About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

You've said a lot -- a certain amount of which I agree with and a certain amount I think I object to -- so I'm going to present what I think is my differing view on the same things you're talking about:

I would say that the rational egoist objects to -- and punishes -- the murder of another, because the victim would be regarded by the rational egoist as someone of great (or potentially great) direct (or indirect) value to him... and that such a person has been stolen from his sphere of value, with no chance of ever getting that person back. 

This whole line of argument centers only around the needs of the egoist, if you notice... it's purely selfish.

Also, the rational egoist takes heed of the murder by saying, "Hey, that could have been me... and it yet could be".  The rational egoist wants the murder investigated for cause, because if it was not a killing in justifiable self-defense, then he has every cause to fear that someone is killing for reasons that will not exclude a person such as himself, because he is rational. 

Notice that none of these reasons has anything to do with self-sacrifice.  They have to do with an individual taking not merely a selfish view of the world and his place in it, but a fully comprehensive, direct and indirect view of the world and his place in it. 

In other words, the most effectively selfish, self-rewarding reasons do not have to be Scrooge-ish or short-sighted reasons.  To truly do justice to the cause of yourself -- to be most effectively selfish -- you have to think interactionally and comprehensively.
 
Any "selfish" person who looks no further than the nose on their face, would likely seem to me to be merely of a fearful, (and/or) duressed, (and/or) jaded, (and/or) na¿vely overconfident, (and/or) undeveloped, and/or low-capacity mind... and that's the most precise way I can possibly put it right now. 

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/02, 10:40am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agreement number xxx on the precise selection of language Orion - being an Ex English Literature MA student I appreciate that in everyday language, especially  when talking with the kind of language I'm 'indoctrinated' with from childhood on. Apart from the ongoing discussion whether we are 'truly egoistic' or 'closed altruists', and what the original meaning of certain words are/were, let me add another (hopefully amusing) tangent on the issue:
Knowing that most people have learned the 'standard' versions of egoistic (selfish at the cost of others) and altruistic (selfless at their own cost with no return value), I do no longer try to correct their semantics as I did during my university days; I just hand back the provocation:
'Hey I'm not just egoistic - I'm egocentric!
   Egoism is for little kids - I grew up!'
That keeps me efficiently out of the trap of over-reacting to such 'loaded terms' (usually I can't help but laugh at the shocked reactions of my counterparts), and hands back the knee-jerk reaction to the originator - after all it was they who tried to tempt me into a trap of their own setting, using loaded terms only meant for polemics if not put into proper context.
From here on it is a matter of mere seconds to find out if my 'conversationalist' is actually interested in a serious discussion of terms or just wants to 'let loose' with his own prejudices against me or a certain topic.
The latter I simply ignore as not worthy of 'investiture' and the prior are usually reasonable enough to find at least a common ground of understanding, even if we do not actually agree.
So hand it back and have a laugh - way more amusing than going only a 'wee bit nuts' .... :-)
VSD


Post 22

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
this article brings up what i've long considered as needing to distinguishing that negative aspect of 'altruism', which 'investure' is the positive - namely take the meaning of the word as coined, and use 'otherism' for the manner in which Rand used altruism... then there would be no confusion, and no 'loadedness' of the term...

Post 23

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Marc,

Regi, methinks Objectivists need to consult a good dictionary to check the definition of egoism.  The theory of pure egoism by definition is that other person can only be treated as a means to your ends.  This actually directly contradicts Libertarianism, which says that other people are ends in themselves.
 
I am not an Objectivist, by the way. I have to say this every once in a while for those who think I'm defending some canned ideology. I agree with almost all of Rand's specific philosophical writings, however.

Also, for the record, Objectivists are not libertarians, and Rand flatly rejected the libertarian movement.

Rand, I, and all those who truly understand egoism consider all other things, including all other individuals, means to our own ends. There is no greater compliment or estimation you can make of another than to be able to say to them, I love you or enjoy you because you are a value to me and my life. Every proper human relationship is a trader relationship, each seeking to satisfy their own ends by the mutual agreed exchange of values to each one's own personal gain. In any relationship where one person gains, and another loses, the person who gains is a parasite and the loser, if the loss is a willing (altruistic) one, is a sucker, if unwilling, he is a victim of theft.

Why in the world would you think others would not be the means to our own ends, just as, to others, we are the means to their ends. If I have nothing of value to offer someone else, there will be no reason that person should want to have anything to do with me. When a truly selfish Objectivist is interested in me, I know that interest is generated by the fact they find something of value to themselves in our relationship. That is a true complement and the only moral basis for human relationships, business, social, or romantic.

Regi


Post 24

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

"pure altruism," is an oxymoron.

Regi


Post 25

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc, one can obscure any issue if so disposed and I must say when you say the "Self-interest/Egoism debate is much ado about nothing" I have to wave my hat to you and say goodbye, because no issue could be more important.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,

You said: 

Also, for the record, Objectivists are not libertarians, and Rand flatly rejected the libertarian movement.


I'm glad you brought this up... Rand stressed that the essence of Objectivism was freedom and reason.  The essence of Libertarianism is just freedom... no necessary stress on reason.  In fact, true Libertarians rebuke reason, because they rightly observe that reason would compel the cessation of certain liberties, regardless of the fact that they may be irrational and even destructive.

I call upon all members of this forum to pick up a copy of Vol. V in the Ayn Rand Library entitled The Voice of Reason:  Essays in Objectivist Thought by Ayn Rand, and read Chapter 31, entitled "Libertarianism:  The Perversion of Liberty", by Peter Schwartz.  He deftly outlines the dangers of Libertarianism, citing very logical arguments and quotations from both Libertarians and Objectivists alike.

I realize that my so strongly criticizing pure Libertarianism might not win me many friends in this forum, but I do have to say that as long as a Libertarian re-integrates discriminatory reasoning into the Libertarian philosophy, then that merged philosophy becomes "Rational Libertarianism", and for all intents and purposes, is essentially Objectivism. 

And from what I've seen, I think that many in here who call themselves Libertarians are already doing that.   


Post 27

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the Schwartz essay also.

Post 28

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney,

I loved the essay... I found it an elegant piece of analysis and argument.

What's strange to me is that there's a Libertarian capitalist magazine called reason.  And admittedly, I have a hard time following it very often, due to a pervasive philosophical contradiction I see in it:  on the one hand, it is dedicated to total freedom of life and business, but on the other hand, it has that title and tries to wrap itself in the banner of devotion to reason.

But as I said before, true reason places limits on what you give yourself license to do... in other words, you curtail certain of what would otherwise be your freedoms.  In this way, freedom and reason both support and yet oppose each other, and must both exist to produce quality.

I see far too many people calling themselves Libertarian who are really Objectivists.  But then again, I suppose that there are lots of people calling themselves Objectivists who are really Libertarians... basically, anarchistic hedonists.


Post 29

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion wrote:
I call upon all members of this forum to pick up a copy of Vol. V in the Ayn Rand Library entitled The Voice of Reason:  Essays in Objectivist Thought by Ayn Rand, and read Chapter 31, entitled "Libertarianism:  The Perversion of Liberty", by Peter Schwartz.  He deftly outlines the dangers of Libertarianism, citing very logical arguments and quotations from both Libertarians and Objectivists alike.
Jim Peron permitted me to re-post his rebuttal to Peter Schwartz's essay at

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/LTPOL-Critique.htm

In the interest of hearing all sides, I wanted to share that link.  Feel free to browse it at your leisure.

No, I neither register nor label myself as a Libertarian.  In my younger days, I spent some time with the Libertarian Party as an officer of the local chapter.  I finally gave up and left after encountering some of the more unpleasant, nihilistic types Schwartz describes.  Some people learn intellectually while others of us have to experience events first hand to accept statements as true.

Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Experience holds a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."

Since others may not have had the same negative experiences I had, yet favor learning experientially rather than intellectually, I do not necessarily begrudge some who wear the label "Libertarian".  I prefer to get to know them before judging them based on their chosen but possibly misguided labels.

I chose to spend my time more in line with my values by leaving the party and using the newly freed time to start and to maintain a strictly Objectivist group.  This eventually evolved into SOLO Florida.


Post 30

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For my part, I've read both sides.

Post 31

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would say that the rational egoist objects to -- and punishes -- the murder of another, because the victim would be regarded by the rational egoist as someone of great (or potentially great) direct (or indirect) value to him... and that such a person has been stolen from his sphere of value, with no chance of ever getting that person back. 

