Libertarians

AisA · February 24, 2005

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.

Supporting the Libertarian party, as distinguished from voting for a particular candidate or initiative, is an endorsement of the notion that the proper way to promote capitalism is to avoid confronting those ideas that are its antithesis. You may say that you have never surrendered the field of ethics, but if you support a party whose central premise is that ethics are not relevant to politics, you are supporting such a surrender.

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

Why, then, do Libertarians reject Objectivism? Is it your belief that they accept the Objectivist morality, but quarrel with its epistemology or metaphysics?

Why would a true supporter of freedom and capitalism reject the only philosophy that proves the validity of these concepts?

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.”

In the first place, voting for a candidate is not the same as supporting their party. In the second place, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans surrender the field of ethics. They explicitly endorse the wrong ethics: altruism.

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.

Since you continue to invoke Miss Rand in support of your position, I must remind you that she despised Libertarians.

DavidOdden · February 24, 2005

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.

Speaking of non-issues, you're evading the issue. It comes down to the fact that you must judge whether a person is immoral or not, and if you judge him to be immoral, then you should not support or sanction him. You, on the other hand, hold that advancing the cause of an immoral person is acceptable, if you can construct some pragmatic excuse for doing so. You also fail to distinguish between the private, desparate act of voting for a law or a person, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

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.

Perhaps that is because you didn't understand the point of my criticism. Let me restate it in hopefully clearer terms. There has been an unsupported implication in your argument that rational people would support a tax, if it would be less of a tax. But you cannot point to any concrete example. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that you don't even understand libertarianism, much less Objectivism. Even a libertarian would not support a bill reducing a tax. A libertarian, or an Objectivist, could easily support a bill to eliminate a tax, if such a bill ever came into existence. But never a bill to merely reduce a tax. As for what libertarians say, since they are an incoherent and unprincipled bunch, my claim is risky because you might well be able to point to a specific libertarian and show that they did support some bill to merely reduce taxes. Risk-taking is necessary, when the goal is the truth. If you can disprove my claim by pointing to even one specific case of such treason to principles by a libertarian, then my defense of libertarians would be wrong. Until you can point to a concrete example, I stand by my position. Your previous post attributing some position to Harry Browne provides not one shred of evidence for your pragmatist approach. What bill did he support? What did the bill say? How does that bill reduce taxes?

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

I'm glad that you implicitly concede my point that a random answer generator is not guaranteed to ever give you a correct answer. At some point, hopefully, you can integrate that insight into a more general philosophy, which then does reliably lead to correct answers.

Tom Robinson · February 24, 2005

Supporting the Libertarian party, as distinguished from voting for a particular candidate or initiative, is an endorsement of the notion that the proper way to promote capitalism is to avoid confronting those ideas that are its antithesis. You may say that you have never surrendered the field of ethics, but if you support a party whose central premise is that ethics are not relevant to politics, you are supporting such a surrender.

But when I vote for a particular candidate or initiative that is not officially aligned with a particular philosophy -- why isn’t that an endorsement of avoiding a confrontation with those ideas that antithetical to capitalism? Why does the burden for setting forth detailed philosophical groundwork (or, in your words, taking a “stance on ethics or epistemology or metaphysics”) fall on political parties in particular -- and not on candidates or political action committees or reform movements or any other element involved in political change?

Why, then, do Libertarians reject Objectivism?

Fallacy of the loaded question. I know a number of libertarians, both in and outside the Libertarian Party, who embrace Objectivism.

Is it your belief that they accept the Objectivist morality, but quarrel with its epistemology or metaphysics?

No doubt we could find someone who fits that description. But we could hardly draw a conclusion about the whole from the data collected from one or two individuals.

Why would a true supporter of freedom and capitalism reject the only philosophy that proves the validity of these concepts?

Beats me. You are speaking to a “true supporter of freedom and capitalism” who subscribes to Objectivist principles.

In the first place, voting for a candidate is not the same as supporting their party.

Agreed. However, if the party consistently promotes candidates who are pledged to vote against socialism and big government, then it may be in my rational self-interest to support the party. (And, by the way, I should mention again that I’m not an LP member -- for reasons that lie outside the parameters of this discussion.)

In the second place, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans surrender the field of ethics. They explicitly endorse the wrong ethics: altruism.

Their national platforms don’t explicitly deal with the altruism issue any more than the LP’s does.

Since you continue to invoke Miss Rand in support of your position, I must remind you that she despised Libertarians.

So what? I despise Republicans. But that wouldn’t stop me from voting for one if I believed his opponent represented a far greater threat to my freedom.

Tom Robinson · February 24, 2005

Speaking of non-issues, you're evading the issue. It comes down to the fact that you must judge whether a person is immoral or not, and if you judge him to be immoral, then you should not support or sanction him.

If the IRS says I have two choices, pay up or go to jail, am I sanctioning the IRS by paying the tax? Of course not. Similarly, if the political system gives me a choice between High Tax Candidate A and Medium Tax Candidate B, am I sanctioning taxes per se by voting for the candidate who is pledged to reduce the theft of my income? No, I am taking the only self-defense act that is legally permitted to me.

You, on the other hand, hold that advancing the cause of an immoral person is acceptable, if you can construct some pragmatic excuse for doing so.

To be precise, if I vote in a referendum for a tax roll-back that is sponsored by an immoral person (immoral perhaps for reasons not associated with the roll-back), it is not the immoral person I am supporting but the tax roll-back. Richard Nixon was an unabashed welfarist Republican. For that we may judge him immoral. But, like Ayn Rand, I would have supported his “cause” (his candidacy in 1968 and 1972) because the alternatives were far more immoral.

You also fail to distinguish between the private, desparate act of voting for a law or a person, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I see no point in voting for a person if one does not want him to get elected. If we judge Nixon immoral, and we declare that we will not publicly support him, how do we do justice to our cause by going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for him? This smacks of public virtue, private sin.

(quote) 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.(/quote)
Perhaps that is because you didn't understand the point of my criticism. Let me restate it in hopefully clearer terms. There has been an unsupported implication in your argument that rational people would support a tax, if it would be less of a tax.

That is sloppy phrasing. I support no tax. I do support tax reductions.

But you cannot point to any concrete example.

Example of what? Of less of a tax? There are concrete examples all over the place of tax reductions and tax eliminations. See Federal Tax Reform

and

Local Tax Reform

Have they been implemented specifically by libertarian leaders? In the first case cited above, no; in the second case, yes.

This should lead to the obvious conclusion that you don't even understand libertarianism, much less Objectivism. Even a libertarian would not support a bill reducing a tax. A libertarian, or an Objectivist, could easily support a bill to eliminate a tax, if such a bill ever came into existence. But never a bill to merely reduce a tax.

Of course I’d vote for a referendum to cut property taxes, income taxes or sales taxes. Voting for a reduction in no way indicates formal support for the morality of taxation. It merely indicates a preference among the unfortunately limited choices. Suppose a state bureaucrat tells me I cannot sell peanuts in my movie theater because they might make some people allergic. I can obey or pay a large fine. Obeying the decree does not indicate support for the law. Clearly my ability to act in accordance with my rational values has been artificially limited by the threat of force. Similarly, if the political system offers me a choice between two imperfect candidates, I do not abandon my principles by voting for the one who threatens me less than the other. I am merely acting within the narrow range of self-defense that is allowed.

As for what libertarians say, since they are an incoherent and unprincipled bunch, my claim is risky because you might well be able to point to a specific libertarian and show that they did support some bill to merely reduce taxes. Risk-taking is necessary, when the goal is the truth. If you can disprove my claim by pointing to even one specific case of such treason to principles by a libertarian, then my defense of libertarians would be wrong. Until you can point to a concrete example, I stand by my position.

See

Your previous post attributing some position to Harry Browne provides not one shred of evidence for your pragmatist approach. What bill did he support? What did the bill say? How does that bill reduce taxes?

Perhaps if you understood our political system a little better you would not ask such a question. Legislation originates in the Congress, not in the executive branch. Presidential candidates run on a slate of goals they hope to implement once elected. But they are not required or expected to write up bills before being elected to office. For example, FDR did not write up the Social Security Act when he ran for president in 1932.

I'm glad that you implicitly concede my point that a random answer generator is not guaranteed to ever give you a correct answer. At some point, hopefully, you can integrate that insight into a more general philosophy, which then does reliably lead to correct answers.

Perhaps at some point, hopefully, you’ll stop beating around the bush and explain how your random answer generator actually relates to the topic under discussion.

Edited February 24, 2005 by Tom Robinson

AisA · February 25, 2005

But when I vote for a particular candidate or initiative that is not officially aligned with a particular philosophy -- why isn’t that an endorsement of avoiding a confrontation with those ideas that antithetical to capitalism?

It would be such an endorsement, if that candidate was explicitly promoting capitalism.

The burden of supporting a position falls on anyone asserting it. In this regard, supporters of initiatives and candidates for office do have the burden of supporting thier position. A vote for the lesser of two evils, neither of which is held to be a champion of capitalism, is not an endorsement of anything antithetical to capitalism. Since neither candidate is a champion of capitalism, a failure on their part to address ethics does not harm the case for capitalism in any way.

However, a vote for a candidate that promotes capitalism on altruistic grounds, is an endorsement of something antithetical to capitalism, namely it is an endorsement of altruism. And, having conceded the statist premise of altruism, such a candidate will not be successful in rolling back statism. They will simply serve to discredit capitalism.

The Libertarian Party takes this one step further. They attempt to promote capitalism on no ethical grounds at all. And in doing this, they, too, concede the statist's premises. Take, for instance, this statement from the Libertarian Party web site.

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's
"Ending the Welfare State" Proposal

From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

So welfare is wrong because it is "unfair" and “doesn’t work”. This argument is easily shredded by welfare proponents who can point to countless federal programs that do "work" in their terms. The poor today are far better off than were the poor in 1965. Does this not prove that the war on poverty has worked? And what is unfair about feeding starving children?

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare

None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

(emphasis added) Thus the right to charity is not challenged. It is merely transferred to the private sector. A statist will simply ask, what guarantee is there that private charities will “step up”?

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

3. Tear down barriers to entrepreneurism and economic growth

Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.

Maybe, the statist will say, but what about those who cannot work? Not everyone is cut out to be in business for themselves and without those regulations, businesses will run unsafe, polluting sweatshops that exploit the poor.

In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

4. Reform education

There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate.

It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.

But surely the right to charity includes the right to an education. How will those who cannot afford to pay for food pay for private school tuition?

Summary
We should not pretend that reforming our welfare system will be easy or painless. In particular it will be difficult for those people who currently use welfare the way it was intended -- as a temporary support mechanism during hard times. However, these people remain on welfare for short periods of time. A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance.

Says who, asks the statist? Besides, a compassionate society has already found ways to help people -- that is what the current programs are for.

But our current government-run welfare system is costly to taxpayers and cruel to the children born into a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

How cruel will it be render the children homeless and hungry?

The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.

And what if there is not enough opportunity and compassion?

So the Libertarian Party’s proposal for eliminating the welfare state does not mention individual rights, it does not mention that no one has the right to exist at the expense of others and it does not mention the immorality of transferring the burden of one man’s misfortune to others. Instead, it concedes the statist premise that certain individuals have a right to charity and compassion which other idviduals should provide.

The case for capitalism is not that it delivers results more efficiently than government. That type of argument merely concedes that people have a right to those results. Such a concession advances statism, not capitalism.

This error is prevalent among libertarians. From John Kohn: "As for Social Security and Medicare, these taxes were enacted in an effort to protect the elderly from want. At first glance, these measures may seem reasonable and compassionate, but both programs are demographic time bombs." In other words, these are proper functions of government if we can just get the population growing again.

Also from Kohn: "Socialists believe that we are each so selfish and uncaring that, unless we are forced to do otherwise, we would allow children to starve and go without education and allow our parents and grandparents to live without food or needed medication." In other words, our willingness to care for our children is an act of selfless sacrifice inspired by our altruistic leanings.

More Kohn: "Reversing the trends of the last one hundred years will take a dramatic paradigm shift. We will need to have faith in ourselves and in the basic decency of our neighbors." So capitalism requires a leap of faith.

So this particular libertarian has conceded the statist notion that government health care and retirement schemes are appropriate, provided one can make them work (which one can given sufficiently high taxes and scaled back benefits), he has conceded that selfishness consists of starving one's children and that the case for capitalism requires faith. The case for capitalism has no chance in the face of these concessions.

Fallacy of the loaded question. I know a number of libertarians, both in and outside the Libertarian Party, who embrace Objectivism.

No doubt we could find someone who fits that description. But we could hardly draw a conclusion about the whole from the data collected from one or two individuals.

Beats me. You are speaking to a “true supporter of freedom and capitalism” who subscribes to Objectivist principles.

Are you claiming that the bulk of Libertarians are Objectivists?

So what? I despise Republicans. But that wouldn’t stop me from voting for one if I believed his opponent represented a far greater threat to my freedom.

The “so what” is that if you are going to invoke the argument from authority by continuing to cite Miss Rand’s votes as proof that it can be proper to support statist candidates, then you must explain why you ignore that particular authority’s stance when it disagrees with yours.

Tom Robinson · February 26, 2005

It would be such an endorsement, if that candidate was explicitly promoting capitalism. The burden of supporting a position falls on anyone asserting it. In this regard, supporters of initiatives and candidates for office do have the burden of supporting thier position. A vote for the lesser of two evils, neither of which is held to be a champion of capitalism, is not an endorsement of anything antithetical to capitalism. Since neither candidate is a champion of capitalism, a failure on their part to address ethics does not harm the case for capitalism in any way.

However, a vote for a candidate that promotes capitalism on altruistic grounds, is an endorsement of something antithetical to capitalism, namely it is an endorsement of altruism. And, having conceded the statist premise of altruism, such a candidate will not be successful in rolling back statism. They will simply serve to discredit capitalism.

In Post #116 you wrote, “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.” Given fairly even odds between two contenders, I would sooner vote for a candidate who “promotes capitalism on altruistic grounds” (or no grounds at all) than a candidate who promotes statism on altruistic grounds (or no grounds at all). While I reject the morality of altruism, I recognize that enacting coercive legislation is morally far worse than mere belief in altruism. (If belief in altruism by itself were as evil as coercion, we’d have to advocate locking up anyone who preached the New Testament.) In his 1964 Republican convention acceptance speech, Barry Goldwater (who was explicitly endorsed by Ayn Rand) said, “The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.” Now if one can vote for Goldwater who defended the free society (capitalism) on the basis of what the God of an altruistic religion intended, then it is scarcely a betrayal of capitalism to vote for a candidate who offers another, albeit non-theistic, defense of capitalism.

The Libertarian Party takes this one step further. They attempt to promote capitalism on no ethical grounds at all. And in doing this, they, too, concede the statist's premises

Omission is not concession. Just because I do not reply to every opinion expressed on this forum, I do not automatically concede the truth of the opinion. In the electoral realm, a party or candidate can argue for a position on non-ethical grounds without necessarily conceding the correct ethical position. Moreover, a politician can take the “wrong” grounds and still be a far more moral candidate for the office. I do not agree with Goldwater’s theological defense of individual freedom, but had I been of voting age in 1964 I would have had no moral hesitation to cast my ballot for him.

So welfare is wrong because it is "unfair" and “doesn’t work”. This argument is easily shredded by welfare proponents who can point to countless federal programs that do "work" in their terms. The poor today are far better off than were the poor in 1965. Does this not prove that the war on poverty has worked? And what is unfair about feeding starving children?
(emphasis added) Thus the right to charity is not challenged. It is merely transferred to the private sector. A statist will simply ask, what guarantee is there that private charities will “step up”?

Maybe, the statist will say, but what about those who cannot work? Not everyone is cut out to be in business for themselves and without those regulations, businesses will run unsafe, polluting sweatshops that exploit the poor.

But surely the right to charity includes the right to an education. How will those who cannot afford to pay for food pay for private school tuition?

Says who, asks the statist? Besides, a compassionate society has already found ways to help people -- that is what the current programs are for.

How cruel will it be render the children homeless and hungry?

And what if there is not enough opportunity and compassion?

The best argument for capitalism is on the basis of individual rights. Nonetheless, the undeniable fact is that socialism has been proven a prioristically and empirically destructive of general prosperity (cf. Mises, who was repeatedly recommended by Rand). It is not a betrayal of ethics to mention those arguments. Mises exhaustively presented the a prioristic argument in Human Action and won the recommendation of the Objectivist Newsletter.

So the Libertarian Party’s proposal for eliminating the welfare state does not mention individual rights, it does not mention that no one has the right to exist at the expense of others and it does not mention the immorality of transferring the burden of one man’s misfortune to others. Instead, it concedes the statist premise that certain individuals have a right to charity and compassion which other idviduals should provide.

Those positions are not just mentioned but championed at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/sop.html

Example:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

The case for capitalism is not that it delivers results more efficiently than government. That type of argument merely concedes that people have a right to those results. Such a concession advances statism, not capitalism.

You have not proven that the LP has conceded any “right” to results via government. Arguing for the inefficiency of socialism concedes NO moral argument.

This error is prevalent among libertarians. From John Kohn: "As for Social Security and Medicare, these taxes were enacted in an effort to protect the elderly from want. At first glance, these measures may seem reasonable and compassionate, but both programs are demographic time bombs." In other words, these are proper functions of government if we can just get the population growing again.

Also from Kohn: "Socialists believe that we are each so selfish and uncaring that, unless we are forced to do otherwise, we would allow children to starve and go without education and allow our parents and grandparents to live without food or needed medication." In other words, our willingness to care for our children is an act of selfless sacrifice inspired by our altruistic leanings.

More Kohn: "Reversing the trends of the last one hundred years will take a dramatic paradigm shift. We will need to have faith in ourselves and in the basic decency of our neighbors." So capitalism requires a leap of faith.

So this particular libertarian has conceded the statist notion that government health care and retirement schemes are appropriate, provided one can make them work (which one can given sufficiently high taxes and scaled back benefits), he has conceded that selfishness consists of starving one's children and that the case for capitalism requires faith. The case for capitalism has no chance in the face of these concessions.

It is not self-contradictory to argue for the moral repeal of welfarist proposals and not also suggest that existing legislation is disadvantageous to the majority of welfare recipients.

Are you claiming that the bulk of Libertarians are Objectivists?

Not.

The “so what” is that if you are going to invoke the argument from authority by continuing to cite Miss Rand’s votes as proof that it can be proper to support statist candidates, then you must explain why you ignore that particular authority’s stance when it disagrees with yours.

It was not an invocation of the argument from authority. It was merely an illustration that one can subscribe to Objectivist principles and still endorse/vote for a candidate who falls short of, in some respects, what are proper Objectivist principles.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Tom Robinson

BurgessLau · February 26, 2005

The best argument for capitalism is on the basis of individual rights. Nonetheless, the undeniable fact is that socialism has been proven a prioristically and empirically destructive of general prosperity (cf. Mises, who was repeatedly recommended by Rand). It is not a betrayal of ethics to mention those arguments. Mises exhaustively presented the a prioristic argument in Human Action and won the recommendation of the Objectivist Newsletter.

[bold added for emphasis.]

Are you saying that Ayn Rand or other Objectivists working under her editorship recommended Human Action without philosophical qualification?

If so, please cite an exact source.

If not, I urge you to reconsider your claim as it is worded above. You might want to make sure you are not either equivocating on the metonym "Mises" or committing the fallacy of composition.

Tom Robinson · February 26, 2005

[bold added for emphasis.]

Are you saying that Ayn Rand or other Objectivists working under her editorship +

If so, please cite an exact source.

If not, I urge you to reconsider your claim as it is worded above. You might want to make sure you are not either equivocating on the metonym "Mises" or committing the fallacy of composition.

I never said that Rand or others under her authority promoted Human Action without philosophical qualification. I merely said that Rand (via her newsletter) recommended some works by Ludwig von Mises. Under her supervision, Nathanial Branden praised Human Action as of "the first rank of importance." My statement does not imply that Rand or any other Objectivist unequivocally recommended Mises.

AisA · February 26, 2005

In Post #116 you wrote, “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.” Given fairly even odds between two contenders, I would sooner vote for a candidate who “promotes capitalism on altruistic grounds” (or no grounds at all) than a candidate who promotes statism on altruistic grounds (or no grounds at all). While I reject the morality of altruism, I recognize that enacting coercive legislation is morally far worse than mere belief in altruism. (If belief in altruism by itself were as evil as coercion, we’d have to advocate locking up anyone who preached the New Testament.) In his 1964 Republican convention acceptance speech, Barry Goldwater (who was explicitly endorsed by Ayn Rand) said, “The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.” Now if one can vote for Goldwater who defended the free society (capitalism) on the basis of what the God of an altruistic religion intended, then it is scarcely a betrayal of capitalism to vote for a candidate who offers another, albeit non-theistic, defense of capitalism.

Miss Rand also wrote Goldwater an 8 page letter urging him not base his defense of capitalism on religious grounds. In this letter (pages 565 - 572 in “Letters of Ayn Rand”) Miss Rand identifies how the failure of conservatives to offer a moral case for capitalism allows the collectivists to win time after time. She predicted that an attempt to justify capitalism on religious grounds would be the death of the conservative movement. She was right.

Miss Rand also made clear that she strongly opposed any effort to promote the politics of Objectivism without the underlying philosophic support.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 25 2005, 12:02 PM)
The Libertarian Party takes this one step further. They attempt to promote capitalism on no ethical grounds at all. And in doing this, they, too, concede the statist's premises.

Omission is not concession. Just because I do not reply to every opinion expressed on this forum, I do not automatically concede the truth of the opinion. In the electoral realm, a party or candidate can argue for a position on non-ethical grounds without necessarily conceding the correct ethical position.

Actually, what he concedes is the relevance of ethics to politics.

When a libertarian argues against the welfare state on the grounds that it is inefficient at eliminating poverty, he is conceding that efficiency is the standard by which one decides what is or is not a proper function of government -- and he is conceding that the elimination of poverty is the goal. If he is not making these concessions, then what is he doing? If he has not conceded the correct moral position, why is he hiding it? If he does not consider efficiency to be the central issue, why is that the only argument he makes?

Arguing about the efficiency or inefficiency of anything -- in the absence of any other sort of argument, such as a moral one -- implicitly concedes that the argument should be about efficiency, does it not? Otherwise, why is one making that particular argument and no other?

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 25 2005, 12:02 PM)
So welfare is wrong because it is "unfair" and “doesn’t work”. This argument is easily shredded by welfare proponents who can point to countless federal programs that do "work" in their terms. The poor today are far better off than were the poor in 1965. Does this not prove that the war on poverty has worked? And what is unfair about feeding starving children?

(emphasis added) Thus the right to charity is not challenged. It is merely transferred to the private sector. A statist will simply ask, what guarantee is there that private charities will “step up”?

Maybe, the statist will say, but what about those who cannot work? Not everyone is cut out to be in business for themselves and without those regulations, businesses will run unsafe, polluting sweatshops that exploit the poor.

