From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:29:50 GMT

In article <Bx42FD.3s9@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}there are folks out there
}who consider libertarianism compatible with objectivism.  I think that anyone 
}with such an opinion must either be naive or intellectually dishonest.

We think you're either naive or dishonest, too.  Shall we find a neutral
third party to settle the dispute through arbitration?

}Who typically forget her arguments and latch on to her conclusions and her
}eloquence.

Who tend to have a better grasp of such arguments of Rand's as the one she gave
when she defended Rehnquist from attacks for speaking to the John Birch Society,
which arguments Pope Lenny and his flock ignore when they condemn Kelley for
speaking to Libertarians.

}>In my opionion Objectivists (followers of Rand's philosophy) are libertarians.
}
}I suppose that depends on your definition of "libertarian".  Objectivists ARE
}(small-L) "libertarians", but very much disagree with the libertarian party's
}ideas.  Why quibble over words though?  Objectivists want to make sure that 
}there is nobody out there mistakes libertarianism for objectivism.  They are
}very much opposed philospp[hically for reasons I will get into later.

Which platform planks do you object to?  If you can name more than three, I'll
be surprised.

}>However, many would reject that classification (other wouldn't).  Many
}>Objectivists (O) think all L's are anarchist.  
}
}That is not quite true.  One of the objectivist objections to libertarianism
}is that anarchy is consistent with libertarianism, and that anarchism is
}the central principle of libertarianism.  That is not the same as saying that
}all libertarians are anarchists.  I suppose a good analogy would be that 
}the central principle of the Democratic party is socialism even though it is
}certainly not true that all democrats are socialists.  Likewise, even though
}objectivists agree with democrats that abortion ought to be legal, we don't
}call ourselves democrats and would never support the democratic party in
}general.
}
}>They don't like anarchy, so
}>they don't like L-ism.  
}
}In much the same way as we don't like socialism and therefore don't like 
}the democrats.

Despite the fact that all Objectivist arguments against anarchism on moral
grounds have failed miserably for decades, unlike the arguments against
socialism.

Note the omission of the fascism of the Republicans which have historically
gotten the endorsement of Pope Lenny and his flock.  How significant.

}>This dispite the fact that many L's are NOT anarchists.
}
}Of course we know that not all libertarians are explicit anarchists, just like
}we know that not all democrats are socialists, but we don't like them either.

But Pope Lenny the First endorsed Clinton, last time be endorsed Bush... how
consistenly principled!

}>If you read some of the recent works by the O's, you will see them denouncing
}>L's, both specifically (like Murray Rothbard) and in general.  These people
}>seem to follow Rand religiously.  
}
}Oh come off it.  If you have read Rand you know that kind of approach to
}knowledge is the opposite of what she taught, and if you have met many
}real objectivists I doubt you would have such an opinion.  Actually,
}one of the objections objectivists have to the libertarians is that 
}libertarianism doesn't come along with a philosophy that justifies it.
}There are plenty of people who explicitly adopt libertarianism on the basis
}of religion.  A libertarian claiming that objectivists adopt objectivism
}"religiously" is a case of hte pot calling the snow black.

Shall I name names of Objectivists who follow it religiously, starting with
Pope Lenny?  Schwartz, whose ravings have led to him being de-emphasized for
PR reasons, plus many other anecdotes?  At least religious libertarians don't
claim to be otherwise in my experience.

}>I (and I think other L's) prefer to take
}>Nathanial Brandon's tact that there is some stuff good in her philisophy and
}>some stuff bad.
}
}Indeed they do, but they don't seem to be able to form any decent arguments
}against the "bad" stuff.  Each of the "yeah-but" objectivists like Branden
}seems to have a little different objection, but they don;t seem to be
}able to reformulate anything else that makes sense.  The fact is that Rand's
}philosophy is very interconnected and if you remove one point, you have a heck
}of a hard time explaining why everything else doesn't fall apart as a result.

Bullshit.  Give us one argument of Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" that you
think fails.  Or one of Brandens, either of them.  Or of George Smith's.

}Unfortunately, I have found that a lot of people become libertarians because
}they hate "authority" and since Rand is an authority of sorts, they can't
}help but rebel on the principle that only zombies can agree with anyone.
}I'm sure you have met people like that if you have been around libertarians
}for long.  They are typically also against religion and government for the
}same reasons.

I've been around for a few years, now, but haven't met anyone like that in
person, although I've heard some unsubstantiated stories.  Frankly, most of
the libertarians I know are essentially Objectivist, with the rest being
utilitarians along the lines of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

How about some specific cases?  This sounds too much like a Nazi saying that
there may be some good Jews in particular, but in general, they're...  Let's
have some evidence entered into the record, here.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire