Peikoff on working with libertarians

Political Philosophy
61

Here is the LP statement of principles from their official platform:

If you read that platform, you find that they just oppose the political enforcement of altruism, not altruism itself as is evident by the quote you provided:

People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.

The generous interpretation of this quote is simply that they are indifferent to whether people are selfish or altruistic, and just want govenrment out of the “altruism” business, but there is nothing that denounces altruism in that quote. If they took the “be forced to” out of there, id agree with them.

Compare it to : “People should not be forced to refrain from sacrificing their lives and property for the benefit of others.”

I agree with this statement, but it doesnt make me an altruist nor selfish. Similarily, the quote from their platform does not either. It’s just a political statement, that either is grounded on principle or not.

“Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.”

Yes, but that does not mean that they are selfish. Also, note the last sentence, where their subjective ethics lifts its ugly head. I most certainly either “approve” or “disapprove” every choice an individual makes, and on their part its just a cop out so that they can bring the biggest amount of “liberty lovers” to their party without making any judgement on anything.

I see where you are coming from and I think this particular article was poorly worded. However, as you can see they clearly don’t support altruism.

Well, that article clearly did. The LP may or may not, because they have so many conflicting ideas that it’s difficult to make the distinction, but that article was clearly altruistic by nature.

62

If you read that platform, you find that they just oppose the political enforcement of altruism, not altruism itself as is evident by the quote you provided:

The generous interpretation of this quote is simply that they are indifferent to whether people are selfish or altruistic, and just want govenrment out of the “altruism” business, but there is nothing that denounces altruism in that quote. If they took the “be forced to” out of there, id agree with them.

I agree. However, as I said earlier you have to remember the LP is a political party and not a philosophy. They believe that individuals should be able to live what ever philosophy and moral standards they see fit so long as it does not harm or interfere with other individuals rights or property. The LP is looking for the right to live your right as you see fit. Its up to the individual to choose what morals they decide by themselves rather then the government making that choice for them. The LP mission is not to tell people how to live but rather let the individual makes that choice for themselves.

Well, that article clearly did. The LP may or may not, because they have so many conflicting ideas that it’s difficult to make the distinction, but that article was clearly altruistic by nature.

Which is exactly why the LP needs Objectivist like yourself to help make this distinction. I would have no problem with altruist in the LP so long as they understand that their self sacrificing morality is not the proper function of government (although many altruist are not going to take that view which is why there are few in the LP) .

The LP makes no official stance on altruism because its not their fight. This is a debate that should be done through philosophy with private individuals and organizations. The LP merely takes the teeth out of the liberals and altruist by removing the force out of their policy. It should be the job of organizations like the ARI to fight the moral battle of altruism. The LP and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of rights of the individual to be entitled to the rewards of their own work. Where the two must separate is where as you can not force a person to be productive or live for himself you can only give him the opportunity.

63

The LP merely takes the teeth out of the liberals and altruist by removing the force out of their policy. It should be the job of organizations like the ARI to fight the moral battle of altruism. The LP and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of rights of the individual to be entitled to the rewards of their own work.

No, the LP takes the teeth out of individual rights and capitalism, and arms the liberals and altruists, because they offer no justification for individual rights and actually try to pamper to the latter(altruists) in their statements to get them to become libertarians. You cant start in the middle/end, and then figure out the start. The LP and Objectivism dont go well together, and even though you could say that both in a very broad sense “spout the importance” of capitalism, it begs the question, importance by what standard, and importance to whom. If the reasons for this “importance” differs, there is nothing that combines us.

It’s like saying that the KKK and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of not forcing companies to hire minorities.

I mean, a simple “why?” is enough to refute the libertarians claims that capitalism, individual rights and liberty are important.

64

However, as I said earlier you have to remember the LP is a political party and not a philosophy.

Yes, and as a political party, the LP has been remarkably unsuccessful over the years. As a practical matter, actively supporting and participating in the LP has proven to be a waste of time and money. Given that the two major parties control the political process in this country, one can be far more successful in achieving political goals through either of those parties than will ever be possible through the LP. Take for example, Ron Paul’s recent run for the Presidency. Even though he lost the Republican primary, Mr. Paul had a far greater impact on setting the agenda than he ever would have had if he had run as a Libertarian. Whoever coined the term “Losertarians” wasn’t too far off the mark.

