Objectivism versus Libertarianism

In his essay, On Moral Sanctions, originally published in The Intellectual Activist (Volume V, Number 1), but now available on the ARI website, Peter Schwartz asks the following question: “IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE?” – and answers:

“Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called ‘liberty.’ It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why ‘liberty’ is desirable and what ‘liberty’ means." ...In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of ‘liberty’ can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental ‘restraint’ upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence. (For elaboration, see my essay ‘Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.’)”

Is this true? Is it true that “Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called ‘liberty’”? If we understand “libertarianism” in the way that virtually all libertarians do, as the doctrine that the initiation of force violates rights and that force is proper only in self-defense, do libertarians assert this view without any attempt to justify it? The clear answer is, no. There is a substantial body of literature, economic, political and philosophical, to which libertarians refer in defense of their views. Does this mean that there aren’t disagreements among libertarians over the implications of their doctrine and the justification for it? No, of course not, but that doesn’t mean that they reject the very need for any justification of their belief in liberty, as Schwartz so cavalierly asserts.

Is it true, as Schwartz says, that the libertarians’ “zealous advocacy of ‘liberty’ can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical”? This statement is not only false; it is an absurd mischaracterization. Not only is the alleged desire to eliminate all restraints on human behavior – political, moral or metaphysical (whatever "metaphysical" is supposed to mean here) - not an insignia of the libertarian movement, no libertarian that I’m aware of has ever said anything remotely like it. It should be obvious to anyone familiar with libertarianism that libertarians zealously oppose the use of physical aggression by individuals and governments, as this is an essential part of their doctrine.

Schwartz then cashes in on this bizarre premise with an even more bizarre conclusion, “And since reality is the fundamental ‘restraint’ upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism." Give me a break! Nihilism - the desire to obliterate reality - is the very ~essence~ of Libertarianism??

He adds, "If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence. (For elaboration, see my essay ‘Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.’)” Widespread death? Libertarianism would eliminate the use of aggressive force from human relationships! How would that result in widespread death?

Schwartz accuses Barbara Branden of "smearing" Ayn Rand. Well, It's no exaggeration to say that if anything qualifies as a smear, Schwartz's screed against libertarianism certainly does. His comments represent the kind of wildly exaggerated rhetoric that is typical of a cult mentality. (See, in this connection, the thread "Is Objectivism a Cult.") Not surprisingly his essay is currently being promoted on ARI’s website.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/21, 12:15pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/21, 12:21pm)

Post 1

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:36pm

Having lived through one herself, Ayn Rand said that civil wars are the bloodiest conflicts. Protestants versus Catholics, Sunni vs Shia, and all those socialists purged by the bolsheviks, to say nothing of poor old Marat.

The Objectivists have to excoriate the Libertarians, mostly for product differentiation ... you know, lest anyone be confused by the seeming similarities.

"... the zealous advocacy of ‘liberty’ can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior..."

Here I am at 9:30 at night, it is close to the freezing point of water outside and it is dark, yet, I am lit up and warm and more or less unrestrained by a great deal of uncomfortable reality.

You have to wonder just which restraints Objectivists approve of. In an Objectivist utopia, "rock and roll" would be forbidden, I am pretty sure. (I guess that would include heavy metal, punk, rap, alternative, new wave, classic rock, adult rock, and adult contemporary. How did Ayn Rand feel about Mario Lanza? You have to wonder, you know...) In an Objectivist utopia you might be allowed to listen to Rachmaninoff and Tschiakovski, but not Mozart and Beethoven, and I think Wagner is up for grabs. (On a radio call-in show in Cleveland in 1966, Ayn Rand told me that some of Wagner was beautiful, but that did not make him an individualist, but she did not elaborate.) Gratefully, it was revealed here on SOLO that Ayn Rand watched Star Trek and enjoyed Captain Kirk and Commander Spock. However, we would have to turn to the ARI or COS or someone to tell us what to think about ST:NG, DS-9, Voyager, and Enterprise... before turning their attention to Babylon 5 and who knows what else. Anyway, until that is resolved, I guess we can watch old Star Treks for now.

You could not read Faulkner or Joyce or Sinclair Lewis, that's for sure. In fact, I think that Shakespeare would be forbidden as proto-naturalism, also.

What about roller coasters? Now that's a toughie... I mean, on the one hand it is just mindless because the roller coaster is engineered to do exactly one thing and you have to be pretty stupid to be surprised by it, especially since you can see it for a mile away as you walk up to it. It's not like the ride is a surprise or anything. On the other hand, you have this precise balance of carefully calculated forces that take you to the limit of experience. So, maybe roller coasters would be allowed. Carousels are another challenge. They do even less than roller coasters. How about those little bumper cars? Probably not allowed, right?

Now, I know that a lot of so-called self-styled unofficially sanctioned students of Objectivism here on SOLO make a big deal out of food and cooking, but if you read Atlas Shrugged, you will not find much about that in there. Dagny cooked for John, but if it was more than meat and potatoes, we have no clues. We do know that soybeans are evil and we have good indication that wheat is the only moral grain. So, tofu will not be tolerated in an Objectivist utopia. Oats, triticale, rice, and whatever else will probably have to be submitted to a Board of Approval... well, not a Board, really, just Peter Schwartz or Leonard Peikoff or someone with The Handshake of Approval.

Fortunately, Howard Roark wore blue jeans -- denim trousers quote unquote -- and sandals, so dressing like a hippie or a beatnik will be okay, though, of course, actually reading beatnik literature or listening to hippie music will be proscribed -- but we covered that already.

