Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Guest Bob

Recommended Posts

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.

The absence of a rule is the point. In an effort to attract as many voters as possible, the Libertarian Party takes no stance on ethics (or epistemology or metaphysics).

As a practical matter, the question is this: does surrendering the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism result in greater support for capitalism -- or less support?

Reality shows that short term improvements such as Proposition 13 and the welfare reform of the 90s are being swamped in the drift to statism, a drift that is fueled by the near universal acceptance of altruism.

As long as men believe that virtue consists of sacrifice for the sake of others, however reluctant and half-hearted that belief may be, they will not fight for a system based on their right to exist for their own sake, and they will be disarmed in the face of those who claim that government must provide food for the starving, housing for the homeless, transportation for the poor, education for the ignorant, medicine for the sick, retirement for the elderly and any and every “need” that is identified by a pressure group and presented as an unchallengeable demand.

As long as the premises of altruism are unchallenged, men will continue to accept the notion that the state must look over everyone’s shoulder and regulate all human activity, less greedy businessmen fleece their employees of their retirement, sicken the public with untested drugs, kill us with unsafe cars, poison our air and water, maim us in unsafe workplaces, deny us employment because of our race, and perpetuate a whole host of other evils that would surely abound in the absence of government controls.

Do you think you can reverse the drift toward statism by attempting to counter these arguments point by point, while conceding the underlying premise that man is a helpless being trapped in an unknowable universe -- a being that must be both supported and controlled by the government? You cannot win the battle by conceding the enemy’s premises.

To reverse the drift toward statism, we must expose the evil of altruism, refute all of its irrational underpinnings, and then provide a rational alternative. Objectivism does all of this, but its widespread acceptance will require nothing less than a philosophical revolution.

Miss Rand has given us the ammunition for that battle, but there is no short cut. By divorcing politics from ethics, the Libertarians have effectively declared that there is no moral justification for capitalism. What could be more damning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The absence of a rule is the point.  In an effort to attract as many voters as possible, the Libertarian Party takes no stance on ethics (or epistemology or metaphysics).

As a practical matter, the question is this: does surrendering the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism result in greater support for capitalism -- or less support?

I noted earlier in this thread the successful campaigns waged by Jim Blanchard and Howard Jarvis against, respectively, the ban on gold and high property taxes in California. I pointed out that Blanchard and Jarvis enjoyed success despite (or more likely, because of) not tying their specific political objective to more fundamental positions on ethics or epistemology or metaphysics. So I will ask again, is it wrong for Objectivists to support referenda or legislative reforms through campaigns that are not explicitly tied to fundamental philosophical principles?

Reality shows that short term improvements such as Proposition 13 and the welfare reform of the 90s are being swamped in the drift to statism, a drift that is fueled by the near universal acceptance of altruism.

As long as men believe that virtue consists of sacrifice for the sake of others, however reluctant and half-hearted that belief may be, they will not fight for a system based on their right to exist for their own sake, and they will be disarmed in the face of those who claim that government must provide food for the starving, housing for the homeless, transportation for the poor, education for the ignorant, medicine for the sick, retirement for the elderly and any and every “need” that is identified by a pressure group and presented as an unchallengeable demand.

As long as the premises of altruism are unchallenged, men will continue to accept the notion that the state must look over everyone’s shoulder and regulate all human activity, less greedy businessmen fleece their employees of their retirement, sicken the public with untested drugs, kill us with unsafe cars, poison our air and water, maim us in unsafe workplaces, deny us employment because of our race, and perpetuate a whole host of other evils that would surely abound in the absence of government controls.

That may be true. Yet there is no contradiction in working to educate the public about Objectivist principles and at the same time voting for or contributing to reforms that will make us freer -- even though the campaigns for those reforms may not be expressly tied to the Objectivist philosophy. If in the political sphere we restrict ourselves to endorsing only those campaigns that are manifestly Objectivist, then I cannot think of a single political candidate or reform on the current scene that we could support. We would have to abstain from the very activity that is unique to citizens in a representative republic.

Do you think you can reverse the drift toward statism by attempting to counter these arguments point by point, while conceding the underlying premise that man is a helpless being trapped in an unknowable universe -- a being that must be both supported and controlled by the government?  You cannot win the battle by conceding the enemy’s premises.

Last November I voted against a school bond referendum in my county without conceding any premises to my enemy. It may be true that opponents of the bond issue did not provide any ethical or epistemological or metaphysical arguments against the bonds. At the same time, it was not in my rational self-interest to see the school system take on additional debt that I as a taxpayer would be forced to pay for. Yes, I would like to see the world become more rational, but in the meantime I’m not going to withhold support from anyone who wants to make government smaller for the wrong reasons.