65

No, the LP takes the teeth out of individual rights and capitalism, and arms the liberals and altruists, because they offer no justification for individual rights and actually try to pamper to the latter(altruists) in their statements to get them to become libertarians. You cant start in the middle/end, and then figure out the start. The LP and Objectivism dont go well together, and even though you could say that both in a very broad sense “spout the importance” of capitalism, it begs the question, importance by what standard, and importance to whom. If the reasons for this “importance” differs, there is nothing that combines us.

It’s like saying that the KKK and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of not forcing companies to hire minorities.

I mean, a simple “why?” is enough to refute the libertarians claims that capitalism, individual rights and liberty are important.

The KKK does not spout individual liberties, also again the KKK is a theological movement not a political party looking to protect individual rights. Jon Galt mentioned in his speech that:

“The only proper purpose of a government is to protect mans rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.” " The only proper functions of government are: the police to protect you from criminals, the army to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes bu rational rules, according to objective law."

The role of government is not to give you a sense of life. It is not the governments job combat altruistic ideals. This is up to the individual. As long as the LP promotes: “People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.” . That’s all that is important to me. I care not if someone is an altruist, they can live their own lives however they see fit. So long as they recognize my right as an individual to do the same is all that does matter to me. I don’t believe its the proper role to warn individuals about altruism or give them a sense of life. This is the job of philosophy.

The LP takes the teeth out of altruism because with the other parties they wish to put their ideas into law and force me to participate. That the proper role of government is to take care of its people like a giant sheep herder. Once you take this idea out of government the altruist and their like are forced to carry out their ideas through voluntary means and their own money. Once they lose their force from the government who cares what they do.

The only thing that matter to me so far as the LP is concerned is that they continue to protect individuals rights from others and promote free trade. What the individual libertarians believe about anything else don’t make any difference to me so long as they recognize my right to exist for myself. If a day comes were they no longer support these ideals, they will lose my support. But until then I will support any party that believes I have the right to exist for myself.

66

Yes, and as a political party, the LP has been remarkably unsuccessful over the years. As a practical matter, actively supporting and participating in the LP has proven to be a waste of time and money. Given that the two major parties control the political process in this country, one can be far more successful in achieving political goals through either of those parties than will ever be possible through the LP. Take for example, Ron Paul’s recent run for the Presidency. Even though he lost the Republican primary, Mr. Paul had a far greater impact on setting the agenda than he ever would have had if he had run as a Libertarian. Whoever coined the term “Losertarians” wasn’t too far off the mark.

Doesn’t matter I’m not going to vote for the current two party system just because their currently successful. If you think these zebra are going to change their stripes anytime soon think again. Unfortunately we are not going to wake up tomorrow and have all the Dems overnight decided that maybe Keynes and Marx were wrong or that the Republicans all of sudden will think ‘maybe religon has no role in government’.

Political parties come and political parties go. The LP is still a new party. Its not going to achieve success right away. I believe more and more of the moderate republicans will abandon their party and move to the LP which holds a lot of their values without all the theology. The RP has became so discredited that just saying their name in most circles sounds like a punch line. Futher more I have complete faith that the liberals in the DP will screw up the county enough that they will lose most of the independants. This is already starting to happen:Poll:Independents reject Obama, agree with Libertarian Party Polling shows independents aren’t buying Obama’s promises of prosperity through Big Government

Most successful parties come out of some crisis or another. I think that the current economic situation may be enough to shake the county up enough for the LP to take the reigns.

67

I think that the current economic situation may be enough to shake the county up enough for the LP to take the reigns.

No economic situation could ever do that.

The good about having a philosophical framework to understand life, the universe, and everything is that it comes with a theory of history. Once upon a time the U.S. abolitionist movement toiled in futility for decades and then overnight the abolitionists had their own political party. That wasn’t due to economics.