Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First of all, what is NAMBLA. Second of all, can you quote a source saying they are associated with an organization bearing that acronym? I've looked through the Libertarian website and can't find any references to it...

NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. And I would also be interested to find a quote from a Libertarian source that supports this organization.

I have, in the past, heard claims that Libertarianism supports pedophilia. This is a claim I have yet to verify. While I do not support Libertarianism, I did grow up in a household that supported it, and I have yet to hear a Libertarian advocate or condone pedophilia.

If I remember correctly, the ACLU once offered to provide an attourney for a member of NAMBLA. If this is the only thing that "links" Libertarians to NAMBLA, then the Democrats are linked to NAMBLA in the same fashion.

-edited for spelling

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, since nearly every terrible thing that has occured since this country's founding is the result of policies of both Democrats and Republicans, and since so many have either lost money, property, freedom, or their lives, I believe that perhaps a few of them, if they were still alive, would question your use of the term "worse" as well as your sense of proportion. I certainly do. But at least you are not a hippocrite.
The point is that, despite your contention to the contrary, the three political parties are not all "similarly incompatible with Objectivist philosophic premises", to use your words.

For example, with respect to morality, what do the parties advocate? The Democrats advocate secular altruism. The Republicans advocate religious altruism. The Libertarians advocate NOTHING, and declare that no moral justification for capitalism is possible or necessary.

Surely the notion that politics is amoral, i.e. that morality is irrelevant, is more "incompatible" with Objectivism than advocating the wrong morality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The philosophy of the Libertarian Party is more dangerous than the philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties to Objectivist philosophy specifically because, whereas the philosophies of the other parties are but lies, the philosophy of the Libertarian Party is a lie intended to be confused with Objectivist philosophy.

The philosophic basis for the libertarian party (though not by that name) existed before Objectivism and therefore cannot have been intended to be confused with it. There may be individuals who possess such intent now, and if so, they deserve the criticism they receive. The point is that well-intentioned Objectivists who support the LP deserve the same deference given to Objectivists of other parties when it comes to moral judgements regarding motive unless there is evidence to the contrary. Objectivists who seek similar ends should be free to debate the means used for attaining those ends and criticize each other based on facts stemming from those arguments, not for "being" libertarians, republicans or democrats when primarily they are Objectivists. Descent to that level implies everyone is "guilty by association" to some extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that, despite your contention to the contrary, the three political parties are not all "similarly incompatible with Objectivist philosophic premises", to use your words.

For example, with respect to morality, what do the parties advocate? The Democrats advocate secular altruism. The Republicans advocate religious altruism. The Libertarians advocate NOTHING, and declare that no moral justification for capitalism is possible or necessary.

Surely the notion that politics is amoral, i.e. that morality is irrelevant, is more "incompatible" with Objectivism than advocating the wrong morality.

Look, that first quote was someone else's. Also, I'm not trying to advocate any philosphies here other than Objectivism, and I don't see any point to comparing performance report cards of political parties based on what they do or don't advocate. THE point is that Objectivists should essentially be advocating the same things, regardless of what party they belong to, and based on the same Objectivist philosophic premises, not the mistaken premises of their parties. Cut your philosophic brothers some slack for god's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, that first quote was someone else's. Also, I'm not trying to advocate any philosphies here other than Objectivism, and I don't see any point to comparing performance report cards of political parties based on what they do or don't advocate. .
You do not see a point in comparing them, even if there are significant differences? You see no value in identifying the moral roots of particular political positions?

THE point is that Objectivists should essentially be advocating the same things, regardless of what party they belong to, and based on the same Objectivist philosophic premises, not the mistaken premises of their parties. Cut your philosophic brothers some slack for god's sake
I don't follow you. Who are the "philosophic brothers" that you think deserve some slack? And what does "cutting some slack" mean in this context? Suspend judgment?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not see a point in comparing them, even if there are significant differences? You see no value in identifying the moral roots of particular political positions?

I don't follow you. Who are the "philosophic brothers" that you think deserve some slack? And what does "cutting some slack" mean in this context? Suspend judgment?