To reverse the drift toward statism, we must expose the evil of altruism, refute all of its irrational underpinnings, and then provide a rational alternative. Objectivism does all of this, but its widespread acceptance will require nothing less than a philosophical revolution.

Miss Rand has given us the ammunition for that battle, but there is no short cut. By divorcing politics from ethics, the Libertarians have effectively declared that there is no moral justification for capitalism.  What could be more damning?

If there is no Objectivist in a race for a particular office, is it wrong to cast one’s vote for (or contribute money to) someone who is clearly more pro-capitalist than his opponent? Miss Rand didn’t think so. We know she supported Wendell Wilkie, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, none of whom ran campaigns on the evil of altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

But lots of libertarians believe that it is necessary for a political philosophy to have a moral basis, Robert Nozick for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is no Objectivist in a race for a particular office, is it wrong to cast one’s vote for (or contribute money to) someone who is clearly more pro-capitalist than his opponent?

I certainly hope not, seeing as how I am a card-carrying member of the Republican National Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I will ask again, is it wrong for Objectivists to support referenda or legislative reforms through campaigns that are not explicitly tied to fundamental philosophical principles?
Yes, if you mean "someone else's campaign". It would not be totally wrong for an Objectivist to support his own reform proposal and not explicitly tie it to all of the necessary philosophical principles. The cure could be worse than the disease. Privately voting for a proposal, of course, is different from overtly supporting an apparently good proposal that is being promulgated by prople of dubious morals, or suggesting in any way that limiting tax increases is "a good thing". Saying that, grants the supposition that taxation is good: if you mean that taxation is thoroughly evil, then you should criticise a tax-limitation proposal as insufficient (or, hold your tongue entirely as far as that particular proposal is concerned, vote for it privately, and independently work to educate people to understanding why taxation is wrong). I assume you know why (right?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if you mean "someone else's campaign". It would not be totally wrong for an Objectivist to support his own reform proposal and not explicitly tie it to all of the necessary philosophical principles.

Great. That's exactly what Jim Blanchard did. He subscribed to Objectivist principles and led a national campaign for repeal of the law against private ownership of gold, yet did “not explicitly tie it to all of the necessary philosophical principles.” Now then, if it’s okay for Blanchard to do this (and, by extension, for Objectivists to support Blanchard’s reform), why would it not be okay for Objectivists to support Howard Jarvis, who while not an Objectivist (as far as I know), led a campaign for the radical roll-back of property taxes in California? Both campaigns clearly resulted in more individual freedom and neither campaign, while not stressing Objectivist principles, promoted immoral or irrational principles.

The cure could be worse than the disease. Privately voting for a proposal, of course, is different from overtly supporting an apparently good proposal that is being promulgated by prople of dubious morals . .  .

So I was right to vote against the school bond issue, but I would have been wrong to “overtly” encourage others to vote for it because those leading the drive against it might be of “dubious morals”? It seems to me that if we have on the table a proposal or candidate that will increase individual freedom, it is in our rational self-interest not only to vote “yes,” but to encourage others also to vote in favor -- even if those behind candidate/proposal are not philosophically perfect. Certainly that is what Ayn Rand did when she endorsed, with reservations, the Episcopalian Republican Barry Goldwater for president.

. . .  or suggesting in any way that limiting tax increases is "a good thing".

It is not a good thing if the most viable alternative is no taxation at all. It is a good thing if the most viable alternative is a continuance of high taxes and no limit at all on future tax increases.

Saying that, grants the supposition that taxation is good: if you mean that taxation is thoroughly evil, then you should criticise a tax-limitation proposal as insufficient (or, hold your tongue entirely as far as that particular proposal is concerned, vote for it privately, and independently work to educate people to understanding why taxation is wrong). I assume you know why (right?).