But surely the right to charity includes the right to an education. How will those who cannot afford to pay for food pay for private school tuition?

Says who, asks the statist? Besides, a compassionate society has already found ways to help people -- that is what the current programs are for.

How cruel will it be render the children homeless and hungry?

And what if there is not enough opportunity and compassion?

The best argument for capitalism is on the basis of individual rights. Nonetheless, the undeniable fact is that socialism has been proven a prioristically and empirically destructive of general prosperity (cf. Mises, who was repeatedly recommended by Rand). It is not a betrayal of ethics to mention those arguments.

No, it is not a betrayal to mention them, but there is more going on here than a mere mention. The argument from efficiency is not being offered as an aside, but as the central, indeed the only argument. It is a betrayal of ethics to say that capitalism is good because it creates prosperity -- and say nothing else, particularly when the opponents of capitalism are protraying statism as the moral system.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 25 2005, 12:02 PM)
So the Libertarian Party’s proposal for eliminating the welfare state does not mention individual rights, it does not mention that no one has the right to exist at the expense of others and it does not mention the immorality of transferring the burden of one man’s misfortune to others. Instead, it concedes the statist premise that certain individuals have a right to charity and compassion which other idviduals should provide.

Those positions are not just mentioned but championed at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/sop.html

Example:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

What does it say about the Libertarians that these things are mentioned in a “Statement of Principles” but not mentioned in the specific proposals regarding welfare?

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 25 2005, 12:02 PM)
The case for capitalism is not that it delivers results more efficiently than government. That type of argument merely concedes that people have a right to those results. Such a concession advances statism, not capitalism.

You have not proven that the LP has conceded any “right” to results via government. Arguing for the inefficiency of socialism concedes NO moral argument.

Even if that is the only argument one ever offers? If one has not conceded the moral argument, what excuse is there for withholding it? Why hide one’s moral position?

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 25 2005, 12:02 PM)
This error is prevalent among libertarians. From John Kohn: "As for Social Security and Medicare, these taxes were enacted in an effort to protect the elderly from want. At first glance, these measures may seem reasonable and compassionate, but both programs are demographic time bombs." In other words, these are proper functions of government if we can just get the population growing again.

Also from Kohn: "Socialists believe that we are each so selfish and uncaring that, unless we are forced to do otherwise, we would allow children to starve and go without education and allow our parents and grandparents to live without food or needed medication." In other words, our willingness to care for our children is an act of selfless sacrifice inspired by our altruistic leanings.

More Kohn: "Reversing the trends of the last one hundred years will take a dramatic paradigm shift. We will need to have faith in ourselves and in the basic decency of our neighbors." So capitalism requires a leap of faith.

So this particular libertarian has conceded the statist notion that government health care and retirement schemes are appropriate, provided one can make them work (which one can given sufficiently high taxes and scaled back benefits), he has conceded that selfishness consists of starving one's children and that the case for capitalism requires faith. The case for capitalism has no chance in the face of these concessions.

It is not self-contradictory to argue for the moral repeal of welfarist proposals and not also suggest that existing legislation is disadvantageous to the majority of welfare recipients.

I do not understand. In the first place, where, in these statements, do you see a moral argument for the repeal of welfare? The moral case against welfare is that no amount of need on anyone’s part, no amount of hunger or cold or disease or disaster or misfortune or misery on the part of one man entitles him to a penny of another man’s money. One is entitled only to what one has earned, as opposed to what one needs . If that sort of argument is present in Kohn's statement, I have missed it.

Second, did you mean to say “and also suggest” instead of “and not also suggest”?

Crow · February 28, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

I typed Mr. Wallace an email criticizing his article.

This is my email to him.

"Write about what you know. Ayn Rand did not believe in sacrifice.

"Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. "Sacrifice" does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. "Sacrifice" is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't." --Ayn Rand

"Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man's virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values. The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one's actions toward other men. It requires that one posses a defined hierarchy of rational values. Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." -- Ayn Rand

Your article is a lie and to any mind not equipped with the knowledge to shoot down your sneer it is poison.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html"

This is his reply.

"You're a dumbass, like all Randroids."

realitycheck44 · February 28, 2005

Then she commits genocide and gleefully sacrifices almost the entire population of the world. She projects all hate, rage and envy onto them, scapegoats them, and then engages in a sadistic Hitlerian orgy of hate and destruction and kills off nearly everyone outside of Galt’s Gulch.

This is exactly what the Nazis and Socialists tried to do to those they labeled as evil. Rand’s beliefs are based on the same human-sacrifice psychology as Nazism and Socialism: consider yourself perfect, blame all evil on others, and kill all of them to save yourselves, leaving only "Utopia." This is why so many people who admire Rand’s writings still feel vaguely uncomfortable with Atlas Shrugged. How could she so gleefully rub out the entire world? How could she so cold-bloodedly kill innocent children in the infamous train-tunnel-collapse scene?

I find particuarly interesting that he equates not sacrificing yourself for others to genocide. Where did anybody from the Galt's Gulch kill anybody?

His response to your e-mail tells me all I need to know.

Cole · February 28, 2005

This is his reply.

"You're a dumbass, like all Randroids."

There's scholarship on the LewRockwell.com level for you.

NIJamesHughes · March 1, 2005

I find particuarly interesting that he equates not sacrificing yourself for others to genocide. Where did anybody from the Galt's Gulch kill anybody?

His response to your e-mail tells me all I need to know.

If you count Dagny as being from Galts Gulch, she killed someone, when she and the others went to free Galt.

Tom Robinson · March 1, 2005

Miss Rand also wrote Goldwater an 8 page letter urging him not base his defense of capitalism on religious grounds. In this letter (pages 565 - 572 in “Letters of Ayn Rand”) Miss Rand identifies how the failure of conservatives to offer a moral case for capitalism allows the collectivists to win time after time. She predicted that an attempt to justify capitalism on religious grounds would be the death of the conservative movement. She was right.

You are making my point for me. I mentioned Goldwater’s religious pronouncement precisely because it stands in sharp contrast to basic Objectivist principles. But, Goldwater, while hardly the perfect presidential candidate, was monumentally superior to his opponent. Rand did not endorse him unequivocally; nonetheless, she did endorse him. And therein lies the lesson: in the realm of politics, we are seldom offered perfect choices. A perfect choice, for example, would be to allow each citizen to vote himself zero taxation. Given the absence of such an option, if we are presented with High Tax Candidate A and Low Tax Candidate B, it is perfectly ethical to vote for and support the latter. Similarly, it is also ethical to support Republican Goldwater over Democrat LBJ and Libertarian Carla Howell over Democrat Ted Kennedy.

Miss Rand also made clear that she strongly opposed any effort to promote the politics of Objectivism without the underlying philosophic support.

Well, just because Goldwater (or some other candidate) is doing a lousy job of promoting capitalism in general (or the politics of Objectivism in particular), we can still morally choose him over the alternative. Government coercion has artificially limited our choices, so we choose the best avenue of self-defense within the options offered. It is no different than finding as many exemptions as possible when filing an income tax return.

Actually, what he concedes is the relevance of ethics to politics.

When a libertarian argues against the welfare state on the grounds that it is inefficient at eliminating poverty, he is conceding that efficiency is the standard by which one decides what is or is not a proper function of government -- and he is conceding that the elimination of poverty is the goal. If he is not making these concessions, then what is he doing? If he has not conceded the correct moral position, why is he hiding it? If he does not consider efficiency to be the central issue, why is that the only argument he makes?

Arguing about the efficiency or inefficiency of anything -- in the absence of any other sort of argument, such as a moral one -- implicitly concedes that the argument should be about efficiency, does it not? Otherwise, why is one making that particular argument and no other?

