Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarians

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, this thread has helped me understand why Objectivists hate Libertarians...but I still say that if the LP were to gain the status of a major party, it would be the lesser of however many evils.

Did you actually read the Q&A that was referenced? Another quote:

"I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency."-AR

"They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable."-AR

Again the source is ARI-Q&A on Libertarians

I think that shows that Ayn Rand stated the opposite of what you are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this thread has helped me understand why Objectivists hate Libertarians[...]

I have not seen any evidence that (all, many, most?) Objectivists hate Libertarians. Have you? If so, please cite it. If you haven't, please withdraw your statement. Perhaps, too, it would help if you defined "hate" as you are using the term and idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be a huge supporter of the Libertarian party. I considered it the lesser of three evils. I have since regretted the fact that I voted Badnarik and now everyone at school knows me as the libertarian rather than the Objectivist.

I have found that Libertarianism is simply, an entirely different philosophy and way of thinking, that coincidently happens to arrive at the same geopolitical viewpoints as Objectivism. The AR quote that Rexton gave fits the Libertarian movement perfectly:

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

they are simply a fringe movement on the same degrading philosophy that is the source of our problems. And as long as they sacrifice philosophy for votes, that is how they will remain.

The reason I will never vote for a Libertarian again is because I feel that, if this country is to change to a more Objectivist society, the change would need to be at a philosophical level before the political level. In our society of looters and moochers, they would never accept such a thing. Imagine trying to convince a nation of Jim Taggarts and Wesley Mouches that Capitalism is best. These people simply do not want to listen to reason. I'd rather transform this nation into a nation of Dagnys and Hanks, then politics would simply fall into place.

if you don't believe that, go to any Libertarian party forum and tell them you are an Objectivist. They'll immediatly write you off as a Big "L" Randian extremist who they have to prevent from "hijacking" the Libertarian party towards extremism.

That being said, I am not aprehensive towards them (it's the old "hate the act, not the person" routine,) I think of them like I think of a Republican or Democrat. I have a friend that is a hardcore neo-con Republican who considers Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the flag-waving defenders of all that is good with America. That doesn't mean I am going to stop being friends with him, because there is much I value about his friendship that we are able to overlook our political differences. So as you said, I hate Libertarianism, but not libertarians

Though truthfully, It is awful hard not to hate those little LP punks who dismiss you as a rambling Randian whenever your's and his political views don't match up exactly. This is why I have long since stopped going to most other forums, especially the political ones (besides this one, of course :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I disagree.  I'm still learning about Objectivism, and do not consider myself and Objectivist.  But I don't wish to get into this debate, b/c it will wind up with me getting banned.

Disagree with what? That Libertarians denounce Ayn Rand all the while plagiarizing her ideas? I thought that article by Bob Wallace clearly demonstrated it.

Or do you disagree that Libertarians can do the most harm to capitalism?

Because of the lack of any clear understanding and meaning of the term "capitalism" among the general public, and because of the widespread belief that Libertarians are defenders and proponents of capitalism, and that their philosophy IS the philosophy of capitalism, honest people, once they see the moral subjectivism, pragmatism and deep contradictions of Libertarianism, will (mistakenly) reject capitalism. That's the last thing we want to happen...

Like I said before, Libertarians can do most harm to capitalism as the social Darwinist did when they tried to defend capitalism on the basis of such notions as "survival of the fitest" and "law of the jungle". Those made people falsely believe that capitalism is a system of brute, ruthless, competition in which only "the strong"--i.e., the industrialists--survive.

Imagine the public discrediment of capitalism when people think that it is (allegedly) a system of moral subjectivism, of anarchy, of whim--as the Libertarians claim.

If what we need to do first and foremost is TO EDUCATE the public of the TRUTH about capitalism, then the last thing we need is to promote the wrong moral basis of capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarianism is a political philosophy the basis for which not all of its members even agree on. I consider myself a political libertarian yet find myself despising many of the people I meet who identify themselves as libertarians. Not all have the same reasons for identifying themselves as such. Many have narrow, special interests which they believe will be best served under a libertarian system of government.

It is enough for me though, that there is a consensus that individual personal and economic rights are to be protected by the government, that it is wrong to initiate or threaten the use of force or coercion against others, and that we are responsible for our own lives.

What other people's beliefs are, or how they conduct their lives is their choice. Tolerance of others is expected (in the context of using coercion to alter behavior that is not a threat to others) but other forms of persuasion are permitted to effect positive (or negative) changes in society.

The two major parties both implicity endorse and actively serve to violate individual rights and so I cannot in good conscience support candidates of either party (with few exceptions). Neither of the main parties have more of a coherent philosophical justification for their policies than the libertarians do. The difference to me is that both of them force their policies on us at the expense of individual rights. That is more evil in my view than any mistaken philosophical ideals some libertarians may possess but are incapable of forcing on people. I can defend myself again pernicious ideas, but not against a metal jacketed bullet that democrats and republicans are willing to use under various circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this thread has helped me understand why Objectivists hate Libertarians...but I still say that if the LP were to gain the status of a major party, it would be the lesser of however many evils.

If the LP were less evil, they might gain the status of a major party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The act might be an honest mistake.

Absolutely true. But watch such people. If they are honest -- which means they face the facts of reality -- they won't last long. They will move on.

I was an LP member -- county, state, and national (and even the international organization!) -- for several years. I finally begin to get a glimmer something was wrong and moved out.

What Gail Wynand was doing was wrong, and Howard Roark knew it, but respected the man. Wynand eventually saw the facts and understood. He began making changes rather than evade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the act is caused by the person. You cannot separate them!

I, for one, am a student of Objectivism who hates Libertarians as well as Libertarianism.

yeah, but that would mean I would have to hate my father, sister, friends, etc, which I do not. If I only chose my friends on the basis of wether or not they have the same philosophy of me, I suspect I would not have too many friends (not to many Objectivists where I'm from.) My roommate is a Jehova's witness, but he is one of the most rational people I know (strange, isn't it?)

There are some libertarians whose neck I would love to wring, but no more or less than any other philosophical group. My mother is religious, but that doesn't mean I write off everything she says as the ramblings of an irrational worshipper of mysticism. Then again, whenever I turn on my Television and see John Haiggie's highway robbery, I find myself subconsciously cracking my knuckles :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another note about the Libertarian Party, a few elections ago, they almost had Howard Stern run on the Libertarian Party ticket for Governor of NY. The party obviously has strictly political ambitions (and please don't try to defend Howard Stern).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusingly, I just had a conversation a few days ago with a Socialist. Not a hard line Marxist, more of a Nader-ite (which is to communism what libertarianism is to Objectivism) and I found that we had remarkably similar views metaphysically, in fact, almost identical views metaphysically. Things broke down when we started discussing Ethics and Epistemology, but I thought it was funny that I have more in common philosophically with a socialist than I do with most libertarians.

Usually with Libertarians, the extent of their philosophy is "I have a right to do with my body whatever I want with it." When asked why. they say "because it's mine" Try to think of it as a completely different philosophy that coincidently arrives at similar conclusions as Objectivists.

I forget what the exact Ayn Rand quote was, but it was something along the lines of "I promote Capitalism because I promote egoism, but I promote egoism because I promote reason" (If someone has the proper quote, I would be happy.) Remember, Reason is the foundation of Objectivism. Capitalism is more like the roof, essential when building a house, but is not what the edifice is structured around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarian philosophy is based on a couple of premises - individual ownership (ourselves and private property) and what is sometimes referred to as the NAP (non-agression principle), which states that one does not have the right to initiate force against another person, but we have the absolute right to use any means to defend ourselves against the initiation of force. Another Libertarian premise is that while we do indeed have complete control and ownership of our bodies, we also accept the responsibility of the choices we make and the resultant consequences thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One common motiff among Libertarians I see is that they see Government as intrinsically evil, like a giant rapid dog that happens to be your only means of protection.

In the eyes of Libertarians, they feel the reason 9/11 happened in the first place was because of our very extensive interventionist policies in the middle east, or what they call "sticking our noses in places it doesn't belong."

They didn't see the 9/11 attacks so much as an attack by Islamists as they saw it as a retaliation against our government.

that's the impression I get, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Usually with Libertarians, the extent of their philosophy is "I have a right to do with my body whatever I want with it." When asked why. they say "because it's mine" Try to think of it as a completely different philosophy that coincidently arrives at similar conclusions as Objectivists. 

Libertarian philosophy is based on a couple of premises - individual ownership (ourselves and private property) and what is sometimes referred to as the NAP (non-agression principle), which states that one does not have the right to initiate force against another person, but we have the absolute right to use any means to defend ourselves against the initiation of force. Another Libertarian premise is that while we do indeed have complete control and ownership of our bodies, we also accept the responsibility of the choices we make and the resultant consequences thereof.

In the VOR I think it is Peter Schwartz's essay Libertatianism: The Perversion of Liberty which explains that Libertarianism is itself anti-philosophy by it's nature. It is concrete bound and merely an umbrella political agenda which seeks only the annihilation of limitations of any kind, which means the annihilation of philosophy itself, of values and of reason. I have no direct quotes but I reccomend if anyone has questions on the issue reading that article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Edward J Williamson wrote:

Why not, according to Libertarian philosophy?

Fair enough question. Because the person you initiate force against also is the sole owner and arbitrator of his own body and property as are you yourself. Now, if he endangers you in anyway than you have the absolute right and even duty to protect yourself and your property with as much force as possible and by any means at your disposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If so, why do Libertarians condemn the war against Islamists?

You asked a good question.

Libertarians generally supported the retaliation against Bin Laden and their Taliban co-conspirators. We also wonder why, in the face of growing terrorism, our airline pilots and flight crews are/were unarmed, making possible the conditions to which those airliners could be hijacked. Even to this day a the majority of airlines in our nation still fly with unarmed pilots, or armed ones that are hamstrung by ridiculous restrictions and conditions. Yet Libertarians are accused of not wanting to protect America? Absurd!

As to Iraq, they posed no credible threat to the United States either militarily, economically, nor have they attacked our shores or our ships on the high seas. To top it all off, we are not even trying to win the war in Iraq. Our government is hell bent on fighting a 'politically correct' war, and that will never work.

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...