This whole line of argument centers only around the needs of the egoist, if you notice... it's purely selfish.

Also, the rational egoist takes heed of the murder by saying, "Hey, that could have been me... and it yet could be".  The rational egoist wants the murder investigated for cause, because if it was not a killing in justifiable self-defense, then he has every cause to fear that someone is killing for reasons that will not exclude a person such as himself, because he is rational. 

Orion, I think you have to ask yourself whether it is really the case that you think murder is wrong solely because the murderer has removed a value which could be of great benefit to you and you could be next on his hit list.  Who is to say that the victim would ever have benefited you?  Perhaps the murderer actually killed an enemy of yours?  What if you could be sure that the murderer would never hurt you personally, and was only knocking off your enemies?  In order to determine that victims could potentially have been of value to you, you'd have to have performed some pretty complicated calculations.  Ethics should not have to rely on such flimsy abstractions.  I put it to you that in fact the real reason why you think murder is wrong is because you valued other people's lives quite independently of any possible benefit to yourself.  And that of course is altruism.

 

I've noticed that both Linz and Orion have been all for the war on Iraq.  Why?  After all, the WMD claim was false.  So Iraq was no threat.  And the actual purpose of the U.S armed forces is self-defense only.  Wars cost money and money requires taxes.  Taxes are extracted from U.S workers.  Since Iraq was no threat, it was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S to remove Saddam.  Over $US 200 billion has been spent so far on the war (all extracted by the IRS from U.S workers remember).  It was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S servicemen killed (over 900 so far) to liberate Iraq.  So why are Onion and Linz for the war?  The main argument for the war of course, would be that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and that's why the U.S should sacrifice money and men to liberate Iraq.  But this argument is pure altruism.  So it would seem that indeed Onion and Linz are both altruists.

 

I call upon all members of this forum to pick up a copy of Vol. V in the Ayn Rand Library entitled The Voice of Reason:  Essays in Objectivist Thought by Ayn Rand, and read Chapter 31, entitled "Libertarianism:  The Perversion of Liberty", by Peter Schwartz.  He deftly outlines the dangers of Libertarianism, citing very logical arguments and quotations from both Libertarians and Objectivists alike.

I read the Schwartz piece attacking Libertarianism.  I thought it was tripe myself.

 

I'm glad you brought this up... Rand stressed that the essence of Objectivism was freedom and reason.  The essence of Libertarianism is just freedom... no necessary stress on reason.  In fact, true Libertarians rebuke reason, because they rightly observe that reason would compel the cessation of certain liberties, regardless of the fact that they may be irrational and even destructive.

Rubbish.  Libertarianism is a political philosophy justified by many different logical arguments.  It was the minority of anarcho-Libertarians that Rand and other Objectivists found so  objectionable.  But Minarchist-Libertarians (the vast majority) have a politics which is identical to the Objectivist politics.  So it makes no sense for Objectivists to attack this.

 

I realize that my so strongly criticizing pure Libertarianism might not win me many friends in this forum, but I do have to say that as long as a Libertarian re-integrates discriminatory reasoning into the Libertarian philosophy, then that merged philosophy becomes "Rational Libertarianism", and for all intents and purposes, is essentially Objectivism. 

And from what I've seen, I think that many in here who call themselves Libertarians are already doing that.

Sorry, but there are numerous competing philosophies claiming to justify Libertarianism through reason.  All of these philosophies claim to be 'Rational Libertarianism'.  What makes you so sure Objectivism is the right justifcation? ;)  If you look at me for instance, I'm a Transhumanist, and I take Transhumanism to the correct justification for Libertarianism, not Objectivism.  I also think I'm very bit as "Rational" as you are.

 

 

 





Post 32

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion,

I think you'll find that Objectivism and Libertarianism are compatible. Libertarianism is simply a system of politics, not a philosophy.

Consider it this way - Objectivism teaches that it is improper (for that matter) to attempt to force someone to think. You can pursuade, argue, scream, and insult - but never initiate force in order to change someones opinion. Libertarianism is built around just this principle.

