From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Philosophy & Libertarian Platform (Was Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.081224.28712@reed.edu> rseymour@reed.edu writes:
}	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.

I apologize to you if I've misconstrued you.  One common Objectivist anti-
Libertarian argument is that they plagiarized the principle that it is the
initiation of force that is impermissible.  That was the argument I was
responding to.

I agree with your argument, but don't see any critique of the Libertarian
Party following from this.  You must prove that it is necessary not only for
Libertarian Party members have such foundations for their positions, but that
they must all be consistent with Objectivism (as opposed to most of them),
and that this must be formalized either as a platform plank or some other way.

}	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.

Platforms are inanimate objects.  They have no goals.  They hold no 
philosophical positions.  Only people do.  You spoke of people, in direct
contradiction of the facts.

}	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.

Very well.  To contradict reality, as above, is to speak falsely.  This should
not require much justification, as it's rather tautological.  It's nonsensical
to claim, without sufficient reasoning, that it's necessary for a political
party to define its terms in its platform at all the levels of ethics,
epistemology, and metaphysics.  Furthermore, it's anti-pluralist and thus
illiberal in the true sense of the term to propose that a political party
must exclude any and all dissenters on such definition over and above any
bargains consistent with just principles that can be made with them.

Libertarianism is not, either, largely undefined.  David Kelley lists the
three main schools of libertarian thought: Objectivist-Randian, Lockean (such
as Robert Nozick), and utilitarian, such as Friedrich Hayek's and Ludwig
von Mises' students.  Strangely enough, all three of these groups have a
fairly similar concept of libertarianism, consent, force, fraud, etc.

Quoting Rand isn't necessary.  I know it quite well, perhaps better than some
others.


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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1796 alt.politics.bush:13692