Omission is not concession. We can agree that the best defense of capitalism is morality without ruling out all other rationales. For example, Objectivist Robert Hessen, in "Child Labor in the Industrial Revolution" (Objectivist Newsletter April, 1962), discussed how capitalism raised the standard of living and reduced death rates -- without once mentioning the moral foundation for capitalism. Hessen's omission hardly surrenders the field to capitalism's enemies. I have already mentioned Ludwig von Mises. His works thoroughly demolished the claim that socialism could produce general freedom and prosperity. Even though Mises rejected natural rights and objective values, he still contributed an invaluable (albeit incomplete) defense of capitalism. Therefore, if we can endorse, with reservations, the works of Mises, Henry Hazlitt and other non-ethical proponents of capitalism, we may do so with political candidates who promote laissez faire.

No, it is not a betrayal to mention them, but there is more going on here than a mere mention. The argument from efficiency is not being offered as an aside, but as the central, indeed the only argument. It is a betrayal of ethics to say that capitalism is good because it creates prosperity -- and say nothing else, particularly when the opponents of capitalism are protraying statism as the moral system.

Then we would have to pull Mises and Hazlitt off our Objectivist bookshelf and regard them as anathema, for the only moral justification those economists ever tendered was from the standpoint of utilitarianism.

What does it say about the Libertarians that these things are mentioned in a “Statement of Principles” but not mentioned in the specific proposals regarding welfare?

I have no intention of defending every statement made by every member of the Libertarian Party, nor must I do so to make the case that in some instances one may morally and rationally vote for a Republican, Libertarian or other non-Objectivist political candidate. Obviously, in any organization with ranks numbering in the thousands there are bound to be members who hold opinions I do not fully support. At the same time, before I make a judgment about a quotation from a speech or brochure, I’d want to place the quotation within context of other campaign literature from the individual quoted. (It may be that he does not altogether eschew the moral defense of capitalism.) Moreover, we’d have to place this candidate in context of the other candidates (statists) competing in that race. Thus, even if every statement uttered by a candidate avoids the moral defense of capitalism, he may still remain superior to the opposition. See your post #116: “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.”

Even if that is the only argument one ever offers? If one has not conceded the moral argument, what excuse is there for withholding it? Why hide one’s moral position?

It has not been my experience that the LP offers only arguments from efficiency. My familiarity with local Libertarian candidates indicates tht the moral defense of capitalism is not omitted.

I do not understand. In the first place, where, in these statements, do you see a moral argument for the repeal of welfare? The moral case against welfare is that no amount of need on anyone’s part, no amount of hunger or cold or disease or disaster or misfortune or misery on the part of one man entitles him to a penny of another man’s money. One is entitled only to what one has earned, as opposed to what one needs . If that sort of argument is present in Kohn's statement, I have missed it.

I don’t have to defend the entirety of Kohn’s campaign in order to prefer him to a statist rival, or to make the case that some other Libertarian candidate in some other race may represent less of a threat to freedom than his rivals do. “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.”

Second, did you mean to say “and also suggest” instead of “and not also suggest”?

My wording was faulty, and you have revised it appropriately.

Edited March 1, 2005 by Tom Robinson

Tom Robinson · March 1, 2005

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.

After reviewing my posts on this thread, I have concluded that I have offered adequate explanation for my choice to vote for a less than perfect candidate.

This depends on what you mean by "endorse."

Encourage: to give approval to or support of. An endorsement need not be unequivocal.

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. )

Fine. Works for me.

non-contradictor · March 1, 2005

After reviewing my posts on this thread, I have concluded that I have offered adequate explanation for my choice to vote for a less than perfect candidate.
...

Encourage: to give approval to or support of. An endorsement need not be unequivocal.

I was not saying that you have not justified your vote. What I was replying to was when you said you would "endorse" this candidate or encourage others to vote for him/her. my question was whether or not you explained to the people who knew you "endorsed" the candidate why you support the candidate over anyone else. From what I can tell, you do not sanction the candidate you voted for. My question is this: would you make this clear to everyone you told to vote for the candidate? I am not disputing your reasons for voting for a "less than perfect candidate." However, once you decide to advocate a particular candidate, you must give a reason, or your "advocacy" (which can be as simple as advising you friend to vote for them) will be a moral sanction.

Tom Robinson · March 1, 2005

I was not saying that you have not justified your vote. What I was replying to was when you said you would "endorse" this candidate or encourage others to vote for him/her. my question was whether or not you explained to the people who knew you "endorsed" the candidate why you support the candidate over anyone else. From what I can tell, you do not sanction the candidate you voted for. My question is this: would you make this clear to everyone you told to vote for the candidate?

Yes.

non-contradictor · March 1, 2005

Yes.

Good, then as far as I'm concerned, we have nothing left to debate.

AisA · March 2, 2005

You are making my point for me. I mentioned Goldwater’s religious pronouncement precisely because it stands in sharp contrast to basic Objectivist principles. But, Goldwater, while hardly the perfect presidential candidate, was monumentally superior to his opponent. Rand did not endorse him unequivocally; nonetheless, she did endorse him.

The issue is not whether or not it is appropriate to support the lesser of two evils. The issue is whether it is appropriate to promote capitalism while ignoring its moral base.

The following statement is a non-sequitur:

Miss Rand endorsed Goldwater, therefore it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 26 2005, 03:14 PM)
Actually, what he concedes is the relevance of ethics to politics.

When a libertarian argues against the welfare state on the grounds that it is inefficient at eliminating poverty, he is conceding that efficiency is the standard by which one decides what is or is not a proper function of government -- and he is conceding that the elimination of poverty is the goal. If he is not making these concessions, then what is he doing? If he has not conceded the correct moral position, why is he hiding it? If he does not consider efficiency to be the central issue, why is that the only argument he makes?

Arguing about the efficiency or inefficiency of anything -- in the absence of any other sort of argument, such as a moral one -- implicitly concedes that the argument should be about efficiency, does it not? Otherwise, why is one making that particular argument and no other?

Omission is not concession. We can agree that the best defense of capitalism is morality without ruling out all other rationales. For example, Objectivist Robert Hessen, in "Child Labor in the Industrial Revolution" (Objectivist Newsletter April, 1962), discussed how capitalism raised the standard of living and reduced death rates -- without once mentioning the moral foundation for capitalism. Hessen's omission hardly surrenders the field to capitalism's enemies. I have already mentioned Ludwig von Mises. His works thoroughly demolished the claim that socialism could produce general freedom and prosperity. Even though Mises rejected natural rights and objective values, he still contributed an invaluable (albeit incomplete) defense of capitalism. Therefore, if we can endorse, with reservations, the works of Mises, Henry Hazlitt and other non-ethical proponents of capitalism, we may do so with political candidates who promote laissez faire.

Your post is not responsive to my points. You did not answer my question. If omission is not concession, then why is the moral argument being ignored? If the Libertarian party is not conceding the moral, then why are they ignoring it?

Regarding Hazlett and Mises, you are equating the limited use of economic data to refute a myth about capitalism with the attempt to support capitalism strictly on the basis of efficiency. Clearly, the two are different.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 26 2005, 03:14 PM)
No, it is not a betrayal to mention them, but there is more going on here than a mere mention. The argument from efficiency is not being offered as an aside, but as the central, indeed the only argument. It is a betrayal of ethics to say that capitalism is good because it creates prosperity -- and say nothing else, particularly when the opponents of capitalism are portraying statism as the moral system.

Then we would have to pull Mises and Hazlitt off our Objectivist bookshelf and regard them as anathema, for the only moral justification those economists ever tendered was from the standpoint of utilitarianism.

No, we need not discard them. Indeed, such data is quite valuable. It is not, however, a substitute for the moral argument for capitalism.

Obviously, in any organization with ranks numbering in the thousands there are bound to be members who hold opinions I do not fully support. At the same time, before I make a judgment about a quotation from a speech or brochure, I’d want to place the quotation within context of other campaign literature from the individual quoted. (It may be that he does not altogether eschew the moral defense of capitalism.)

If you can find some Libertarian party literature or statements that uphold the moral argument for capitalism, I will certainly read them. I have not found any.

Moreover, we’d have to place this candidate in context of the other candidates (statists) competing in that race. Thus, even if every statement uttered by a candidate avoids the moral defense of capitalism, he may still remain superior to the opposition. See your post #116: “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.”

Aside from the fact that you are quoting me out of context, the following statement is a non-sequitur:

There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other, therefore it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

The following statement is also a non-sequitur:

Omission is not concession, therefore, it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 26 2005, 03:14 PM)
Even if that is the only argument one ever offers? If one has not conceded the moral argument, what excuse is there for withholding it? Why hide one’s moral position?

It has not been my experience that the LP offers only arguments from efficiency. My familiarity with local Libertarian candidates indicates tht the moral defense of capitalism is not omitted.

The moral argument for capitalism – including a refutation of altruism, is not to be found at the Libertarian party web site. At least, I have not found it.

QUOTE(AisA @ Feb 26 2005, 03:14 PM)

I do not understand. In the first place, where, in these statements, do you see a moral argument for the repeal of welfare? The moral case against welfare is that no amount of need on anyone’s part, no amount of hunger or cold or disease or disaster or misfortune or misery on the part of one man entitles him to a penny of another man’s money. One is entitled only to what one has earned, as opposed to what one needs . If that sort of argument is present in Kohn's statement, I have missed it.

I don’t have to defend the entirety of Kohn’s campaign in order to prefer him to a statist rival, or to make the case that some other Libertarian candidate in some other race may represent less of a threat to freedom than his rivals do. “There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other.”

No, you do not have to defend Kohn’s campaign, but you should defend your prior statement that Kohn was making the moral argument against welfare. Defend it or retract it, but do not try to change the subject.

You have attempted to defend the Libertarian party on the grounds that omission is not concession. If it is not, then in this case that is a distinction without a difference. If the Libertarian party ignores the moral case for capitalism, what difference does it make to assert that they have not conceded it? Under these conditions, their non-concession makes no difference whatsoever.

If the Libertarian party considers altruism evil and egoism good, but chooses to keep quiet about it, their crime is even greater, for they have lost the excuse of merely being ignorant.

Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. There is no neutral ground between them. It is the evasion of this conflict -- an evasion actively encouraged by everyone from Republicans to neocons to Libertarians -- that poses the greatest long term threat to our freedom.

Altruism cannot survive a stand-up intellectual battle. It can only win by default, i.e. it can only win if it remains beyond question and examination. And, by ignoring the moral case for capitalism, that is precisely what the Libertarian party accomplishes.

Tom Robinson · March 2, 2005

The issue is not whether or not it is appropriate to support the lesser of two evils. The issue is whether it is appropriate to promote capitalism while ignoring its moral base.

Fine. Goldwater did a lousy job of promoting capitalism because he ignored its moral base. Agreed. Would I still vote for Goldwater? In a heartbeat. Send him money? In the twinkling of an eye. Knock on doors for him? In a New York minute.

The following statement is a non-sequitur:

Miss Rand endorsed Goldwater, therefore it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

I agree that it is a non sequitur. It also happens not to resemble any argument I’ve made in this thread. I have never posited that it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism, much less linked such a position to Rand’s endorsement of Goldwater. All along I’ve maintained that one may morally vote for an imperfect candidate provided that there is no better alternative. Voting for such a candidate in no way legitimizes or sanctions his flaws.

Your post is not responsive to my points. You did not answer my question. If omission is not concession, then why is the moral argument being ignored? If the Libertarian party is not conceding the moral, then why are they ignoring it?

I answered your point by observing that: a) an example of one or several or even many LP members not mentioning the moral argument in particular speeches or pamphlets does not necessarily establish that it is being ignored by all LP members (in my experience it is not), and that even if it did prove a uniform avoidance of the moral argument one could still in conscience vote for a Libertarian candidate if he represented the least threat to freedom (see my comment directly above and in previous posts on Goldwater), and not mentioning the moral argument in a speech, brochure or essay about capitalism does not imply that there is no moral argument and does not concede the field to capitalism’s enemies (see my mention of Robert Hessen’s essay in my last post).

Regarding Hazlett and Mises, you are equating the limited use of economic data to refute a myth about capitalism with the attempt to support capitalism strictly on the basis of efficiency. Clearly, the two are different.

But the point is, Mises did in fact defend capitalism on the basis of its efficiency and explicitly, repeatedly and pointedly rejected any natural rights or objective value defense of capitalism. By contrast, I do not know of any member of the Libertarian Party who has made such an open and absolute rejection of morality in the defense of laissez faire.

No, we need not discard them. Indeed, such data is quite valuable. It is not, however, a substitute for the moral argument for capitalism.

If you can find some Libertarian party literature or statements that uphold the moral argument for capitalism, I will certainly read them. I have not found any.

From the Libertarian Party of Arkansas website:

“Libertarianism is a radical political point of view. It is the idea of maximizing human freedom and personal responsibility and minimizing external control over the choices people make for themselves. But, as powerful an idea as libertarianism is, it cannot stand alone; it rests on a moral idea. In fact, all political philosophies rest on moral principles. For example, socialism (or statism) rests on the idea that ‘Man is his brother's keeper.’ And, oh boy, have those statists been keeping their brothers and sisters. They've been keeping them in concentration camps, gulags and prison-like societies to control them and make their lives a living hell.”

http://www.lpar.org/philosophy-issues.html

Aside from the fact that you are quoting me out of context, the following statement is a non-sequitur:

There are some elections where one choice is so evil as to demand a vote for the other, therefore it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

I never constructed the above argument. In fact, I think that the moral argument is the best argument for capitalism. (And I have said this before.) However, there may be occasions when none of the candidates in a race are making such an argument. In such a case one may morally exercise his state-limited means of self-defense by voting for the least threatening candidate. This clearly is what Rand did in the case of Wilkie, Goldwater and Nixon. So here’s the context:

In post #110 I wrote “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.”

In post #116 you responded to the above comment with: “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.”

Now unless you wish to make the case that Nixon presented a moral argument for capitalism, we can perhaps agree that even when a candidate is not running on morality, he may still be a less threatening choice than his opponent.

The following statement is also a non-sequitur:

Omission is not concession, therefore, it is appropriate to ignore the moral argument for capitalism.

Please show me where I have made such a statement. In absence of such a citation, I can ignore the accusation.

No, you do not have to defend Kohn’s campaign, but you should defend your prior statement that Kohn was making the moral argument against welfare. Defend it or retract it, but do not try to change the subject.

What I said was “It is not self-contradictory to argue for the moral repeal of welfarist proposals and not also suggest that existing legislation is disadvantageous to the majority of welfare recipients.” Now it may be that Kohn rejects entirely all moral arguments. I do not know. But what I wish to emphasize is that one can morally support a candidate who defends capitalism without moral arguments. I did not mean to imply that Kohn elsewhere has taken a particular moral position, for I have no knowledge of him other than what you have posted.

You have attempted to defend the Libertarian party on the grounds that omission is not concession. If it is not, then in this case that is a distinction without a difference. If the Libertarian party ignores the moral case for capitalism, what difference does it make to assert that they have not conceded it? Under these conditions, their non-concession makes no difference whatsoever.