I would openly and proudly criticize any tax limitation proposal short of holding taxes at 0% as insufficient. But I see no contradiction in advocating 0% taxation and voting for a measure that means greater than 0% taxation. For any reduction in taxation is better than none at all. Moreover, I see no reason why I should vote for such a measure and not actively encourage others to vote for it as well. After all, Ayn Rand endorsed presidential candidates, who never said anything about taxes being totally immoral.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.  That's exactly what Jim Blanchard did.  He subscribed to Objectivist principles....
I'll take your word for it: I don't know the case.
Now then, if it’s okay for Blanchard to do this (and, by extension, for Objectivists to support Blanchard’s reform), why would it not be okay for Objectivists to support Howard Jarvis, who while not an Objectivist (as far as I know), led a campaign for the radical roll-back of property taxes in California?
Because a radical roll-backin taxes isn't the correct outcome: the elimination of taxes would be. By analogy, if Blanchard's campaign had been to allow private ownership of gold in amounds under 1 lb, his campaign would be unsupportable.
Both campaigns clearly resulted in more individual freedom...
in the short run. You seem to be enamored of the quick ineffective solution as being somehow good for something.
and neither campaign, while not stressing Objectivist principles, promoted immoral or irrational principles.
Taxes are a vast problem for liberty, and Jarvis's campaign was a half-vast solution.
So I was right to vote against the school bond issue, but I would have been wrong to “overtly” encourage others to vote for it because those leading the drive against it might be of “dubious morals”?
Did you really mean that? You would be wrong to encourage anyone to vote for a school bond issue no matter what. If you know for certain that the proponents of a proposal are of good moral fiber, you can encourage others to support the movement. What licenses you to inject a "might be" into an "is" discussion? You should not encourage others to support a proposal, if the proponents are of bad moral character. Didn't I say that? Maybe that didn't come through on your copy.
I would openly and proudly criticize any tax limitation proposal short of holding taxes at 0% as insufficient.  But I see no contradiction in advocating 0% taxation and voting for a measure that means greater than 0% taxation.
Oddly enough, that's what I just said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noted earlier in this thread the successful campaigns waged by Jim Blanchard and Howard Jarvis against, respectively, the ban on gold and high property taxes in California.  I pointed out that Blanchard and Jarvis enjoyed success despite (or more likely, because of) not tying their specific political objective to more fundamental positions on ethics or epistemology or metaphysics.  So I will ask again, is it wrong for Objectivists to support referenda or legislative reforms through campaigns that are not explicitly tied to fundamental philosophical principles?

No, I see nothing wrong with supporting initiatives that increase freedom.

However, there is a distinction between supporting specific initiatives versus backing a political party that purports to champion capitalism while ignoring its ethical base.

That may be true.  Yet there is no contradiction in working to educate the public about Objectivist principles and at the same time voting for or contributing to reforms that will make us freer -- even though the campaigns for those reforms may not be expressly tied to the Objectivist philosophy.
As far as I can tell, there are few Libertarians working to educate the public about the principles of Objectivism. And it is a contradiction to support those who are hostile to the very notion of ethics.

Last November I voted against a school bond referendum in my county without conceding any premises to my enemy.  It may be true that opponents of the bond issue did not provide any ethical or epistemological or metaphysical arguments against the bonds.  At the same time, it was not in my rational self-interest to see the school system take on additional debt that I as a taxpayer would be forced to pay for.  Yes, I would like to see the world become more rational, but in the meantime I’m not going to withhold support from anyone who wants to make government smaller for the wrong reasons.
In most cases, those who seek to make government smaller for the wrong reasons wind up making it bigger. Witness the administrations of Republican presidents starting with Hoover and climaxing with Bush.

If there is no Objectivist in a race for a particular office, is it wrong to cast one’s vote for (or contribute money to) someone who is clearly more pro-capitalist than his opponent?  Miss Rand didn’t think so.  We know she supported Wendell Wilkie, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, none of whom ran campaigns on the evil of altruism.
We know she supported Wilkie and Goldwater. Her vote for Nixon was more a vote against McGovern. There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.

Miss Rand did not vote for Reagan, who claimed to be the greatest champion of capitalism of them all.

Reagan's presidency is illustrative.

It was Reagan who took office declaring, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." There was widespread public support for this (and other) Reagan ideas; he won two elections by a combined electoral vote total of 1014 to 62.

Yet, during the eight years Reagan was in office, non-defense spending by the Federal government increased by 70%. The executive branch of the government added 233,000 new employees, an increase of 112 people every working day for eight years. 376,000 pages of new regulations were added to the Federal register. So much for shrinking government.

This leads me to repeat a question that you did not address: does surrendering the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism result in greater support for capitalism -- or less support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a radical roll-backin taxes isn't the correct outcome: the elimination of taxes would be.

Just to be clear, does this mean that you would urge people not to vote for a tax reduction? Why must tax relief (theft relief) await that golden day when Objectivists reduce taxation to zero in one fell swoop? Since the “correct outcome” is not within immediate grasp, surely we shouldn’t be admonished for trying to loosen the taxman’s strangulation while we continue to work furiously for a tax-free America.

By analogy, if Blanchard's campaign had been to allow private ownership of gold in amounds under 1 lb, his campaign would be unsupportable.in the short run.

I doubt that Blanchard would ever have launched an expensive national campaign to achieve such a pitiful gain. On the other hand, is it better to allow zero private ownership of gold than 1 lb.? I say “no,” because one lb. of legal gold allows a greater sphere of freedom than zero lbs. By analogy, I see nothing wrong in trying to persuade an armed robber to take only the cash in your wallet and not the photos of your wife and kids.

You seem to be enamored of the quick ineffective solution as being somehow good for something.

I would suggest that if you consider a reduction in your taxes good for nothing, you always have the option of paying Uncle Sam at the previous, higher rate of theft.

