From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:41:11 GMT
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu

In article <37515@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F.  
Hranicky) writes:
> >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.  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.
> >
> >Anyone else?
> 
> I've read a pamphlet by Peter Schwartz called "Libertarianism: The Perversion
> of Liberty." He has some good points with regards to unilateral disarmament,
> the Libertarian legal system, some Libs' support of NAMBLA, and the fact
> that the party contains so many self-contradictory viewpoints (anarchists,
> non-anarchists, etx.) They say that Libertarianism has degenerated into
> irrationality. Well, I don't personally know many Libertarians, but the
> one I do know was kind of suprised about the pamphlet. I wonder if some
> of the pamphlet' views weren't taken out of context, but again, Schwartz had 
> some good points. I urge Libertarians to check it out. It's avaiable from
> Second Renaissance Books.
> 
> As far as Objectivism goes, I agree with some of it. The biggest problem
> I have is that Objectivism, supposedly a philosophy based on individualism,
> seems to require that its followers stamp out their own individuality and
> agree with everything Rand ever said. Hmmm, I don't think so. IMHO, 
> Objectivism's best points are as follows:

	It is a serious misconception that a follower of Objectivism must agree  
with everything Ayn Rand ever said. I consider myself an Objectivist, but I  
have some differences with things Rand has stated. I accept the premises of  
Objectivism, but differ in a few of the conclusions drawn from these premises.
	One of the primary principles of Objectivism is that each person must  
choose their own philosophy, and cannot just accept what another has stated.  
The point of Objectivism is the philosphical premises, and the process of  
reason (read _Philosphy:_Who_Needs_It_ for more on this). If one accepts Rand's  
statements without using this process they are clearly not an Objectivist.

> 1) People's underlying philosophies are extremely important in determining
>    their actions.
> 
> 2) Objectivist epistomology.
> 
> 3) Objectivity in politics and law.
> 
> 4) Emphasis on reason and egoism.
> 
> 5) Defense of capitalism.
> 
> One other problem I have with Objectivists is that they treat rationality
> as an absolute--either you think or you don't. I think it's more a
> question of degree--how much thought one put's into an idea or action.
> In other words, rationality and irrationality should be thought of
> as long-sighted and short-sighted. Also, they seem to think that free will
> is cognitive self-regulation--i.e. you either choose to focus on something
> or not. If you are not forcing yourself to think about or do somthing, you
> are not thinking and you're not focused on anything. Once again, I don't 
> think so. If I'm not forcing myself to think about one thing, it merely means 
> I'm thinking about something else--not that I'm not thinking about anything 
> at all.
> The only time I can't focus on anything is when I'm dead tired.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 
> Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

	This is an area of Objectivism that was never clearly dealt with  
(though I haven't read all the literature yet, so it may be that I haven't  
encountered the argument). If I understand your pardigm right, rationality  
should be though of as a continum, with pure rationality and pure irrationality  
at opposite ends. Thus, any process can be thought of as taking place at some  
point along this scale, based upon to what degree rationality is presiding in  
the thought process.
	The process of rationality is one which brings about necessary  
conclusions. When I use reason to understand a certain scenario, I can only  
arrive at one conclusion, no matter how many times I think about, or how much  
focus is devoted to the process. I may not focus properly, and arrive at  
another conclusion, but then I wouldn't have used reason. 
	Reason is a process which takes in initial conditions and returns a  
conclusion. Logic is immutable in that it has predefined laws which conclude  
necessarily correct or incorrect conclusion. Given "P" and "if P then Q", logic  
necessarily concludes Q (Modus Pollendo Ponens); any other conclusion would to  
use a method other than logic.
	You can choose to use logic or to not use logic, but it is impossible  
to partially use logic (unless looking at multiple situations, in which logic  
is used in some and not in others, but this is not what we are considering).  
Reason is the process of applying logic to the situations we encounter  
everyday. Thus, reason is likewise binary; it can be used or not used, but not  
inbetween. This is incompatible with the scenario of the continuum, so I reject  
that paradigm.

--
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