From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:59:27 GMT
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu

In article <1992Nov5.213127.14257@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
> In article <Bx438z.3u9@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. 
> Yoder) writes:
> 
> [Binswanger comment from somebody else]
> 
> >>   "The 'libertarians'... plagarize Ayn Rand's priniciple
> >>   that no man may initiate the use of physicial force, and
> >>   treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context
> >>   absolute." (Harry Binswanger, from _The_Ayn_Rand_Lexicon, p. 254)
> 
>      "The 'mechanics' ... plagiarize the engineers' vehicle
>      design, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context
>      absolute."
> 
> >>   Anyone care to argue this one?
> 
> >Sure.  Here's the bottom line.  According to libertarianism, why is liberty
> >good?  What does it mean to be good?  They simply have no consistent answer.
> >There are lots of people who answer that liberty is a gift from God.  For
> >others, it's a subjective choice unrelated to reality.  For others it is
> >emotion, or tradition, or hedonism.  The bottom line is that there is no
> >rational justification given.  It is just an out of context conclusion, not
> >a rational conclusion based on the facts of reality.
> >
> >Saying "I feel liberty is right" carries no more weight than saying "I feel
> >liberty is wrong".
> 
> What is a political party?  Is it a philosophical movement?  NO!  The 
> Libertarian Party assumes its members have their philosophies all worked out 
> and have their own reasons for supporting the cause of liberty.  
> 
> Libertarianism is not the 'why', it's the 'how'.  This is what makes the 
> Objectivists' comments so ridiculous:  The LP does not even pretend to be
> a political movement.  It is the means to solving some very serious political
> problems.  ATTENTION, anyone who isn't sure:  There is no contradiction in
> supporting both movements.  Objectivism and Libertarianism are not meant to
> be rivals.  They are out to accomplish _different_ _things_!  If only the
> Objectivists would understand this...  Sometimes they seem like the smartest 
> people in the world; other times they seem like they're dumb as rocks.
> 
> Steve Conley
> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

	First, to some extent, we are talking about two different things here.  
On the one hand we have a libertarian philosophy/ethics, and on the other a  
Libertarian political organization. The first purports to explicate a  
groundings for action and interaction, and a basis for morality. The second  
seeks to realize a set of goals within the specific realm of the organization  
of human interaction.
	However, the two of these are inextricably bound. Once we have outlined  
an ethics to govern action, a politics is only a step in derivation away  
(though it requires the consideration of the metaphysics and epistemology upon  
which the ethics is based). And the political organization cannot realize goals  
until it decides what these goals may be and under what means they should be  
achieved.
	A political party seeks as one of the firsts tasks, to define the  
platform upon which the party basis the actions and measures it will support.  
This is a philosophy in and of itself, so we cannot disregard the need for  
philosophical consideration. What would a party be without a platform? How can  
a platform be determined without a philosophy? Unless there exists an answer to  
these questions which I don't see, then we must consider philosophy when  
speaking of the politics of Libertarianism.
	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.
	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.  
The FAQ defines a Libertarian as "a believer in liberty". No proper Objectivist  
would accept an argument based on belief. The objectivist logic holds the  
primacy of reason/rationality. All concepts and ideas of the objectivist can be  
determined by applying the method of rationality to their metaphysics and  
epistemology. But what is the metaphysics and/or epistemology of the  
Libertarian? Does the Libertarian necessarily accept the primacy of reason? It  
is the indeterminancy of these questions which bring the most doubt into the  
mind of the Objectivist when dealing with Libertarianism.

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?

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