Taxes are a vast problem for liberty, and Jarvis's campaign was a half-vast solution.

Perhaps California Objectivists should have protested this “half-solution” by refusing to accept any reduction until that distant day when taxation is eliminated altogether.

Did you really mean that? You would be wrong to encourage anyone to vote for a school bond issue no matter what.

My response was badly worded. Please accept this revised version: So I was right to vote against the school bond issue, but I would have been wrong to “overtly” encourage others to vote against it because those leading the drive against it might be of “dubious morals”?

If you know for certain that the proponents of a proposal are of good moral fiber, you can encourage others to support the movement.

I regard the moral fiber of those opposing coercion of far lesser importance than the coercion itself. The forces that tried to drive out the Bolsheviks in Russia included monarchists, mystics, nationalists and anti-Semites. But if I were a citizen of Russia circa 1920, I would not have hesitated to work with them. Had they succeeded, tens of millions would have been spared slavery, starvation and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I see nothing wrong with supporting initiatives that increase freedom.

However, there is a distinction between supporting specific initiatives versus backing a political party that purports to champion capitalism while ignoring its ethical base.

You will have to show why it is permissible to support specific initiatives that are not tied to fundamental philosophical principles but wrong to support a non-philosophical party that works for a slate of worthy reforms. The distinction strikes me as an arbitrary one.

As far as I can tell, there are few Libertarians working to educate the public about the principles of Objectivism.

As I stated earlier in this thread, politics is the art of building large coalitions to accomplish specific legislative or electoral objectives. If those goals are consistent with Objectivism’s view of the free society, I see nothing wrong with working with libertarians on those issues.

And it is a contradiction to support those who are hostile to the very notion of ethics.

Personally, I have never encountered a member of the Libertarian Party who is “hostile to the very notion of ethics.”

In most cases, those who seek to make government smaller for the wrong reasons wind up making it bigger.  Witness the administrations of Republican presidents starting with Hoover and climaxing with Bush.

I agree that Republican politicians are on the main evil. However, I am far from certain that most Republican presidents really did seek to make government smaller.

We know she supported Wilkie and Goldwater.  Her vote for Nixon was more a vote against McGovern.  There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.

Good. Then we can agree that in some cases it is not wrong to support and vote for candidates of political parties which “surrender the entire field of ethics.”

Miss Rand did not vote for Reagan, who claimed to be the greatest champion of capitalism of them all. 

Reagan's presidency is illustrative.

It was Reagan who took office declaring, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."  There was widespread public support for this (and other) Reagan ideas; he won two elections by a combined electoral vote total of 1014 to 62.

Yet, during the eight years Reagan was in office, non-defense spending by the Federal government increased by 70%.  The executive branch of the government added 233,000 new employees, an increase of 112 people every working day for eight years.  376,000 pages of new regulations were added to the Federal register.  So much for shrinking government.

I did not vote for Reagan either.

This leads me to repeat a question that you did not address: does surrendering the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism result in greater support for capitalism -- or less support?

I personally have never surrendered the entire field of ethics to the enemies of capitalism. On the other hand, like Ayn Rand, I have voted for candidates who represented parties that took no fundamental philosophical positions on ethics, epistemology or metaphysics. And I will not hesitate to do so again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, does this mean that you would urge people not to vote for a tax reduction?
As a contextless absolute, certainly not. I would urge people to vote against an ostensive tax reduction. I have no experience with the option to vote to reduce taxes, so the question is purely academic for me. Any proposal which objectively promotes life by reason, as opposed to life ruled by force, is good. You need to use reason to determine whether a proposal does promote reason over force.
On the other hand, is it better to allow zero private ownership of gold than 1 lb.?  I say “no,” because one lb. of legal gold allows a greater sphere of freedom than zero lbs.
Is it better for a heroin addict to continue to take the drug but reduce the dosage by 1% every month? Sure it would be better to stop completely, but still wouldn't you support a program where addicts are told that heroin-addiction is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice, but they should evade reality less and less over time? Or perhaps tell them that it's better to substitute cocaine for heroin. Wouldn't it be an accurate summary of your philosophy to say that it is always best to gain a miniscule improvement in values (liberty, in your case, since it seems that absolute freedom is your only value) at the cost of supporting evasion as a way of life?
So I was right to vote against the school bond issue, but I would have been wrong to “overtly” encourage others to vote against it because those leading the drive against it might be of “dubious morals”?
Gosh, you ignored it again! 'What licenses you to inject a "might be" into an "is" discussion? You should not encourage others to support a proposal, if the proponents are of bad moral character. Didn't I say that?' Since these particular opponents of a school bond are immoral, you should not support them. Period. You certainly should oppose the school bond, which included voting against it, but you should not, repeat not support the political actions of am immoral person, just because they happen to agree with you on some particular point.

I regard the moral fiber of those opposing coercion of far lesser importance than the coercion itself.
I think you've made that point quite clear. I assume you would have worked with the Bolsheviks to overthrow the monarchy, even though the Bolsheviks clearly had an immoral philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a contextless absolute, certainly not. I would urge people to vote against an ostensive tax reduction.

On the road to utopia, better to live in a high tax society than a medium tax society, eh?

I have no experience with the option to vote to reduce taxes, so the question is purely academic for me. Any proposal which objectively promotes life by reason, as opposed to life ruled by force, is good. You need to use reason to determine whether a proposal does promote reason over force.Is it better for a heroin addict to continue to take the drug but reduce the dosage by 1% every month? Sure it would be better to stop completely, but still wouldn't you support a program where addicts are told that heroin-addiction is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice, but they should evade reality less and less over time? Or perhaps tell them that it's better to substitute cocaine for heroin.

I would tell the addict that just as 20% taxation is better than 40%, two grams of heroin per day is better than four grams. And in both cases zero is the best.

Wouldn't it be an accurate summary of your philosophy to say that it is always best to gain a miniscule improvement in values (liberty, in your case, since it seems that absolute freedom is your only value) at the cost of supporting evasion as a way of life?

Not unless one absurdly equates reducing legalized theft to supporting evasion as a way of life.

Gosh, you ignored it again! 'What licenses you to inject a "might be" into an "is" discussion?

I ignored it because I have no idea what particular statement of mine this is supposed to refer to.

You should not encourage others to support a proposal, if the proponents are of bad moral character. Didn't I say that?'

Why not try the search feature?

Since these particular opponents of a school bond are immoral, you should not support them. Period.

I don’t support them. I support their theft-reduction measure. That is the vital distinction that seems to elude you.

You certainly should oppose the school bond, which included voting against it, but you should not, repeat not support the political actions of am immoral person, just because they happen to agree with you on some particular point.

Richard Nixon was an immoral person, but, like Ayn Rand, I would easily endorse him over the even more immoral Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern.

I think you've made that point quite clear. I assume you would have worked with the Bolsheviks to overthrow the monarchy, even though the Bolsheviks clearly had an immoral philosophy.

You may assume any silly notion you please. In fact, I would not have supported overthrow of the Romanovs at all given that the likely alternatives were democratic socialism or dictator socialism.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, allow me to say that I despise Libertarians.  However, it seems to me that Libertarianism is far closer to Objectivism than either of two main parties.  So why are Objectivists seemingly harder on Libertarians than they are on Republicans or Democrats?

If you consider yourself an objectivist (as I'm going to assume here), why would you despise Libertarian's? Any good reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ignored it because I have no idea what particular statement of mine this is supposed to refer to.
It's interesting that you would say that, and then right after that say
Why not try the search feature?

Something I've never understood is how a libertarian can support a 3% sales tax. It's puzzling: what makes a 3% sales tax okay? At least I'm assuming that libertarians would support a 3% tax, if the issue ever came up, unless he lived in Colorado. I've been assuming that libertarian candidates, especially, do propose and support laws to eliminate taxes, but that is admittedly a bit of a priorism, and I can't point to any concrete examples at least in the last 32 years. Wouldn't that be embarassing if libertarians don't actually support elimination of taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that you would say that, and then right after that say

Search feature yielded no evidence of "might be" inserted into "is" discussion in Tom Robinson's posts.

Something I've never understood is how a libertarian can support a 3% sales tax.  It's puzzling: what makes a 3% sales tax okay? At least I'm assuming that libertarians would support a 3% tax, if the issue ever came up, unless he lived in Colorado.

I do not pretend to speak on behalf of all libertarians. I can tell you that it's not 3% taxation that I'd support but the reduction in the tax rate from, say, 10% to 5%, or 6% to 3%. Operating on the premise that zero per cent taxation is ideal, we must conclude that 3% is twice as close as 6% is to where we want to be. (As a sidebar: I am utterly opposed to the national sales tax movement, for I fear that it will result not in the elimination of the income tax but in yet another tier of federal theft. As Walter Williams has argued, the best way to reduce taxes is to cut existing taxes.)

I've been assuming that libertarian candidates, especially, do propose and support laws to eliminate taxes, but that is admittedly a bit of a priorism, and I can't point to any concrete examples at least in the last 32 years. Wouldn't that be embarassing if libertarians don't actually support elimination of taxes.

