I Have A Dream

I have a dream: that one day Objectivism will no longer be confused with Libertarianism, and thereby reason and freedom will not be confused with what boils down to being merely the 'freedom' to practice whimsy and anarchy.

I have a dream that one day I will be able to go to a gathering place for Objectivists, and not have to endure Trojan-Horse assaults from anarchistic Libertarians who do not understand that being Libertarian does not make them Objectivist.

I have a dream that when I present the standard Objectivist argument against religion, I do not have to listen to pseudo-Objectivist Libertarians denouncing me en masse because I subscribe to the Objectivist platform, which does not believe in across-the-board freedoms to choose whatever whim tickles our fancy, as true Libertarians do.

I am not a Libertarian, nor would I wish to be... True Libertarianism is a gladiatorial pit of random trial-and-error; of whimsical ideas and policies all bouncing off each other, blindly, in the dark, with no requirement of regard for the forethought of reason that defines Objectivism, by contrast. Objectivism is different, because it strives to bypass all the mindless, random messiness of Libertarianism in order to expedite the process of achievement and improvement.

Those who froth at the mouth and howl that Libertarianism really is Objectivism, are misperceiving or reinventing Libertarianism to attract Objectivists into their fold. But true Libertarianism is not Objectivism, and true Objectivists rankle in the thick of Libertarian anarchy. Such deception is not fair to true Objectivists, who seek an actual home.

My kingdom for the horse of true Objectivism.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/29, 2:00am)

Post 1

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 2:38am

No, no, dear boy - this is so wrong in its detail, though right in its spirit. The anarcho-Saddamites, the appeasers of Islamo-fascism, are *not* libertarians, & we must *never* allow those maggots to usurp the term. This is precisely the argument I had with Robert Bidinotto at TOC-Vancouver. He wanted to drop the term "libertarian" because the anti-war pacifist anarcho-Saddamites are using it. (Actually, I believe they call themselves "paleo-libertarians." "Paleo" is correct to the extent that it denotes brute, grunting force, which the Saddamites believe in, absolutely.) I pointed out that an Objectivist cannot *help* but be a libertarian, in that a "libertarian" is one who believes in the non-initiation of force principle in politics. That *is* the Objectivist politics. (A libertarian, of course, doesn't *have* to be an Objectivist.) I pointed out that the pseudo-libertarians should be labelled as what, in the contemporary context, they are - "Saddamites" - the accuracy of the label being attested to by the hysteria that overcomes the treacherous low-lifes when it is applied to them.

Linz

Post 2

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:37am

Lindsay,

What you just said made me think of my next burning question:

Is non-initiation of force always the right move? I mean, if we know that an enemy wants and is planning our destruction, why should we wait for them to actually kill numbers of our people?

I see very little logic in this, that would also be humane. Part of my enormous problem with the non-initiation of force ideal, is that it seems to decide that certain numbers of people are expendable, in the cause of having a real injury to report, and justifiable retaliation.

Rand said -- and I quite agree with this notion -- that the choice of philosophy imbues each of us with our purpose, and generally drives the human realm. With that in mind, can we ever afford to wait for an actual attack, from an enemy who has repeatedly called for our deaths, or actually planned our deaths, or worse yet, has attacked us before?

It seems to me that this whole "non-initation of force" idea goes too far.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding it, now that I think about each of the words in that phrase, "non-initiation of force".

In fact, I'm sure of it... The non-initiation of force ideal means that we can attack, before actually attacked. And here's why:

What does it really mean to "initiate" force? Does it mean to actually use force, or does it mean all the pre-planning, decision-making, and gearing up that is undertaken, before force is used?

In other words, isn't the initiation of force the point at which the attack is actually bootstrapped, or initiated? After all, it's the beginning of planning which is the true initiation. Before that, the idea is just being debated.

I mean, when we initiate our efforts toward something, that means we "get the ball rolling". This does not mean that we have actually begun rolling the ball; it also means that we have decided that the ball needs to be rolled, and we are planning what supplies we need and where leverage should be applied to move the ball, and where it should be rolled to.

Now, that I can subscribe to. If we employ a non-initiation of force ideal in that sense, then we can say of an enemy that has declared its belief that we should be attacked, and then has discussed plans for how to attack us, and even has begun organizing for its attack of us, that that is the initiation of force, because "initiation" means "to begin".

In that case, we can go after them.

Post 3

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:38am

I see libertarianism as merely being a political concept, whereas Objectivism is a comprehensive system of ideas applicable to areas beyond politics (such as esthetics, metaphysics, ethics etc.).

Politically, libertarianism (rightly) recognizes that part of true freedom involves letting irrational individuals reap the consequences of not properly using their freedom. Libertarians generally believe that government will never be able to effectively eliminate the natural inequalities that go along with allowing each individual to manage his or her own life. Even if many libertarians are moral relativists and subjectivists, they are not ultimately a threat because their fallacies will only harm them in the private sphere of their own life.

Both Objectivists and libertarians are opposed to social engineering (as evidenced by some of the recent articles and threads on this website), and suspicion of social engineering is in part a large motivator of the libertarian opposition to the Iraq war program, and many aspects of the War on Terror in general. Let me explain:

The so-called "War on Terror" is not being waged by Objectivists, it is being waged by American neoconservatives. Neoconservatives believe that through an unwaivering and principled application of military force, we can eventually transform the culture of the Islamic world to be tolerant of and friendly to Western influence. How is this not social engineering?

And as I have stated in other threads, the idea that military force alone can transform the mindset of Arabia is at best an unproven theory, and at worst flat out wrong. How long will we go on with the current program to see if the theory is true?

Post 4

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:39am

Till we get blowed up, or they do. I suppose.

Post 5

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 2:23am

Linz writes:
"The anarcho-Saddamites, the appeasers of Islamo-fascism, are *not* libertarians, & we must *never* allow those maggots to usurp the term."

I don't know too many "anarcho-Saddamites" or
appeasers of Islamo-fascism" to vouch for their character or make comparisons, but since you have, on other occassions and in public, lumped Chris Sciabarra in with the so-called Saddamites(which he is not), I want to state that Dr. Sciabarra is not a maggot, literally, metaphorically, or any other way one may intend to dehumanize someone. He is a true libertarian.
Considering his extrordinary work in Rand studies, his passionate support of the arts, and his own heroic struggle to maintain a benevolent "sense of life" (while many healthy people merely posture at it) in the face of some very grueling health problems that would have destroyed the weak spirited, I refuse to allow Chris to be dehumanized for his political views. I will trust his "scalpel" to your "sledgehammer" anyday.

Post 6

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:55pm

From my FreeRad editorial, This & That,

http://freeradical.co.nz/content/59/Editorial.php
� Post-SOLOC 3, meeting the dreaded Dr. Diabolical Dialectical, purveyor of Polish, "Saddamite" Sciabarra, in the flesh! Well, it was every bit as wonderful as I expected, then some. It's a source of deep regret to me that Chris is wrong about some things, but, when not speaking Polish (my term for his academese) he makes a darn good case for his positions (see his response to me in this issue) and remains open at all times to counter-arguments posited in good faith.

Chris is a dynamo - scholar, journalist and historian rolled into one. I have never met anyone who could drive so fast and talk even faster, simultaneously and safely. This virtuoso performance, I gather, occurs routinely during his famed guided tours of Brooklyn, about which Chris has a parochial fervour almost as intense as his devotion to the Yankees. My memories of Brooklyn are of a bewildering succession of piers, parks, landmarks, sidewalks, mafia homes, the best pizzas and cheesecake I've ever tasted, staggeringly gigantic black men having loud debates at Junior�s Restaurant (makers of said cheesecake), veiled Muslim women & stockinged Jewish men - and most of the world's nationalities - peacefully going about their business ... and the Bee-Gees, to whose "Staying Alive" it is claimed I scandalously swivelled my hips along the Coney Island Boardwalk, where the Brothers Gibb were blaring out. Oh, and I mustn't forget the Greek Orthodox Church into which Dr. Chris ushered me, whose founder and first priest was ... his grandfather! Devout atheist though I am, I was solemnly moved by the beautiful music, the flickering candles, the eloquent icons ...

Then there was The Flood. (Forget Noah!) As it happens, October 7, the day of the aforementioned tour of Brooklyn, was the anniversary of Mario Lanza's death. It was that night that I reintroduced Chris - predominantly a jazz lover - to the Lanza voice. The results were beautiful, but nearly catastrophic. The available box and a half of tissues was nowhere near equal to the task of containing the torrent of tears that Magic Mario induced from Sentimental Sciabarra, and I feared at one point that Chris' Chihuahua would be drowned in the cascade. In the event, no lives were lost, and Chris had the musical ride of his life - to which my conducting histrionics must have added something, since he subsequently wrote on the SOLO Forum:

BTW, I had the great honor of listening to a Mario Lanza CD with Linz. I have always loved Lanza - from the time that my father first exposed us to him, in movies like "The Great Caruso." But there is simply no experience more powerful, more shattering, more intense, than listening to Lanza with Linz as your listening partner. He should come packaged with every Lanza CD. I was brought to tears - and laughter - as Linz provided his own virtual "liner notes" with each track. Awesome.

All in all, whatever our disagreements, Chris Sciabarra is my kind of human being - super-bright, passionate, prolific, committed, generous of spirit, on the side of reality, reason and freedom (most of the time!). Our time together was one of the high points of my life.

Post 7

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:52pm

Linz,

Do you genuinely not realise that there's a total and irreconcilable contradiction between your words above and the vile language you've repeatedly hurled at Chris (as well as myself and a number of others) over the past few months?

MH

Post 8

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:35pm

MH - It seems to me you've been making assumptions of the if-the-cap-fits variety as to who precisely is being referred to. "Saddamite" refers to anyone who succours Saddam, as I've made clear many times. That includes all those whose writings here would have Saddam cheering & gloating. It's not aimed at anyone specifically; it *is* intended in part to jolt the Saddamites into realising the import & enormity of their betrayal, *even if that betrayal is made in good faith.* "Maggots" & similar terms are reserved for a particular species of Saddamite - the bad-faith type whose real motivation is hatred for America above all else, such as you find on some of those unspeakable "libertarian" anti-war sites. It's true that Chris hangs out on a couple of those (let's face it, pre-SOLO His Royal Whoreness would hang out *anywhere*) but then he gets into trouble with them for supporting the liberation of Afghanistan. It's true, too, that some of those types turn up here occasionally, along with overtly left-wing Saddamites, & I spit my contempt at them, but even in those cases I seldom mention names. But so what if I did? I reserve the right to call people what I think they are on my own turf. In case you hadn't noticed, no one is forcing them to come here, least of all me.

Linz

Post 9

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 11:53pm

Linz,

When you say "Saddamite" I take it to refer to the individuals you have in the past indicated it refers to, which these days seems to amount to anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush's foreign policy. In recent days there have even been a couple of instances where you appear to have used it with reference to Kerry supporters, despite the fact that at least some of these were in agreement with you over the Iraq invasion.

As to your idea of "jolting" the so-called Saddamites into "realising the import & enormity of their [non-existent] betrayal" - it isn't working! All you've achieved is to insult and vilify intelligent Objectivists who argued, from a pro-American perspective, about the best way to win the war on terrorism - by grouping us in with the genuinely anti-American leftist morons. Speaking only for myself here, if you genuinely wanted to change my mind about Iraq (past-tense as the entire debate is now moot anyway) you would have had a far better chance if you'd stuck to making rational arguments rather than throwing personal attacks around. As it is, most of your arguments seemed to get lost in among the invective.

One other thing: I'm even going to bother defending myself from this nonsense anymore, but all of what Joe said above about Chris is true. Add to that that he was in New York on September 11th 2001. He knows what those barbarians did better than most here because he (like most New Yorkers) saw it up close in a way the rest of us did not. To suggest that he has betrayed the US or western civilisation or whatever because he disagreed with one aspect of how Bush fought back is just sickening, regardless of whose bloody website you do it on.

MH

Post 10

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 12:08am

MH - you said:

"One other thing: I'm even going to bother defending myself from�this nonsense anymore, but all of what Joe said above about Chris is true. Add to that that he was in New York on September 11th 2001. He knows what those barbarians did�better than most here because he (like most New Yorkers) saw it up close in a way the rest of us did not.�To�suggest that he has betrayed the US or western civilisation or whatever because he disagreed with one aspect of how Bush fought back is just sickening, regardless of whose bloody website you do it on."

Well then, fuck off. If you're sickened by my standing by western civilisation, on my own site, where I am not beholden in any way to snivelling hand-wringing appeasing creeps like you, then I am sickened by you. So go. There are plenty of anti-war Saddamite sites where you'll feel at home. I'm told there's a recent one devoted entirely to hatred of me. Go there. Enjoy. When Osama's dirty bomb blows you to shreds, try to find one last moment in which you have time to say, "This is not what I meant."

Linz

Post 11

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:26am

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/11, 3:50pm)

Post 12

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:31am

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/11, 3:50pm)

Post 13

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 9:56am

Linz, you know that I am with you in your defense of the war in Iraq and of George Bush; I have strongly upheld both on Solohq. But I cannot back you in your attacks on Chris -- whom you have specifically called a "Saddamite," along with other such names. Nor can I back you in your present attack on Matthew. Both attacks are unjustified, as is the profoundly insulting and ad hominem language in which they are made.

I am doing everything in my power to be calm and reasonable in writing this post, although the circumstances make it extremely difficult. I can only hope you will do the same.

Barbara

Post 14

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 9:57am

Orion, you blood-thirstiness is appalling.

Barbara

Post 15

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:56am

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/11, 3:51pm)

Post 16

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 12:18pm

Matthew, for the record I do not find you to be a snivelling hand-wringing appeasing creep. From what I've seen you're a great guy. Are you an appeaser?

I see what Linz is so passionate about. He's ultra-pissed-off about the fact that so many westerners are appeasers. If Western culture falls, appeasement will play a big part in it. Similar to what Ayn Rand explains as, "by default."

It's too bad that it became personal there but I can't fault him much because, in a twisted way, Linz is being kind. He's willing to destroy his relationship with you Matthew because he so believes your beliefs are self-destructive.

_____

Orion, Miss Branden is right. It's sick to take pleasure in another human being's suffering.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 11/01, 12:20pm)

Post 17

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:03pm

Lindsay - I can clearly see the burning passion with which you hate Hussein, Bin Laden, et al, - but you're turning that justified, rational, righteous passion *against* those who simply disagree with you on how the war against Americas enemies ought to be fought.

You've labelled those who opposed Bush & the Republican policy on the war as anti-America and pro-Saddam - we're most assuredly *NOT*, I can tell you.

You've labeled us such in language that would cause less thick-skinned people to leave SOLO for good - and oddly is upsetting those on the periphery like Barbara far more than it appears to upset Chris, or does myself.

This passion is also leading you (and Barabara, and others here) to support a man (George W. Bush) who is clearly a 'lesser of two evils' choice, simply because of his position w.r.t. Iraq & Al Qa'eda.

Were it not for the war in Iraq, I can't see either of you supporting Bush, and that worries me, for great Americans have for centuries been warning the American people that great violations of American liberty could only happen in wartime, by people supporting that which would be unsupportable in peacetime. It's happening now, right here, on SOLO!

Please remember that we (myself, Chris & the other 'Saddamites') are fundamentally *with* you on this issue. We love the same things about America that you do, and we hate the same things about her enemies that you do.

We are your friends and allies, not your enemies!

Post 18

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:09pm

Orion: "I take no shame in showing appropriate extremes of emotion..."

You know -- through our personal correspondence -- that my criticism has nothing to do with emotional expressiveness.

Barbara

Post 19

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:19pm