Take a real-world example - unprotected sex (outside the context of being with a trusted partner where pregnancy is desired or highly improbable). It's an irrational act, as the risks to the individuals concerned outweigh the benefits, and therefore it is immoral.

A Libertarian (like myself) would condemn people for having unprotected sex - but *wouldn't* seek to pass laws prohibiting it, or individually initiating force to prohibit it, because to do so is itself an unethical act.

E.g., I know Libertarians who adhere to philosophical systems ranging from Objectivism to Christianity - where we are in agreement is that the State doesn't exist to impose anything beyond NIOF. Individuals decide their philosophy, and bear the consequences of same.

Libertarianism is the only political system designed to allow the individual freedom of choice w.r.t. philosophy. Any other political system is, itself, unethical to some degree.

Post 33

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

I've just read what you said, and here goes... (this one is long, so I had to break it up into two posts)

Point one... You said this: 

Orion, I think you have to ask yourself whether it is really the case that you think murder is wrong solely because the murderer has removed a value which could be of great benefit to you and you could be next on his hit list.  Who is to say that the victim would ever have benefited you?  Perhaps the murderer actually killed an enemy of yours?  What if you could be sure that the murderer would never hurt you personally, and was only knocking off your enemies? 

Good point you raise... Here's my response: 

1) Yes, it really is the case that I think that. 

2) And no one is to say for certain that the victim would ever have been of direct or indirect benefit, but I and others are really against murder because we tend to give the benefit of the doubt if we do not know the person to be evil, that they should not be murdered.

3) If the murderer killed an enemy of mine -- since I only regard as "enemies" people who I judge to be truly sadistic, malignant, and utterly incorrigible -- then if such a person is killed, I actually think that's a good thing, because I and those I value as good are free of his potential menace.  Yes, I said it.

4) Once again, do not assume that I cast the label "enemy" easily or whimsically.  But nonetheless, there are times when you must cast that label upon certain people, or you are violating all that is good and decent in the world to not do so.

Next, you said this:

In order to determine that victims could potentially have been of value to you, you'd have to have performed some pretty complicated calculations.  Ethics should not have to rely on such flimsy abstractions.Atlas Count 534Atlas Count 534Atlas Count 534
Member Number 181
765 posts


Post 34

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

I've just read what you said, and here goes... (this one is long, so I had to break it up into two posts)

Point one... You said this: 

Orion, I think you have to ask yourself whether it is really the case that you think murder is wrong solely because the murderer has removed a value which could be of great benefit to you and you could be next on his hit list.  Who is to say that the victim would ever have benefited you?  Perhaps the murderer actually killed an enemy of yours?  What if you could be sure that the murderer would never hurt you personally, and was only knocking off your enemies? 

Good point you raise... Here's my response: 

1) Yes, it really is the case that I think that. 

2) And no one is to say for certain that the victim would ever have been of direct or indirect benefit, but I and others are really against murder because we tend to give the benefit of the doubt if we do not know the person to be evil, that they should not be murdered.

3) If the murderer killed an enemy of mine -- since I only rega

Post 35

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

I have prepared a long response to your post, but because the SOLO system is not letting me post anything of any length whatsoever, I'm going to have to wait in furious frustration until it behooves the bandwidth gods of cyberspace to grant me my goddamn post. 

Post 36

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just saw what it did to my post... not once, but twice! 

*L* Ah, what fresh hell is this.


Post 37

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,

I've just read what you said, and here goes... (this one is long, so I had to break it up into two posts)

Point one... You said this: 

Orion, I think you have to ask yourself whether it is really the case that you think murder is wrong solely because the murderer has removed a value which could be of great benefit to you and you could be next on his hit list.  Who is to say that the victim would ever have benefited you?  Perhaps the murderer actually killed an enemy of yours?  What if you could be sure that the murderer would never hurt you personally, and was only knocking off your enemies? 

Good point you raise... Here's my response: 

1) Yes, it really is the case that I think that. 

2) And no one is to say for certain that the victim would ever have been of direct or indirect benefit, but I and others are really against murder because we tend to give the benefit of the doubt if we do not know the person to be evil, that they should not be murdered.

3) If the murderer killed an enemy of mine -- since I only regard as "enemies" people who I judge to be truly sadistic, malignant, and utterly incorrigible -- then if such a person is killed, I actually think that's a good thing, because I and those I value as good are free of his potential menace.  Yes, I said it.

4) Once again, do not assume that I cast the label "enemy" easily or whimsically.  But nonetheless, there are times when you must cast that label upon certain people, or you are violating all that is good and decent in the world to not do so.

Next, you said this:

In order to determine that victims could potentially have been of value to you, you'd have to have performed some pretty complicated calculations.  Ethics should not have to rely on such flimsy abstractions.  I put it to you that in fact the real reason why you think murder is wrong is because you valued other people's lives quite independently of any possible benefit to yourself.  And that of course is altruism.

1) No intricate calculations are necessary, only the benefit of the doubt... until resoundingly proven otherwise.

2) These "abstractions" are not flimsy, for the reasons I've given.

3) I have also explained in my previous post that a second simultaneous reason for not wanting others murdered, has to do with assuming that the other victims could be persons like myself, and thus not deserving of being murdered (unless I somehow become deserving of it, which I have always worked very hard to not be).

4) Once again, none of this has to do with me sacrificing myself, and so is not altruism.
 
Next, you said this: 

After all, the WMD claim was false.  So Iraq was no threat.  And the actual purpose of the U.S armed forces is self-defense only.

1) Weapons of mass destruction are so named because they achieve the mass murder of human beings.  Well, guess what... a "weapon of mass destruction" is anything that efficiently and quickly slaughters lots and lots of people; that means that it does not have to take the form of a missile.  The entire Hussein regime was a "weapon of mass destruction".  That rat bastard gleefully slaughtered untold thousands -- if not millions -- of his own countrymen, and was enthusiastically participating and applauding the mass murder of Americans. 

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the weapon of mass destruction.  We correctly found it, and took it out.  The United States accomplished its mission.
 
2) True, the actual purpose of the US Armed Forces is self-defense only.  And the proactive dismantling of a WMD (The Hussein regime) that has been designed for our destruction, is self-defense.  ONLY.

Next, you said this: 

Since Iraq was no threat, it was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S to remove Saddam.  Over $US 200 billion has been spent so far on the war (all extracted by the IRS from U.S workers remember).  It was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S servicemen killed (over 900 so far) to liberate Iraq.


1) Again, for the reasons I've said, Iraq was a threat, and therefore it was in the etc., etc.

Next, you said this:

So why are Onion and Linz for the war?  The main argument for the war of course, would be that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and that's why the U.S should sacrifice money and men to liberate Iraq.  But this argument is pure altruism.  So it would seem that indeed Onion and Linz are both altruists.


1) Orion, Onion; tomayto, tomahto... Nah, nanny boo-boo.
 
2) The main argument for the war, of course, was that Saddam was doing what he could to aid our attackers (and let's be honest, was sitting on oil fields... and the world underground oil supplies are secretly running out, but sssh, we're not supposed to know that; it's just "coincidence" that suddenly all the major automakers are quickly developing hydrogen prototypes after all this time), and therefore had to be taken out.

3) Because Saddam was 1) a participatory threat to us, 2) was killing off people who could presumably be good and productive citizens like ourselves... and if we allow that, we say it's okay for us to be killed off, too, and, oh yeah, 3) oil underground, that's why we really went to war, and all of those reasons are clearly selfish... not altruistic. 
 
4) So it would seem that indeed "Onion" and Linz are both not altruists.  We advocate valiant and comprehensive selfishness, because yes, selfishness does not always have to be short-sighted, cutthroat and miserly.

Next, you said this:

I read the Schwartz piece attacking Libertarianism.  I thought it was tripe myself.

I cannot argue in favor or against the judgement that something is an animal by-product.  Give me specifics.

Next, you said this:
 
Rubbish.  Libertarianism is a political philosophy justified by many different logical arguments.  It was the minority of anarcho-Libertarians that Rand and other Objectivists found so  objectionable.  But Minarchist-Libertarians (the vast majority) have a politics which is identical to the Objectivist politics.  So it makes no sense for Objectivists to attack this.

It makes so much sense, it would choke a hippopotamus to death.  Why call it "Libertarianism" then, as opposed to Objectivism, if as the name states, it isn't specifically about just liberty?  It only makes sense to name your movement correctly, so if you have to start introducing all these qualifying prefixes and what-not, blame the namers for rushing to press too soon, not those who take "Libertarianism" at face value, for both its name and its original purpose, which is just the freedom to do any damn thing you please.

Next, you said this:

Sorry, but there are numerous competing philosophies claiming to justify Libertarianism through reason.  All of these philosophies claim to be 'Rational Libertarianism'.  What makes you so sure Objectivism is the right justifcation? ;)  If you look at me for instance, I'm a Transhumanist, and I take Transhumanism to the correct justification for Libertarianism, not Objectivism.  I also think I'm very bit as "Rational" as you are.


1) They can call themselves whatever they please, and you're right... none of these necessarily has to be "the rational" one.  What does determine which is the most objective, is which philosophy actually embraces objective reality and, once employed, actually produces results in our objective reality

The Libertarian "do as whatever random thing you damn well please" philosophy doesn't tend to produce anything but malignant lunatics... the sorts of caricatures who stock up on canned food and shotguns, and/or advocate sex with children as part of "personal liberty".  Mind you, there might be individuals who are the exception to this, but I guarantee you they definitely take serious exception to the whimsical aspects of pure liberty.

On the completely opposite hand, Objectivism has influenced, if not produced, *ahem* Alan Greenspan (though he has no comment nowadays), perhaps one of the most determinatively powerful men in the free world.  Objectivism has directly or indirectly influenced people like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Anthony Robbins.  Can Libertarianism make these sorts of claims?  I think not.

2) If Libertarianism has decided to become Objectivism, it should call itself that, and advertise itself truthfully.  Again, they have only themselves to blame if they call themselves something which they are not.  If they are no longer for a-rational liberty yet they still call themselves Libertarians instead of Objectivism, that's their own fault if others "erroneously" judge them, and quite a cowardly form of scapegoating.

3) In light of all this, I'm not going to comment on your last sentence.  I don't think I really need to.


(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/04, 9:52pm)


Post 38

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duncan,

I agree with everything you said until you made this point:

A Libertarian (like myself) would condemn people for having unprotected sex - but *wouldn't* seek to pass laws prohibiting it, or individually initiating force to prohibit it, because to do so is itself an unethical act.
Actually, what you're describing is a value-based conduct judgment based on reasoning.  Libertarianism in the true sense is just about liberty, not reason.  Objectivism is Libertarianism plus reason.  So, in order for you to even make a judgment call at all, you demonstrate reason, and are not actually a Libertarian, but an Objectivist. 

On the other hand, if you're looking at it in terms of subsuming criteria... the way you say that a square at least a rectangle, but a rectangle is not at least a square, then yes, you are a Libertarian.  But then again, you are also a multicellular organism, like slugs and sea sponges.  But would you really describe yourself with such loose and grossly minimal criteria?  No; you would call yourself a human being. 

In the same sense, calling yourself a Libertarian seems to me to be the same grotesquely loose sort of label.  By employing discriminatory reasoning, you are more comprehensively and accurately captured with the label of "Objectivist".


Post 39

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting Orion.  Sorry about the 'Onion' - a 'slip of the keyboard' ;)  I read what you say.  I don't agree.  I guess at this point I'm just going to agree to disagree ;)  But I'll comment on this:

They can call themselves whatever they please, and you're right... none of these necessarily has to be "the rational" one.  What does determine which is the most objective, is which philosophy actually embraces objective reality and, once employed, actually produces results in our objective reality
Stop equating 'Rationally' with Objectivism ;)  As I told you, I'm a Transhumanist not an Objectivist, but I'm sure I'm a 'Rational Libertarian' too.  And no doubt all the Libertarians with other non-Objectivist philosophies are sure they're the 'Rational' ones.

You do make a good point that Libertarianism needs to be grounded in the proper philosophy.  Libertarianism alone is not enough.  It's just a political philosophy which says what one shouldn't do.  But you're right, one shouldn't do anything they damn well please, we need an integrated philosophy which provides guidence on what one should do.  We just disagree on what that philosophy is.  You think it's Objectivism, I think it's Transhumansim.  And various other Libertarians have their own philosophies as well (you've got Christians, Austrian-school folks etc).  But all these people can agree on the politics at least.  That's the point Duncan was making.    


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.