If you judge others based solely on their affiliation with a group, attributing every evil associated with that group to each and every individual that is a member, and fail to judge yourself by the same standard, then you are indeed a hippocrite. Who said anything about "particular political positions"? You've been speaking in generalities, content to judge without particulars, requiring merely a label and lumping every individual with that label in the same moral category, including Objectivists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socionomer and MNRFan: What's the "bottom-line" proposition? Are you saying "some Objectivists have joined the Libertarian Party thinking it is a way to further the cause of individual rights?" Or, something more?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing fallacious about it, consciousness does imply existence. It does not imply subjectivism, in fact DesCartes said it didn't. Maybe Ayn Rand didn't use the same construction, I don't know. If not, I'd be interested to see why she thinks existence is self-evident.

What exactly does DesCartes' existence premise have to do with rejecting the Libertarian Party?

This is an important point. Consciousness implies existence in the sense that if one is conscious, you are conscious of something. However, the primary principle and the foundation of Ayn Rand's metaphysics, is that: Existence Exists. If there were no consciousness, there would still be existence. If, for example, there were no humans (possessing consciousness, of course) on Earth, the Earth would still exist whether humans we were able to perceive it or not. As JM Snow posted above, the statement "cogito, ergo sum" (translated as "I think, therefore I am" or "I am thinking, therefore I exist") takes consciousness as the primary and existence as secondary. Ayn Rand identified this is THE fundamental metaphysical error and it has disasterous consequences in philosophy.

Descartes stated the following in "Meditations on First Philosophy": "Yet I hesitate, for.... am I so dependent on body and senses that I cannot exist without these? But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something (or merely because I thought of something)...... this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it"

This premise became the basis for Descartes' entire philosophy. It manifested itself (among other ways) in his proof of God's existence, which is essentially as follows: (1) Everything, including our ideas, has a cause. (2) We have an idea of God. (3) Nothing less than God is adequate to be the cause of our idea of God. Therefore, (4) God exists.

With consciousness as the primary, one can justify virtually anything.

How does this relate to Libertarianism? It is important because earlier you stated that the premise of the right of self-ownership is "self evident". In reply to that, I said: "But why is it self-evident that one has a right of self-ownership? Many claim it is self-evident that God, society, the state, your neighbor, or mother nature own your life. Beginning with metaphysics and proceeding through epistemology and ethics, Ayn Rand set forth the logical derrivation of the right of self-ownership. Most Libertarians with whom I have had contact lack this essential philosophical foundation." So what good are the principles of Libertarianism if they can't be morally defended or justified by Libertarians?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you judge others based solely on their affiliation with a group, attributing every evil associated with that group to each and every individual that is a member, and fail to judge yourself by the same standard, then you are indeed a hippocrite.
So what? Who is arguing in favor of using a double standard?

In another post you said:

The point is that well-intentioned Objectivists who support the LP deserve the same deference given to Objectivists of other parties when it comes to moral judgements regarding motive unless there is evidence to the contrary. Objectivists who seek similar ends should be free to debate the means used for attaining those ends and criticize each other based on facts stemming from those arguments, not for "being" libertarians, republicans or democrats when primarily they are Objectivists. Descent to that level implies everyone is "guilty by association" to some extent.
All I can say is that a person who is "primarily an Objectivist" and "secondarily a libertarian" is not in a position to give lectures about double standards.

So what good are the principles of Libertarianism if they can't be morally defended or justified by Libertarians?
An excellent question. I wonder if we will get an answer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Libertarian movement has been around for a number of years now and doesn't appear to be getting any stronger or to be wielding any more influence on politics than it has in the past. Libertarians seem to have about as much credibility with the general public as the Green Party or the Natural Law Party. I wonder how much more of an effect on politics Libertarians would have had over the years if they had focused their money and their efforts on promoting a proper philosophy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand set forth the logical derrivation of the right of self-ownership. Most Libertarians with whom I have had contact lack this essential philosophical foundation." So what good are the principles of Libertarianism if they can't be morally defended or justified by Libertarians?

Most HUMAN BEINGS lack this philosophical derivation and it is BEYOND the reach of minds not receptive to reason. I'm sure Libertarians appreciate your holding them to a higher standard than the rest of the global population, and since you continue to reside in a nation founded on their morally indefensible principles you must find them useful for something. (I,m just assuming you live in the USA).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how much more of an effect on politics Libertarians would have had over the years if they had focused their money and their efforts on promoting a proper philosophy?

About as much of an effect as Objectivists have had. Not much. Unfortunately DIM minds don't want to know.