It would be embarrassing only if it were true. I can't rule out the possibility that there is some libertarian candidate somewhere who doesn’t support the elimination of taxes. However, the LP’s national platform is unambiguous in its objectives:

Specifically, we: a.) support the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal or constitutional grounds; b.) oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes; c.) support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes; d.) support the repeal of all taxation; and e.) support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance. We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local tax agencies. We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions or credits in the spurious name of “fairness,” "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to the free market. LP Tax Plank

I did not follow the Badnarik campaign closely, but I know that in 2000 Harry Browne repeatedly called for eliminating income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes, and not adding any new taxes to replace them.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Search feature yielded no evidence of "might be" inserted into "is" discussion in Tom Robinson's posts.
You techno-wizards and your dependence on fancy search functions. Back in the old days, we used to read to get information. Well, I'll give you a clue: post 114.
I do not pretend to speak on behalf of all libertarians.  I can tell you that it's not 3% taxation that I'd support but the reduction in the tax rate from, say, 10% to 5%, or 6% to 3%.
So you're saying that a 3% tax is okay, as long as that's a change from a higher tax. Why is a 3% tax okay? The state has a right to 3% of my money, as long as they aren't taking 4%?
I can't rule out the possibility that there is some libertarian candidate somewhere who doesn’t support the elimination of taxes.
But you can't actually point to a specific initiative, proposition or law which a libertarian publically supported, which reduced some tax rate, can you? I'll go out on a limb here and claim that no libertarian politician has ever publically supported even one single initiative, proposition or law which would reduce any taxes.
I know that in 2000 Harry Browne repeatedly called for eliminating income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes, and not adding any new taxes to replace them.
I see. So are you telling the truth, or did you misspeak? Or perhaps you still do not get it? Totally opposing taxation is the right thing to do. What taxes did Browne support keeping? Now, on the general topic of condemnation of libertarians, I certainly hope that you understand that nobody has ever said that libertarians are consistently incapable of accidentally supporting the right action. The point is that you can get accidentally correct answers from a random answer generator. If indeed Mr. Browne managed to state the correct political conclusion regarding taxation, what value is there in that randomly correct decision, when the next libertarian who comes along will select a different random answer, for example your position that a 3% tax is actually acceptable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I would tell the addict that just as 20% taxation is better than 40%, two grams of heroin per day is better than four grams.  And in both cases zero is the best.

...

I don't like the drug analogy, so I'll use taxes.

With taxes, it's like this. If you believe taxation is wrong, you shouldn't support any sort of taxation law, whether it reduces them or not. The only kind of law you should support is one that gets rid of taxation completely. To say: "I support the 20% tax bill" is giving a moral sanction on taxes. However to say: "I voted for the 20% tax bill because taxation is immoral and I want the government to have as little of my money as possible" is not. It is a contextual issue.

I ignored it because I have no idea what particular statement of mine this is supposed to refer to.
This statement:
So I was right to vote against the school bond issue, but I would have been wrong to “overtly” encourage others to vote for it because those leading the drive against it might be of “dubious morals”?
(bold mine) Not to speak for Mr. Odden, but I believe he is saying that there is no "might be" in it. You would be wrong to support it if they *are* of dubious morals. Objectivists are judgemental. Either they are immoral or they are not.
I don’t support them. I support their theft-reduction measure.  That is the vital distinction that seems to elude you.
Right, and so you wouldn't *encourage* others to vote for them, because that would put them in power. You might say: "I think candidate X is the best choice because blah-blah-blah, but I think he is immoral." But you wouldn't just say: "Vote for candidate X." Do you see the distinction? One gives a sanction, the other does not. It is very important not to give one's sanction to the immoral. That is why any support you have for a particular aspect of the campaign must *always* be identified as only for that aspect of the campaign, and not a support for all of the candidate's views.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider yourself an objectivist (as I'm going to assume here), why would you despise Libertarian's? Any good reasons?

Please note that Ayn Rand's philosophy is Objectivism, objectivism refers to something different. If you do not use the capital "O" we cannot be sure that you actually mean Ayn Rand's philosophy. So do you?

I do not despise libertarians (big or small "L") as an absolute. What I despise is the idea that

"the end justifies the means." Most libertarians hold this belief (whether they admit it or not) and the ones who do not, I hear they don't remain libertarians for long. That is why I despise a lot of Libertarians. I however, cannot speak for Zoso.

EDIT: If you would like to know why I despise the idea of "the end justifies the means" and why I think a lot of libertarians hold it, I will of course be happy to tell you. However, I am not quite sure what you are after with your question.

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

You techno-wizards and your dependence on fancy search functions. Back in the old days, we used to read to get information. Well, I'll give you a clue: post 114.

Old days or new days, the basic rules of scholarly exchange still require one to provide the specific remarks that one is attempting to dispute. “Here’s a clue” does not promote rational discourse. Why not go ahead and state exactly what you disagree with?

So you're saying that a 3% tax is okay, as long as that's a change from a higher tax. Why is a 3% tax okay? The state has a right to 3% of my money, as long as they aren't taking 4%?