Based on personal knowledge of Libertarian candidates and members, I know that many associated with the LP have not conceded the moral argument. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that every LP member explicitly rejects the moral defense of capitalism. Should we have nothing more to do with them? That response would make sense only if the electoral process offered us perfect choices. Instead of LBJ versus Goldwater, we’d have LBJ versus Goldwater versus the individual’s right to determine what happens to himself and his property. Since such perfect choices are not to be found on the current scene, it is quite legitimate to choose a candidate who, while not offering the best arguments, is clearly better than his avowedly statist rival. Thus, we can morally vote for Goldwater in 1964 or Badnarik in 2004.

If the Libertarian party considers altruism evil and egoism good, but chooses to keep quiet about it, their crime is even greater, for they have lost the excuse of merely being ignorant.

Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. There is no neutral ground between them. It is the evasion of this conflict -- an evasion actively encouraged by everyone from Republicans to neocons to Libertarians -- that poses the greatest long term threat to our freedom.

At http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...489entry74489 you wrote, “Those are a few of the recent conservative initiatives. What, then, is it that you trust conservatives to do? I voted for Bush because I thought that Kerry was worse, but as an advocate of freedom, I would never characterize a conservative as trustworthy.”

Okay, you voted for a Christian Republican neo-con. I voted for a Libertarian constitutional scholar who made no mention of altruism. Now show me why my sin is worse than yours.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Tom Robinson

Bryan · March 2, 2005

From the Libertarian Party of Arkansas website:

“Libertarianism is a radical political point of view. It is the idea of maximizing human freedom and personal responsibility and minimizing external control over the choices people make for themselves. But, as powerful an idea as libertarianism is, it cannot stand alone; it rests on a moral idea. In fact, all political philosophies rest on moral principles. For example, socialism (or statism) rests on the idea that ‘Man is his brother's keeper.’ And, oh boy, have those statists been keeping their brothers and sisters. They've been keeping them in concentration camps, gulags and prison-like societies to control them and make their lives a living hell.”

http://www.lpar.org/philosophy-issues.html

Why does the Libertarian Party of Arkansas not state the moral idea that libertarianism rests? They say this; socialism rests on the moral idea that 'Man is his brother's keeper', but we rest on the idea (Blank out). The above quote hardly upholds the moral argument for capitalism.

Tom Robinson · March 3, 2005

Why does the Libertarian Party of Arkansas not state the moral idea that libertarianism rests? They say this; socialism rests on the moral idea that 'Man is his brother's keeper', but we rest on the idea (Blank out). The above quote hardly upholds the moral argument for capitalism.

Bryan, click on the link I provided, scroll down to "Libertarianism For A Better World" by Tom Carpenter and you can read the author's complete essay, which does discuss libertarianism's moral foundation.

AisA · March 4, 2005

Okay, you voted for a Christian Republican neo-con. I voted for a Libertarian constitutional scholar who made no mention of altruism. Now show me why my sin is worse than yours.

Your sin is worse because you voted for the candidate that is the greatest threat to freedom: the one who is pushing the idea that ethics are irrelevant to politics and that freedom is justified only because it is more practical than slavery.

I voted for someone who considers ethics crucial -- and believes that his ethics support freedom. He is wrong about that, but at least with the Republicans (and the Democrats to a lesser extent), the ethical argument is on the table. It can be debated.

With the Libertarians, there is nothing on the table, except the contradictory notion that freedom represents the most efficient way to achieve altruistic goals.

The most importand thing I said in my last post was at the end:

Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. There is no neutral ground between them. It is the evasion of this conflict -- an evasion actively encouraged by everyone from Republicans to neocons to Libertarians -- that poses the greatest long term threat to our freedom. And the Libertarians are the most consistent evaders of all.

Altruism cannot survive a stand-up intellectual battle. It can only win by default, i.e. it can only win if it remains beyond question and examination. And, by ignoring the moral case for capitalism, that is precisely what the Libertarian party accomplishes -- it keeps altruism out of the question; it enhances its status as something that is beyond challenge.

So that is the heart of my contention: I am opposed to the Libertarian party because they evade the moral issue -- and in doing so, they facilitate the notion that altruism is off limits and cannot be questioned. That makes the Libertarian candidate the worst threat to freedom. Divorcing ethics from politics dooms the case for liberty and negates all of a Libertarian's potential value.

Be evading the moral, they also render themselves impractical. Neither they nor you will ever succeed in rolling back statism while leaving altruism unchallenged.

You have repeatedly emphasized that Libertarians do not concede the moral -- yet every post of Libertarian material that we have seen argues strictly from the practical.

Consider the last material you quoted:

For example, socialism (or statism) rests on the idea that ‘Man is his brother's keeper.’ And, oh boy, have those statists been keeping their brothers and sisters. They've been keeping them in concentration camps, gulags and prison-like societies to control them and make their lives a living hell.”

This is a clear acceptance of the altruistic idea that man is his brother's keeper. Statism, in this statement, is condemned only because it has not done a good job of "keeping". This is not an attack on altruism -- it is an endorsement that altruism is so proper we must make sure we do it right!

I read his entire essay, and he does not challenge altruism.

The Libertarian candidate is not the least threatening to freedom. By divorcing politics from ethics, the Libertarian candidate is helping to make freedom impossible.

Tom Robinson · March 5, 2005

Your sin is worse because you voted for the candidate that is the greatest threat to freedom: the one who is pushing the idea that ethics are irrelevant to politics and that freedom is justified only because it is more practical than slavery.

I voted for someone who considers ethics crucial -- and believes that his ethics support freedom. He is wrong about that, but at least with the Republicans (and the Democrats to a lesser extent), the ethical argument is on the table. It can be debated.

But Bush has on occasion defended freedom on purely non-ethical grounds; for example, tax cuts are good not because they reduce robbery but because they put more people to work. By comparison, Badnarik’s campaign was a mixture of constitutional, economic and moral arguments -- as when he wrote, “You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do.”

More importantly, even had Badnarik explicitly stated that “ethics are irrelevant to politics” and “freedom is justified only because it is more practical than slavery” (which he has not), why would we say that both Bush and Badnarik are wrong?

How is the idea that Christian ethics support freedom any less wrong than “ethics are irrelevant to politics”? I would suggest they are equally wrong.

Finally, my understanding of the laissez faire society is that initiating force would be punishable but advocating bad ideas would not. Badnarik pledged that he would pardon thousands serving prison terms for victimless crimes. Bush has pardoned no one, not even Martha Stewart, and has made no such promise for his second term. So how is simply advocating a bad idea (“ethics are irrelevant to politics”) morally worse than engaging in force, as in allowing thousands of non-violent kidnapped victims of federal tyranny to remain in chains?

With the Libertarians, there is nothing on the table, except the contradictory notion that freedom represents the most efficient way to achieve altruistic goals.

Not at all. At http://www.badnarik.org/libertarian.php Badnarik grounds his campaign in the moral foundations of the early American Republic and emphasizes that government’s purpose is not to secure prosperity but rather to “secure the life, liberty, and property of every one of its citizens.”

The most importand thing I said in my last post was at the end:

Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. There is no neutral ground between them. It is the evasion of this conflict -- an evasion actively encouraged by everyone from Republicans to neocons to Libertarians -- that poses the greatest long term threat to our freedom. And the Libertarians are the most consistent evaders of all.

Okay, while not conceding that libertarian candidates consistently evade the moral issue, let’s stipulate that we should not evade the conflict between capitalism and altruism. But the question remains: why is the evasion of “the conflict” a greater “long term threat to our freedom” than altruism (The Enemy) itself? If altruism is the bête noire, why embrace The Beast Himself, the born-again Christian neo-con compassionate conservative enemy with a vote, when his opponent is consistently more pro-capitalist? By that standard, we’d have to endorse Jimmy Carter, for chrissake!

Altruism cannot survive a stand-up intellectual battle. It can only win by default, i.e. it can only win if it remains beyond question and examination.

Exactly how does voting for a born-again Christian neo-con compassionate conservative enemy ensure “a stand-up intellectual battle”?

And, by ignoring the moral case for capitalism, that is precisely what the Libertarian party accomplishes -- it keeps altruism out of the question; it enhances its status as something that is beyond challenge.

Hmmm. I guess your strategy is that by re-electing born-again Christian neo-con compassionate conservative enemies, we allow them to go about sowing their Christian “do-gooder works,” (such as providing more subsidies to politically correct interest groups). And in doing so we keep altruism in “the question,” even while they are bleeding the real producers of wealth dry. Well then, does it mean in, your view, that producers who suffer will just have to make their selfish interests secondary to keeping altruism in “the question.”

So that is the heart of my contention: I am opposed to the Libertarian party because they evade the moral issue -- and in doing so, they facilitate the notion that altruism is off limits and cannot be questioned. That makes the Libertarian candidate the worst threat to freedom. Divorcing ethics from politics dooms the case for liberty and negates all of a Libertarian's potential value.

Yes, by that logic, it would be better to vote for a communist than a non-communist who didn’t think communism was the issue.

Be evading the moral, they also render themselves impractical. Neither they nor you will ever succeed in rolling back statism while leaving altruism unchallenged.

You have repeatedly emphasized that Libertarians do not concede the moral -- yet every post of Libertarian material that we have seen argues strictly from the practical.

I have provided (above and in previous posts) references that Libertarian candidate do not exclude or concede the moral argument. If you say otherwise, then I can only conclude that you choose to exclude anything other than your special definition of “moral” as “moral.”

Consider the last material you quoted:

This is a clear acceptance of the altruistic idea that man is his brother's keeper. Statism, in this statement, is condemned only because it has not done a good job of "keeping". This is not an attack on altruism -- it is an endorsement that altruism is so proper we must make sure we do it right!

For example, socialism (or statism) rests on the idea that ‘Man is his brother's keeper.’ And, oh boy, have those statists been keeping their brothers and sisters. They've been keeping them in concentration camps, gulags and prison-like societies to control them and make their lives a living hell.”

I read his entire essay, and he does not challenge altruism.

Gee, I did not realize that finding that a particular candidate who does not explicitly challenge altruism is a good reason for voting for an opponent who explicitly embraces altruism. Furthermore, should I guess that the opponent of anyone who does not expressly reject altruism must constitute a rationale to vote for that opponent? If that is the case, then any opponent of a explicit Christian would have to be considered automatically better. Thus, pace Peikoff, Kerry over Bush.

The Libertarian candidate is not the least threatening to freedom. By divorcing politics from ethics, the Libertarian candidate is helping to make freedom impossible.

Yes, perhaps we should endorse the practice of the Massachusetts Puritan colony who adamantly refused to divorce politics from ethics, and thereby made hanging witches possible.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Tom Robinson

AisA · March 5, 2005

But Bush has on occasion defended freedom on purely non-ethical grounds; for example, tax cuts are good not because they reduce robbery but because they put more people to work. By comparison, Badnarik’s campaign was a mixture of constitutional, economic and moral arguments -- as when he wrote, “You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do.”

More importantly, even had Badnarik explicitly stated that “ethics are irrelevant to politics” and “freedom is justified only because it is more practical than slavery” (which he has not), why would we say that both Bush and Badnarik are wrong?

How is the idea that Christian ethics support freedom any less wrong than “ethics are irrelevant to politics”? I would suggest they are equally wrong.

One of the candidates is promoting freedom on the basis of the wrong ethics. The other is promoting the idea that freedom cannot be justified on the basis of any ethics.

The statement that “You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do.” is an empty assertion, offered as though it were axiomatic. But it is not. It is merely a continuation of the error found in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident....."

That assertion of self-evidency has been failing for the last 229 years. Yet Badnarik's campaign is based on the same failed premise -- as if there is no more justification for capitalism than an empty assertion.

Finally, my understanding of the laissez faire society is that initiating force would be punishable but advocating bad ideas would not. Badnarik pledged that he would pardon thousands serving prison terms for victimless crimes. Bush has pardoned no one, not even Martha Stewart, and has made no such promise for his second term. So how is simply advocating a bad idea (“ethics are irrelevant to politics”) morally worse than engaging in force, as in allowing thousands of non-violent kidnapped victims of federal tyranny to remain in chains?

The bad idea that is being advocated will make it impossible for us to reverse the statism that results in things like "victimless crimes".

Not at all. At http://www.badnarik.org/libertarian.php Badnarik grounds his campaign in the moral foundations of the early American Republic and emphasizes that government’s purpose is not to secure prosperity but rather to “secure the life, liberty, and property of every one of its citizens.”

A proper moral foundation was precisely what the American Republic lacked; and lacking it, it has succumbed to the only morality floating around: altrusim.

Okay, while not conceding that libertarian candidates consistently evade the moral issue, let’s stipulate that we should not evade the conflict between capitalism and altruism. But the question remains: why is the evasion of “the conflict” a greater “long term threat to our freedom” than altruism (The Enemy) itself?

The evasion is the greater threat because until we overcome it, we cannot defeat altruism. As long as altruism is an unchallengable, off-limits topic, we have no hope of persuading people of something better. When people like Libertarians telling us that we can achieve a capitalistic utopia without challenging altruism, the motivation to challenge it is reduced or eliminated.

If altruism is the bête noire, why embrace The Beast Himself, the born-again Christian neo-con compassionate conservative enemy with a vote, when his opponent is consistently more pro-capitalist? By that standard, we’d have to endorse Jimmy Carter, for chrissake!

Miss Rand refused to endorse Reagan, even when he was facing Carter. Her reason, I believe, was that by that time she realized that Republicans would end up helping to destroy capitalism because of their attempt to tie it to religion.

The following is taken from Badnarik's presidential campaign web site. It is the Libertarian promise to Christians:

We will ensure economic liberty, which belongs to all individuals and their families by divine right, eliminating federal withholding taxes and any other government devices to rob people of the fruits of their honest labor

We will work together with you, not just for peace and security, but for your God given right to live your life according to your faith, expressing your beliefs openly without fear of reprisal.

I added the emphasis. Badnarik, the self-proclaimed champion of freedom and capitalism, has indeed conceded that there is no rational, moral basis for what he champions. Rights are a gift from god.

Sure, Bush makes the same error, but he is not a capitalist -- he's a compassionate conservative. The last thing capitalism needs is more defenders that claim its basis is god's will.

I did not vote "for" Bush. I voted against Kerry in the only way that made any difference.

Exactly how does voting for a born-again Christian neo-con compassionate conservative enemy ensure “a stand-up intellectual battle”?

I did not say that it would. I said that it is a mistake to help those that seek to keep altruism off-limits, who seek to persuade us that the fight for capitalism can be waged without confronting its chief problem.

Yes, by that logic, it would be better to vote for a communist than a non-communist who didn’t think communism was the issue.

It might well be, particularly if the non-communist was spreading the notion that only communism has a moral basis.

I have provided (above and in previous posts) references that Libertarian candidate do not exclude or concede the moral argument. If you say otherwise, then I can only conclude that you choose to exclude anything other than your special definition of “moral” as “moral.”

You might want to rethink this in light of the fact that Badnarik considers rights a gift from god.

Gee, I did not realize that finding that a particular candidate who does not explicitly challenge altruism is a good reason for voting for an opponent who explicitly embraces altruism.

Your candidate did not merely fail to challenge altruism, he endorsed it.

You are cherry picking the last statement in an argument and ignoring the rest.

The Libertarian candidate is not the least threatening to freedom. By divorcing politics from ethics, the Libertarian candidate is helping to make freedom impossible.

Yes, perhaps we should endorse the practice of the Massachusetts Puritan colony who adamantly refused to divorce politics from ethics, and thereby made hanging witches possible.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because one ethics led to horrors, all ethics should be banned.

Sign In

Libertarians

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics