From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Subject: Philosophy & Libertarian Platform (Was Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu

In article <1992Nov6.103655.29791@genie.slhs.udel.edu>  
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.075927.16770@reed.edu> rseymour@reed.edu writes:
> }	The main line of the Objectivist argument to Libertarianism is not that  
> they use the methods and knowledge of others, as does the mechanic, but that  
> }they do not seek to define the reasons for using these methods. Mechanics do  
> }not seek to plaiguarize and engineers design. To plaigarize is to take  
credit  
> }for another's work without proper reference. A mechanic does not claim to  
have  
> }created the vehicle's design, but seeks to improve, refine, and restore the  
> }actual vehicle to the concept upon which it is based.
> 
> Plagiarism?  Nonsense.  Rand didn't even have priority on the non-initiation
> of force.  Auberon Herbert did.  Did she plagiarize Herbert?
> 
>Furthermore, what political party has ever gone into ethics, epistemology, and
> metaphysics in explaining its position?

	I don't see where I stated that Rand had priority on these things. I am  
only arguing that the mechanic does not plagiarize the engineer as the original  
post requested. Ayn Rand did not purport to have a monopoly on these ideas.
	Second, that no political party has explained its platform on proper  
philosophical terms is in no way an argument against the need to do this. Many  
Libertarian ideals have not been realized, is this an argument that they should  
never be? If you want to argue against what I said, refute the conclusion that  
a proper philosophy is necessary for a political platform, or that the  
reasoning of the argument is invalid. Here is the argument: 
	It is necessary for a political party to have a platform. A party seeks  
to realize a certain type of political atmosphere, and cannot be properly  
defined without stating its goals in a clear manner. To do otherwise would  
prevent a voter from understanding the nature of the party and making a proper  
choice in which party to support.
	A party platform is a set of concepts and objectives which define the  
politics and interaction of persons under the leadership of this party. I mean  
this in the sense that the platform outlines what the party would do if in  
power. In the case of the Libertarian party, these goals and concepts are the  
recognition of personal liberty, and the realization of the implication which  
follow from this premise.
	In order to define the platform, which is a politics (in the  
philosophical sense; that is a guidline for the interaction between persons),  
it is necessary to first have an ethics. An ethics is a philosophy of action,  
i.e. how should one act? Without defining how one should act, it is impossible  
to properly define how one should interact.
	To create an ethics (or adopt a prexisting one by a rational process),  
one must have both a metaphysics and an epistemology. How can we define how we  
should act without first understanding what we are responsible for; what can we  
know; how we are able to hold knowledge; what can we change; etc. These  
questions are exactly metaphysics and epistemology.
	Therefore, we must have a proper philosophy (a politics, ethics,  
epistemology, and metaphysics; which is just that: philosophy [with the  
possible exception of esthetics, but that is not important to the argument at  
hand]) to have a political party. If we do not do this, we are leaving our  
goals undefined, our supporters disillusioned, and our lives relenquished to  
speculating on what people really mean.

> }	Unlike this, the Libertarian does not seek to improve, refine, or  
> }restore the ideas and arguments of the Objectivist. The Libertarian merely  
> }asserts that liberty should be exercised through individual choice and 
> }freedom.  
> 
> Nonsense.  Libertarians do seek to improve, refine, and restore Objec-
> tivist ideas and arguments.  Are you completely ignorant of the work of
> contemporary libertarian political philosophers?

	I am not terribly familiar with "contemporary libertarian political  
philosophers", but that is not the point I'm making here. The second reply in  
this chain of arguments was about a political party and the platform upon which  
it rests, thus I directed my arguments to this concept. The Libertarian  
platform does assert liberty as its objective without reason or backing.

> }P.S.	How are Objectivists dumb as rocks? How are Objectivist comments  
> }	ridiculous? What is a political party if not the actualization of a  
> }	philosophical theory? You assert and assert, but do you really say  
> }	anything? I thought the point was to *argue* the statement on	 
> }	mechanics?
> 
> They're obtuse in advancing such false, nonsensical, and silly objections
> to Libertarian politics.  That's how.  You should be able to draw your
> own conclusions about the rest.
>  
> Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

	Well its nice of you to assert some more, but care to argue these  
points? I obviously don't follow your conclusions, so elucidating a little on  
the matter at hand would help a lot. This is just the point I am making against  
Libertarianism, what is it? The Objectivist accepts nothing on faith or  
authority, so without a full definition of what exactly Libertarianism is, an  
Objectivist will never accept it. This is the heart of the matter, that  
Libertarianism is largely undefined.


Philosophy: who needs it? Ayn Rand's answer: everyone.

	"I will list these essentials for your future reference. But do not  
attempt the shorcut of accepting them on faith (or as semi-grasped  
approximations and floating abstractions). That would be a fundamental  
contradiction and it would not work.
	"The essentials are: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity-in  
epistemolgy, the supremacy of reason-in ethics, rational egoism-in politics,  
individual rights (i.e. capitolism)-in esthetics, metaphysical values.
	"If you reach the day when these essentials become your absolutes, you  
will have entered Atlantis-at least psychologically; which is a precondition of  
the possibility ever to enter it existentially."

					Ayn Rand from Philosophical Detection
					reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It

--
Robert Seymour				rseymour@reed.edu
Departments of Physics and Philosophy
Artificial Life Project			Reed College
Reed Solar Energy Project (SolTrain)	Portland, OR
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian