From: timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Re: Philosophy & Libertarian Platform (Was Re: Objectivism...) 
Organization: The Gifted and The Damned
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 02:52:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Summary: accept Rand as your personal savior, and accept nothing on faith
Keywords: it's in there


Va negvpyr <1992Nov7.081224.28712@reed.edu> rseymour@reed.edu jevgrf:
} [...]
} 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.

no, it is not.  and i would in fact say that the Libertarian Party is
perhaps the only practicing ideological party which is truly based on
its philosophical underpinnings.  (the two Socialist parties and the
Communist Party would fit here, but don't appear active in politics
anymore.  and the Green Party, which is just beginning to become active,
seems to me to have a basically socialist agenda with just a bit of
environmentalism thrown in for flavoring--they're all over the map,
instead of having a single defining characteristic...)

} 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.

okay.

} 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.

granted.  the defense submits the 1992 National Platform of the Libertarian
Party as Exhibit A.

} 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.

it seems to me that your argument hinges on your (unsubstantiated) claim
that the goals and concepts of the Libertarian Party are unclear and/or
ill-defined.  the prosecution has failed to establish any such thing.  i'm
still waiting.

} 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.

first off, this is just a warmed over tautology.  your assertion that we
must have a rigorous philosophy is as much an article of faith as the
notion that we must have liberty.  saying that "we must know how to act
because we must know how to act" is quite true.  but it doesn't do much
to further a cogent argument.

secondly, i would say that the platform does indeed provide a guideline
for the interaction between persons.  to wit:

liberty is defined as a person's right to engage in any activity
that is peaceful and honest.  a peaceful activity would be any which
doesn't initiate force against another.  an honest one is free of
fraud.  this liberty presupposes that the individual is a sovereign
entity, and that those acting collectively are not granted any moral
exemptions in terms of the use of coercion, force, fraud, or whatever.

so what, exactly, is your indictment?

} To create an ethics (or adopt a prexisting one by a rational process),  

(such as adopting your hyper-rational Objectivist philosophy???  ;^)

} 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.

one must do no such thing.  billions of people go about their lives every
day with a clear idea of how they will act.  and very few of them base
their actions on some scholarly understanding of metaphysics or with an
extensive epistemological groundwork.

the essence of libertarian morality is that you can act in any way you
damn well please--as long as you do not threaten the life, limb, or
property of another.  the philosophy is simple, direct, and well-defined.
(to my thinking anyways)

now, if you want to ask *why* liberty is a ``good'' thing, then that's
fine.  the answer will ultimately boil down to "because it is".  as will
the inevitable axioms of Objectivist--or any other--philosophy.

} 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.

the philosophy is there.  i call it "proper" and you do not.  fair enough.

but your argument holds no water.  your tautology is followed by your
axiom which leads to your conclusion.  it's fallacious and bogus.

the defense rests.

-timr

ps.

} 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.

yes, except we've indeed done did it.

the rational libertarian sees the goals as they are laid out in the party's
platform.  they understand what is meant by the word ``liberty''.  and they
are disillusioned, not due to some question as to the logic of their morality,
but because Marrou got so few damn votes.

} The Libertarian platform does assert liberty as its objective without
} reason or backing.

tell me, how do you assert rationalism as an objective without using
reason?  hmmmm?

it seems to me, Robert, that you are hoist on your own petard...

} This is just the point I am making against Libertarianism, what is it?

objection.  the prosecuter is being argumentative and facile.

} The Objectivist accepts nothing on faith or authority,

if i was in an ornery mood, i'd say to you that this's utter bullshit.
but, instead, i will simply ask you to re-examine your belief system,
and then tell me truthfully that you really and truly believe that
this's the case.

let's ignore for the moment that many objectivists appear to accept
Rand's doctrine on both faith and authority.  can you honestly tell
me that your philosophy accepts *nothing* on faith?

Descartes had to appeal to God's fair play to assume that our sense
data is genuine.  what do you appeal to?  how do you know that i'm
not some kind of low-rent Turning Test machine?

*why* is rationality a ``good'' thing?  can you convince me without
resorting to a circular or otherwise bogus argument?  with all due
respect, i doubt that you--or anybody else--could produce one.  now
i will certainly listen to an argument as to why your articles of
faith are somehow superior to others, but if you continue to maintain
that they simply don't exist i'll have to say that you have a rational
blindspot the up with which any _reasonable_ philosopher would not put.

} 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.

the heart of the matter is this: your definition of a "full definition"
is such that, by definition, you must refuse to accept Libertarianism.
but the undefined nature of libertarian philosophy is in your mind, and
not in any Objective domain of discourse.

--
Philosophy is a product of the humanity of each philospher, and each
philosopher is a man of flesh and bone who addresses himself to other
men of flesh and bone like himself.  And, let him do what he will, he
philosophizes not with the reason only, but with the will, with the
feelings, with the flesh and with the bones, with the whole soul and
with the whole body.  It is the man that philosophizes.

                                                  --Miguel de Unamuno