To suggest that 3% is better than 4% does not in any way suggest that 3% is absolutely “okay.” One might as well say that because one chooses to live in the U.S. instead of Iran, the U.S. is “absolutely okay.”

But you can't actually point to a specific initiative, proposition or law which a libertarian publically supported, which reduced some tax rate, can you?

So what? I can’t point to a specific initiative, proposition or law which an Objectivist publicly supported, which reduced (or eliminated) some tax rate. In itself that would hardly undermine Objectivism.

I'll go out on a limb here and claim that no libertarian politician has ever publically supported even one single initiative, proposition or law which would reduce any taxes.

False. See my previous post regarding Harry Browne.

I see. So are you telling the truth, or did you misspeak? Or perhaps you still do not get it? Totally opposing taxation is the right thing to do. What taxes did Browne support keeping?

One can in principle totally oppose taxation and still ethically suggest incremental reductions. Browne simply proposed a way of getting back to Korean War spending levels without ever suggesting that was the end game. Tell me, Odden, would you press a button that would instantly restore all coerced revenues to their rightful owners? That would leave the U.S. Treasury with less than zero percent of its current assets. How do you propose to keep a government operating (i.e., pay the soldiers and policemen) with less than zero assets? Hold a big lotto next month?

Now, on the general topic of condemnation of libertarians, I certainly hope that you understand that nobody has ever said that libertarians are consistently incapable of accidentally supporting the right action.

Delighted to hear that you’re charitably not going to attribute to me something I never said.

The point is that you can get accidentally correct answers from a random answer generator.

Really? Who or what guarantees the “accidental correctness” of answers from your “Random Answer Generator”?

If indeed Mr. Browne managed to state the correct political conclusion regarding taxation, what value is there in that randomly correct decision, when the next libertarian who comes along will select a different random answer, for example your position that a 3% tax is actually acceptable?

As Rand would say, check your premises. I never said that a 3% tax is acceptable in any absolute terms. Since I made it abundantly clear in my previous post that a 3% would be desirable only vis a vis a greater than 3% tax, I can interpret your current line of argument only as an intentional attempt to misrepresent my views and argue with a straw man.

As for the relationship between Harry Browne and libertarians in general, I will call your attention to the fact than there is a member of this Objectivist forum who advocates the FAIR sales tax reform. Now since the FAIR tax is unarguably a tax greater than zero percent, what value is there in your assertion that there should be no tax when a fellow Objectivist comes along and suggests a form of taxation above the zero level that would be better than the status quo?

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to speak for Mr. Odden, but I believe he is saying that there is no "might be" in it. You would be wrong to support it if they *are* of dubious morals. Objectivists are judgemental. Either they are immoral or they are not.
Yes. Yes. Yes. No maybe about it, yes. I'm slightly puzzled at why Mr. Robinson can't see that, but perhaps for him there is no difference between "is" and "might be",
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the drug analogy, so I'll use taxes.

With taxes, it's like this. If you believe taxation is wrong, you shouldn't support any sort of taxation law, whether it reduces them or not. The only kind of law you should support is one that gets rid of taxation completely. To say: "I support the 20% tax bill" is giving a moral sanction on taxes. However to say: "I voted for the 20% tax bill because taxation is immoral and I want the government to have as little of my money as possible" is not. It is a contextual issue.

And that is precisely what I did. I voted for tax reduction while still adhering to my fundamental opposition to all taxes. Voting for a reduction in taxes is not to support taxes per se, any more than living in a less than laissez faire country is to support a mixed economy.

(bold mine) Not to speak for Mr. Odden, but I believe he is saying that there is no "might be" in it. You would be wrong to support it if they *are* of dubious morals. Objectivists are judgemental. Either they are immoral or they are not. Right, and so you wouldn't *encourage* others to vote for them, because that would put them in power.

I didn’t vote for “them”; I voted for a tax reduction measure that was in my rational self-interest. My vote put no one in power. I effectively lessened the power of those already in office.

You might say: "I think candidate X is the best choice because blah-blah-blah, but I think he is immoral." But you wouldn't just say: "Vote for candidate X." Do you see the distinction?

No. If I didn’t want a candidate to win I wouldn’t vote for him. If I did want him to win, I’d vote for him and encourage others to do so as well. This is precisely what Ayn Rand did in 1944 and 1968 with regard to Wilkie and Nixon. Nixon and Wilkie both immorally endorsed aspects of the welfare state, but they were clearly better than their social democratic opponents.

One gives a sanction, the other does not. It is very important not to give one's sanction to the immoral. That is why any support you have for a particular aspect of the campaign must *always* be identified as only for that aspect of the campaign, and not a support for all of the candidate's views.

