[i see that, in the time it’s taken me to write this several others have posted–only the one response by Inspector was here when I started. So I’ll go on and post this and then read the others to see if I have anything else to add. :lol:]
Hello. : )
First things first; I am a minarchist and supporter of the Libertarian Party, I believe the best government is a small government, the free market > government regulation, and that all rights are derived from private property.
Many of us (meaning, members of this forum and other, mostly younger Objectivists) started out as libertarians. Objectivists also believe in limited government, and unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. For a brief but very good statement of Ayn Rand’s theory of rights, I recommend chapters 12 and 14 from The Virtue of Selfishness, titled “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government.” These can be read on their own, as they were originally published as separate essays. Private property is certainly an indispensable right, but Ayn Rand’s position (like Locke, but better explained) is that all rights are derived from man’s ability to reason. It wouldn’t make much sense to derive all rights from private property, since private property is itself a right. Is the right to private property also supposed to be derived from private property? If not, from whence does it derive?
The LP is a big tent (for a third party anyway), and everyone has their own ideas and dissenting opinions. In the realm of libertarianism, or at least, the realm of anti-government sentiments there is a diversity of anarchists, capitalists, classic liberals, true conservatives, isolationists, etc.
Yes, that’s what I would mean if I were to say Libertarianism is unprincipled. It means there are no unified, grounded, thoroughly formulated principles which unite Libertarianism into a political philosophy. Anyone who wants to claim they advocate liberty is included, with liberty being left undefined. It’s conceivable (if uncommon) that some particular libertarian might be principled, but that’s different from saying libertarian_ism_ is principled.
But it seems you can’t swim these waters too long without encountering the Ayn Rand crowd. I have been told that much of the support for and conversion to the LP comes from a single book; Atlas Shrugged.
Yes, it’s a long book. But it’s oh-so worth the read! By the end, you’ll wish it wasn’t over yet. Luckily, she has other great books, too. Well, only read it if you like interesting stories with mystery, suspense, romance, beautiful descriptions of larger than life people, places, and events, and challenging insights into philosophy and human nature and relationships. Otherwise, you might be bored. ; )
My discovery was that this philosophy is very unique, it seems to be an all-encompassing ideology that covers politics, ethics, religion, etc.
Correct.
With the issue of political thought it appears that there is virtually no difference between objectivist politics and libertarianism.
There are often similarities, but Objectivism has a principled approach to politics that’s integrated with the whole philosophy. Libertarianism starts with politics, which is not a philosophical primary, and so it often unsubstantiated in its claims and assumptions. Many Libertarians advocate things that are the antithesis of Objectivist political philosophy, such as collectivism (e.g. anarchism), suicidal pacifism, and, in various ways depriving the government of its ability to uphold its one legitimate function: protecting individual rights.
But further probing reveals heavy criticism of libertarians from the Ayn Rand podium, why? The main criticism is that libertarians are devoid of principles… obviously I disagree, but I found this accusation strange.
Well, if you want some specific criticisms from Ayn Rand, there is a selection of quotes from her at the Ayn Rand Institute’s website here. Besides the myriad of philosophical disagreements Ayn Rand had with libertarians, it didn’t help things that many of the early leaders of the Libertarian movement would come out with the most horrendous and ridiculously unfounded criticisms of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, while at the same time plagiarizing much of her work, without giving her any credit.
a. Selfishness is a virtue.
True. Sometimes we’ll call it “rational self interest” to distinguish it from the type of self destructive behavior that is often fallaciously referred to as selfish, by those who don’t know better and those who should.
b. Altruism is evil.
True. Altruism is the sacrifice of self to others. Sacrifice is trading a higher value for a lower value or non-value. Objectivism rejects all ethical codes which require sacrificial victims. An Objectivist trades values for values, neither sacrificing others to himself or himself to others.
c. The ego should be fed.
What does this mean? I’ve never heard those terms spoken by an Objectivist, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Ego means self. What does it mean to feed one’s ego? Nourish and improve one’s self? I could go with that. But maybe you mean something else.
In fact, I was labeled as an “enemy to capitalism” by an Ayn Randian on another forum because I made it known that I both advocate capitalism and practice altruism, preferring private charity over state welfare.
Just FYI, Ayn Rand specifically came up with the term “Objectivist” because she hated the term “Randist,” that some of her followers were beginning to adopt at the time. As she stated in The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1 No. 1, “I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name.” So if you ever sense hostility from an Objectivist if you use the term “Randian,” that’s why: knowing her position on the issue, some of AR’s less mature opponents intentionally use the term “Randian” derisively.
I like libertarianism because it places a heave emphasis on choice, I will fight the death my right and anyone else’s right to choose, this includes the choice to be a selfish egotistical bastard. However, I will on my own time exercise the right to be selfless and charitable, in search of enlightenment, as a part of my pursuit of happiness. In objectivism though, my fight accounts for nothing because I am seen as an evil altruistic leech. (As John Galt described it).
I’ll fight to the death for your right to choose to be a self-sacrificing altruist, as long as you don’t force the obligation on me, or violate anyone’s rights in doing it. The right to act on your own judgment is as indispensable as property rights. And it is possible for it to be in a person’s self interest to invest in some particular charity, if it is for a worthy cause that is a legitimate value for the person. If you only want to sacrifice yourself and no one else, I doubt a serious advocate of Objectivism would call you a “leech,” because in that case it seems you are the one who is being leeched, not the one doing the leeching. But, he might legitimately accuse you of willingly feeding the leeches, and allowing them to survive and claim more victims.
But to discredit compassion entirely… well I don’t think I will be converting to objectivism any time soon.
How are you defining “compassion”? Compassion can be perfectly selfish as long as it’s directed at those who deserve compassion, and not merely those who “need” it, but haven’t done anything to earn it.
But I am not completely closed to it, I am not any more discouraged to read Atlas Shrugged (or watch the movie cause’ I’m lazy) or any of Rand’s other works, but I will do so with healthy skepticism.
Well, there’s not a movie for Atlas Shrugged yet, although one is supposedly in the works. There is one for The Fountainhead, that’s okay as long as you haven’t already read the book (to which it doesn’t compare, though she did write the screenplay and have some limited control over the making of it). The Fountainhead movie was actually my first encounter with Ayn Rand, and it was enough to make me very interested in her.
- Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?
I think Ayn Rand put it best in the September 1971 issue of The Objectivist: “…I shall say that I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” I promote selfishness and greed, because I promote life and happiness on earth, and those, properly defined and understood, are the means to obtaining them.
- If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as “what is our purpose?”, “what is the answer to ‘life, the universe and everything?’ (as Douglas Adams put it)”, etc.
Religion is undesirable because faith is undesirable. “Spirituality” isn’t necessarily undesirable, but an Objectivist would mean by that something like “that which pertains to consciousness.” What makes you so sure that we share a common purpose? The answers to “life” are to be found in ethics, “the universe” to be found in metaphysics, and “everything” to be found in philosophy, which consists of five major branches: metaphysics–the study of the fundamental nature of existence, epistemology–the study of the nature and validity of knowledge, ethics–the study of the proper moral code by which to guide one’s actions, politics–the study of proper government, and aesthetics–the study of art. Metaphysics and epistemology are the most fundamental branches, from which ethics is derived, and from those three are derived politics and aesthetics.
>>5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?>>Like all religions, I view them as a primitive attempt at philosophy, or an early attempt for people to formulate a comprehensive view of the universe. For the most part, the conclusions of Eastern religion is blatantly and sometimes even proudly irrational and mystical. But they didn’t get it all wrong, and there are some wise proverbs and principles that you can dig up, just like with most other religions. But, the religious elements are unnecessary and have no place in the modern world, in my opinion, other than as a way to understand history and the development of thought in various cultures.
>>Thank you for your time.>> It wasn’t a sacrifice. I enjoyed it! :pimp: :lol: Happy New Years.