There appears to be an irresistible compulsion for some people to continually conflate "libertarianism" with the Libertarian Party. Not all LP members subscribe to the philosophy, just as not ALL Democrats or Republicans consciously proclaim secular or religious altruism as their ideal philosophy (most don't even know what the hell it means). There really is no point in continuing discussin of the subject until critics can distinguish between the two, the same way they make similar distinctions with other parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
About as much of an effect as Objectivists have had. Not much. Unfortunately DIM minds don't want to know.

There appears to be an irresistible compulsion for some people to continually conflate "libertarianism" with the Libertarian Party. Not all LP members subscribe to the philosophy,

What philosophy? As far as I know, libertarians take the rights of man (or the right of self-ownership) as self-evident, i.e. they take it as axiomatic and dispense with metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. What other "libertarian philosophy" is there?

There really is no point in continuing discussin of the subject until critics can distinguish between the two, the same way they make similar distinctions with other parties.
What is the distinction you wish to make and why?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most HUMAN BEINGS lack this philosophical derivation and it is BEYOND the reach of minds not receptive to reason. I'm sure Libertarians appreciate your holding them to a higher standard than the rest of the global population,
The rest of the global population is not claiming that it offers the best justification for capitalism. Surely a political party that makes such a claim can be expected to know and advance the best case for capitalism, regardless of what the rest of humanity knows.

and since you continue to reside in a nation founded on their morally indefensible principles you must find them useful for something. (I,m just assuming you live in the USA).
Gags did not say the principles were indefensible; gags said Libertarians cannot defend them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Socionomer, I won't respond to your two earlier posts because AisA has already stated virtually the same things I would have said.

Nevertheless, I wonder if you would agree with me that our situation in terms of rights and individual freedom is deteriorating at an accelerating rate in this country? In fact, many of the rights that Libertarians hold to be self-evident are being taken away at an alarming pace. If you did a survey of college seniors (America's future leaders), my guess would be that 90% of them couldn't even define what a "right" is. Why is this? I believe it's because of philosophy and/or the lack of it. There is really only one way to combat the professors and the philosophers who are dripping intellectual poison into our schools and our political debates. We must fight fire with fire, and it has to be the right kind of fire. This is why I find it so disappointing when the Libertarian party throws in the towel on philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Sometimes, I think you can find every position under the sun within the Libertarian Party, but then I'm starting to think that about the Republican Party too now (i.e. Ron Paul).

But, if there was a Democrat today preaching classical liberalism instead of social liberalism, I think you'd find a grass roots movement similar to that of Ron Paul's preaching "remember our roots".

The enemies of both parties appear to be Religion (Republicans) and the idea of "tradition" which has come to mean tradition in a Religious sense, when perhaps at one point it meant (if even only loosely) the founding principles of this country, and Fascism/Statism (Democrats) and their "progressive" ideas, which have come to mean pragmatism.

I think the parties could probably be "reformed", so that there is no need to create a 3rd party. I mean technically, IMHO we really don't even "need" 2 parties. We should just have a whole bunch of folks running for Pres, and let us pick the best - most rational/objective - one.

As for the Libs, I have only met a handful of card carrying Libertarians, and they reminded me of left-over hippies from the 60's who just want the freedom to smoke pot. They sat around and b*tched about Government all of the time, completely distrusting of everything that the Government did BECAUSE it was the government (not because of some moral bankruptcy on its part), and were generally quite bitter about the war, and war in general. They also seemed to have a special hatred for bankers and financiers...so I think their idea of "freedom" was also freedom from "economic enslavement" whatever that is supposed to mean...something tells me that not all Libertarians are like this, but I wonder how many of them are?

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged - my first exposure to Ayn Rand and this philosophy - and I felt like the book was expressing some common fundamentals with libertarianism. I have also had an interest in the libertarian movement and have looked into it some in the past. Perusing the ARI website I was somewhat surprised to find, assuming I'm understanding the messages correctly, some scathing remarks with respect to libertarian thought. I mean, sheesh, I saw a link for book entitled "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty." I went back to a libertarian website (to check my premises, heh heh :confused: ) and found this quick definition...

"While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others"

Laissez-faire goverment was also mentioned, but I've never considered libertarians to be "anarchists" by any means. Just quickly searching this forum I find the term "anarcho-libertarianism", which I assume to be synonomous with plain old "libertarian."

It all seems to me to be very similar to objectivism, so I'm wondering wherein lies the difference?

Link to post
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...