with Libertarians? I was under the impression that the libertarian party was the closest in ideals to Objectivism. What political party (or political ideals) is favored by Objectivists?

[dondigitalia]

In another thread I said that I want to associate with libertarians to create a better world. This was the response I received:

So what is the deal with Libertarians? I was under the impression that the libertarian party was the closest in ideals to Objectivism. What political party (or political ideals) is favored by Objectivists?

Read the last 10 pages of this thread. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

[softwareNerd]

Read the last 10 pages of this thread.

I just merged a few previous threads and then added ZeusTKP's post at the end.

[dondigitalia]

I just merged a few previous threads and then added ZeusTKP's post at the end.

Oh. Well, that's still my answer, lol.

[ZeusTKP]

Oh. Well, that's still my answer, lol.

I honestly had no idea that Objectivists hate libertarians so much. Wow.

Yeah, I'm looking through the posts.

Edited October 25, 2005 by ZeusTKP

[dondigitalia]

I honestly had no idea that Objectivists hate libertarians so much. Wow.

I'm not willing to make such a blanket statement as Objectivists hate libertarians. We disagree with them, and there are some who I personally hate, but most, I view as just misguided and ignorant of the full implications of their politics.

Edit: Libertarianism, OTOH, I hate.

[Apollo]

To my understanding "libertarian" is a general word regarding any political idea that promotes natural rights, small (or non-existent) governement, and a ban of the initiation of force. It is extremely broad, but only pertains to politics.

Because libertarianism is only a political view, those who call themselves "libertarians" ascribe themselves to a whole gammot of ethical, epistemological, metaphysical, and asthetic beliefs. But Objectivism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive. The specifics of Objectivist political philosphy are, under this definition, a subset of libertarian, and all other aspects of the objectivist philosophy have no relation to libertarianism.

The Libertarian Party is a specific political faction devoted to libertarian ideals. The specifics of the party's ideals change from candidate to candidate but, in my own judgement, this does not matter because the candidates will not win. You are voting for the ideal not the candidate. It is the only hope Objectivism has for making a direct political difference and voting libertarian is hardly treason. It is the support of a general political view that objectivism is a part of and a support for, some day, an Objectivist candidate (because libertarian would be the only platform that would take one).

Voting Libertarian is hardly pointless either. To say that "voting for a third party is a wasted vote because they aren't going to win." is simply circular logic. Because it is your vote that determines who wins (in an abstract sense) you are basically saying that "A third party will not win because they will not win." It's determinism at its core. Whenever I hear the argument I usually respond with "I don't vote for who i think is going to win, but for the party I would prefer, otherwise I'd be voting for -insert candidate who will probably win here-."

As for those that claim that political action is ineffective and that simply holding convictions and pronouncing them is enough for a cultural change that will affect politics, I would point out that Gandhi tried that at first. It didn't work for him and it won't work for us. There is already a means for political change and a very simple and effective way to pronounce convictions and even do so with a great amount of organization. It has already been implemented and is in use. Why neglect it?

Edited October 26, 2005 by Apollo

[EC]

Appollo,

The problem with libertarianism is that it has no philosophical basis. In fact, many (or most) Libertarians explicitly deny or evade any need for such a basis. They attempt to simply start with a floating abstraction along the lines of "liberty is good" and never attempt to justify or prove that statement. This is Nihilism, and leads straight towards the support of the antithesis of liberty, anarchy, which is what many Libertarians openly support. And this is one of the main reasons Objectivists are fundamentally opposed to any form of libertarianism.

[DavidOdden]

To my understanding "libertarian" is a general word regarding any political idea that promotes natural rights, small (or non-existent) governement, and a ban of the initiation of force. It is extremely broad, but only pertains to politics.

One of the fundamental distinguishing characteristics of libertarianism is that it holds the non-initiation of force to be axiomatic, and completely unrelated to any aspect of ethics, morality, or the universe. The problem is that NIF is obviously not axiomatic, and you can't even get them to say what it means. That means that all a libertarian has to do to justify blowing your head off is scream that you've initiated force against him. There's no way to objectively relate their idea of NIF to real actions, so in fact the whole movement is hollow. And the past 34 years have shown how stunningly variable their concepts are.

[dondigitalia]

Apollo,

Observe that despite the fact that libertarians ignore the philosophical base of politics, even they cannot escape the fact that it is the nature of politics to be based on some philosophy. In the case of the libertarians, as EC said, it is Nihilism.

In drawing a line between the Libertarian Party and libertarians (as those who uphold the idea of natural rights), you are setting up a false alternative; the two are essentially the same thing--an attempt to evade the necessary philosophical base of politics.

Objectivists start much deeper than the idea of individual rights; we start first in metaphysics & epistemology, and our political beliefs are nothing more than a consequence of that.

Of course "holding convictions and pronouncing them" is not enough for a cultural change. There is a long chain of action that needs to be followed beyond that before a culture can change.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but the reason I don't vote Libertarian is not because third parties don't win. The reason I don't vote Libertarian is because Libertarianism is exactly what Peter Schwartz said it is: a perversion of liberty. Despite all of their faults, I would take the Dems or Reps over the Libs anyday.

It's important to note that Libertarians have been trying to associate themselves with Objectivism and Ayn Rand for many years, even while Ayn Rand and Objectivists openly condemned them and renounced any association. Libertarians clearly have something to gain from Objectivism, while Objectivism has nothing to gain from them. To paraphrase Ayn Rand: The good has nothing to gain from the evil, but the evil has everything to gain from the good.

[Apollo]

I wouldn't want someone who said they were a libertarian, but who cared nothing for philosophy, in office. But I would prefer almost any libertarian to an evangelist, Hillary Clinton, or Deng Xioping. Some libertarians have ridiculous views on taxes some are anarchistic but I think even they know how extreme for the sake of a publicity stunt they are being. Even their huge focus on The War on Drugs is a publicity stunt because the poor creatures need publicity so badly!

An Objectivists can still call himself a Libertarian as an environmentalist who disagrees with many Democrats can still call himself a Democrat.

Most libertarians could be much more easily "converted" (if that word may have its normal connotation stripped) than any Democrat or even Republican because both of those parties are so very conservative (Yes even you Mr. Democrat, your ideas have been around for a century, you're not liberal anymore.). The libertarian political beliefs are essentially corect and every non-objecivist (most of them) Libertarian I have met (which i admit I can couunt on two hands) has a wonderful sense of life with a horrible lack of philosophical convictions outside of politics. It is true that Libertarianism is only a political idea but the rest of the philosophy is empty and requires filling.

With all respect your attitudes seem to look at a huge group of people, pick the worst in the bunch, and then stereotype. Liberatrianism isn't any explicit political philosophy that happens to be nihilistic, but a category of political philosophy in which many of its supporters happen to be nihilistic. It has no views about most of philosophy (perhaps its weakness) and there are certainly corrupt, nihilistic, evil people who support it. There are also others who aren't so bad.

As an example I will give a debate in a libertarian magizine that someone in my household gets and I read because I was shocked that a libertarian could feel that the subject even waranted debate. It was on "The Social Responsibility of Business" The correct libertarian debater said something along the lines of "If the term has any meaning at all the social responsibility of business is to make profit." the other, who claimed to be a libertarian, said that the social responsibility of business was to help the environment, raise living standards, etc. He claimed to be a libertarian because he felt this responsibility should not be enforced but philosophicaly accepted. He said that he loves his wife for her sake and that a new type of capitalism "for the common good" could be reached and many other things I deeply disagreed with. His implicitly accepted altruist ethical views corrupted his mind. In short, I understand that there are very evil libertarians, and that it is absolutely not a substitute for a philosphy nor an automatic sign of benevolence. but....

There is no Galt's Gulch and too few of us to make a difference in the political scene so we cannot escape the necessity to modify a current group. If objectivism is to have a chance outside college campuses, this is the party (of the larger parties) most easily modified and least requiring modification, in the country most easily modified and least requiring modification. If we centralize our efforts to modifying and influencing an already existing party with the correct philosophical skeleton, all there is left to do is to weed out the maggots and build it some flesh.

How can this be done civily? Objectivist writers in Libertarian publications would help foster in interest in a rational philosophy. Maybe even have little comments such as "as an objectivist blah blah blah". I'm not trying to sound like an evangelist praying on the weak of sense of life during their weakest times (eg a religious leader telling a group of mourners that they will never see thier loved one again unless they convert.), I'm purposing that we present objectivism to those that have a strong sense of life and in complete philosophical context. Libertarians are not the enemy, they are unschooled potentials who could use a rational philosophy as much as anyone and would be more willing to consider it than most people.

by the way: I'm a very young person, my opinions are hardly "convictions" at this point because I know how small my experience in the world is. Libertarianism has been a shaky subject in my mind for a long time and I appreciate this community for helping me hash it out.

[DavidOdden]

An Objectivists can still call himself a Libertarian as an environmentalist who disagrees with many Democrats can still call himself a Democrat.

The reason why it's possible in the latter case is that being a Democrat doesn't have any significance for beliefs: it's a political party, and there is no such thing as a "Democrat Philosophy" (as witnessed by the fact that the White House is occupied by a member of the Republican party who is really a Democrat, and that senator from Georgia who is in the Democrat party is more a Republican than W). There is a significant meaning to being an Objectivist: it signals acceptance of a particular set of philosophical beliefs. One of them is, obviously, non-contradiction. Another, in the realm of politics, is that capitalism as a political system is justified by reference to a theory of morality (having to do with "life" and "man's nature"). Libertarian political philosophy contradicts that, by holding that NIF is the primary principle. Just on the political realm (which is the only place where libertarianism has a statistical tendency to intersect with Objectivism), that means that it is impossible to hold Objectivist beliefs and libertarian beliefs, since they are contradictory.

Most libertarians could be much more easily "converted" (if that word may have its normal connotation stripped) than any Democrat or even Republican because both of those parties are so very conservative.

I just don't see how that could be. There is only one point of partial agreement on a small political point where Objectivism and libertarianism might have a bit of common ground: well, communists are dedicated atheists as are Objectivists, so isn't that analogously an argument that we could somehow convert communists? As a reformed libertarian, my advice is simple. Never talk to libertarians about politics. Talk about anything else, just not politics. If you can "convert" them, so much the better. Otherwise, they are no better than communists.