Of course. Therefore one may rationally endorse an immoral candidate over an even more immoral opponent -- provided one makes his reservations clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Yes. Yes. No maybe about it, yes. I'm slightly puzzled at why Mr. Robinson can't see that, but perhaps for him there is no difference between "is" and "might be",

This is really a non-issue because as I've already made clear, one may morally act in self-defense by voting for a less than ethically perfect candidate if he is likely to provide more individual freedom than his opponent. This is just what Ayn Rand did when she supported Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Goldwater never promised to eliminate all taxation. He did propose a smaller, more constitutional federal government. His opponent threatened to expand government at every level (and eventually made good on the threat). It was not a choice between pure good and pure evil, but there was enough difference to justify thorwing support to one imperfect candidate over the other.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course.  Therefore one may rationally endorse an immoral candidate over an even more immoral opponent -- provided one makes his reservations clear.
This is different from what you said in a previous post:

Last November I voted against a school bond referendum in my county without conceding any premises to my enemy...Yes, I would like to see the world become more rational, but in the meantime I’m not going to withhold support from anyone who wants to make government smaller for the wrong reasons.
For the purpose of clarity, I think it would be a good idea to define "support."

Here is my definition:

Supporting a candidate/law- being in favor of their/it being elected/passed (different from voting for it, you can vote for a bill without supporting it, ie you can vote for a bill to reduce taxes without supporting taxation, however you cannot *support* the bill without *supporting* taxation)

This is the way I see it: voting is a choice between two things. You decide which one is better. However, the decision to support something is not an A or B kind of deal. You can say: "I don't like A or B so I do not support either, I support C, but I voted for A because A is better than B because blah-blah-blah, and C was not an option."

Relating this back to the above quotes, in the newer one you say that "I support A" is unacceptable, and that you need to say "I support A because blah-blah-blah, but I really don't like A that much." But in the older post you say, in effect that it is acceptable to say "I support A." Which is it?

Please give us your definition of "support"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purpose of clarity, I think it would be a good idea to define "support."

Here is my definition:

Supporting a candidate/law- being in favor of their/it being elected/passed (different from voting for it, you can vote for a bill without supporting it, ie you can vote for a bill to reduce taxes without supporting taxation, however you cannot *support* the bill without *supporting* taxation)

This is the way I see it: voting is a choice between two things. You decide which one is better. However, the decision to support something is not an A or B kind of deal. You can say: "I don't like A or B so I do not support either, I support C, but I voted for A because A is better than  B because blah-blah-blah, and C was not an option."

Relating this back to the above quotes, in the newer one you say that "I support A" is unacceptable, and that you need to say "I support A because blah-blah-blah, but I really don't like A that much." But in the older post you say, in effect that it is acceptable to say "I support A." Which is it?

Please give us your definition of "support"

Good question. Making reservations clear is certainly helpful in discussions such as this, but I did not mean to suggest that it is a duty. It is possible for a citizen to vote for the lesser of two evils without having to spend hours in internet forums to explain himself. "Support" means to take action that may result in political change. Such action may include (but is not limited to) writing, speaking, voting, and contributing money. Is it moral to support less than perfect legislation or candidates? It depends on context. If Biil X leaves some taxes intact while eliminating a great many others, I can support Bill X's tax elimination while lamenting the fact that Bill X does not wipe out taxes altogether. Would I support Bill X's passage (versus the status quo which would leave all taxes unchanged)? Yes! Do I wish we had Bill Y which would abolish all taxes instead of the half measures of Bill X? Yes! Will I refuse to encourage passage of imperfect Bill X because it is not perfect Bill Y? No! Will I refuse to endorse Bill X because it is supported by some politicians who are not morally perfect and because I'd rather wait until a bill is passed for only the right reasons before I get any relief from legalized theft? No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question.  Making reservations clear is certainly helpful in discussions such as this, but I did not mean to suggest that it is a duty. It is possible for a citizen to vote for the lesser of two evils without having to spend hours in internet forums to explain himself.

I never meant to imply that it was a duty either. Of course you don't have to explain your actions on an internet forum if you don't want to. Understand, however, that if you express support (your definition, not mine) for a candidate and do not explain why, your vote will be a moral sanction on the candidate you vote for. It is your decision on whether or not you really care what you are sanctioning.

Will I refuse to endorse Bill X because it is supported by some politicians who are not morally perfect and because I'd rather wait until a bill is passed for only the right reasons before I get any relief from legalized theft?
This depends on what you mean by "endorse." I would not sanction anyone immoral, so if I did vote for an immoral person, if I told anyone about it I would explain why I thought said person was the best choice. Isn't there an Ayn Rand quote something like : "you do not have to act against the immoral unless your actions can be interpreted as a moral sanction." (Note: very rough paraphrasing. I will try and find the actual quote if I have time. If anyone has any ideas on which book it is in, I would be most grateful. :thumbsup: )
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...