What about these computers? There are no computers in Atlas Shrugged. You might think that they are great liberating machines, but are they not just the Thompson Harmonizers and Ferris Persuaders of our time? I think we need to wait and see what the Objectivists decide for us.

Last thing, if you goto the Libertarian Party website, you will not find a condemnation of reality. They complain about a lot, but they tend mostly to complain about other people and they seem to pretty much take reality as it comes, but maybe I just have not seen them for what they really are.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/21, 6:53pm)

Post 2

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:10pm

In an Objectivist utopia, "rock and roll" would be forbidden, I am pretty sure.

1. Utopias don't exist. 2. I have no desire to ban any form of music.

Post 3

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:15pm

1. Utopias don't exist. 2. I have no desire to ban any form of music.

I believe that utopias can exist, but not without rock.

Post 4

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:18pm

MEM: In an Objectivist utopia, "rock and roll" would be forbidden, I am pretty sure.
DMG: 1. Utopias don't exist. 2. I have no desire to ban any form of music.

Well, are you really an Objectivist or just a mixed premise Libertarian hoping to smuggle your primacy of consciousness Zen Buddhist music into our society?

Remember: Libertarianism is the advocacy of the unrestrained, whereas Objectivism is the advocacy of the restrained. (Can't tell the players without a scorecard.)

Post 5

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:18pm

You're pretty sure, Michael Marotta? What the F*ck are you talking about?
Like Dean said, there is no Utopia. Rand wouldn't have called her ideal a Utopia, anyway. Consider this from RUSSIAN RADICAL:

"Rand rejected the founding of utopian communities as a solution to systemic irrationality. The utopia of ATLAS SHRUGGED is a fictional device that projects an ideal society composed of ideal people. It was not a prescription for the future." Sciabarra quotes Rand as "stating unequivocally" : "I am not a goverment planner nor do I spend my time inventing utopias."

No Objectivist would advocate banning anything outside of the initiation of force. You're talking nonsense.

Post 6

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:28pm

Pretty sure Marotta was joking. I feel that I get his sense of humor.

Marotta, you crack me up.

Post 7

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:01pm

Daniel, if it's a joke, which I doubt, it's not a very good one.

"Now, I know that a lot of so-called self-styled unofficially sanctioned students of Objectivism here on SOLO make a big deal out of food and cooking, but if you read Atlas Shrugged, you will not find much about that in there. "

This seems more like a swipe than a friendly jab. I hope I'm wrong.

Post 8

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:29pm

It's Friday, folks - go out, have a beer, relax... take the pins out of the voodoo dolls, huh...

Post 9

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:32pm

I have the flu, this is all the fun I get to have :P.

Post 10

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:34pm

Hope it's not the bird flu - truly a fowl out

Post 11

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:48pm

Michael, I'm surely not what you are defining as an Objectivist.

Post 12

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:54pm

maybe it's a tumor...

Post 13

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:33pm

"It should be obvious to anyone familiar with libertarianism that libertarians zealously oppose the use of physical aggression by individuals and governments, as this is an essential part of their doctrine"

Which libertarians are you referring too? The libertarians who opposes the "State Terrorism" of Israel? Or, the libertarians who champion Israel's right to use retaliatory use of force against Palestinian Terrorists? The libertarians who support the jihadists? Or, the libertarians that oppose them?

Mr. Dwyer, it's meaningless that libertarians oppose physical force. Perhaps, you mean the initiation of physical force. But, if you mean this, who defines when the initiation of force has taken place? (see above) Why is it wrong? Why is liberty a value?

Post 14

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:43am

Michael, in post #1 are you just pulling my chain or do you have some other definition of "forbidden" that I'm not aware of?

Ross

Post 15

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 3:53am

On Moral Sanctions
By Peter Schwartz
Reprinted by permission from The Intellectual Activist Volume V, Number 1
(This is written as an addendum to [Fact and Value], in order to amplify some points about the principle of not sanctioning evil.)
IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental "restraint" upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence. (For elaboration, see my essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.")
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sanctions

Ayn Rand said some of this herself in denouncing "mindless" pleasures. In The Fountainhead, Roark is overlooking Monadnock Valley when a gang of college kids in a convertible zooms past, yelling into the air and raucously strumming a ukelele. Rand contrasts their mindless range of the moment expression of release from boredom with Roark's metaphysical enjoyment of the product of his mind. That much is good, like the "utopia" of Galt's Gulch which is merely a literary devise and not a prescription for society.

Beyond that, however, in the pages of The Objectivist Newsletter and subsequent essays, Ayn Rand was unforgiving about those "mindless" pleasures of other people.

"... the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. "

"Gay rights" is one of those attempts to remove restraints on political behavior. To an Objectivist or to a Libertarian, it is not a matter of forcing owners of duplexes to rent the other half to people they do not like, but answering the question, "What is "marriage?" given that only one's "spouse" can tell the doctors when to pull the plug, for instance, -- and then inherit whatever estate remains. It seems that Objectivists consider answering that in favor of gay partners to be an irrational demand on metaphysical reality.

Moral restraints -- apart from political limits -- are another matter entirely. I believe that alcoholism is immoral: it is bad for you. If you want to drink yourself to an early grave, however, that is your business.

If Objectivists choose to advocate against that or against smoking in public or rap music or whatever else, that is their right, as well, of course. However, what I perceive here is not just a "slippery slope" but a STEEP and slippery slope. From arguing for or against certain acts of certain governments -- for instance, Israel's defense of its sovereignty versus its own terrorism against the innocent neighbors and relatives of suspected Palestinian terrorists -- we suddenly find gay rights associated with "criminal counterfeiters" (is there any other kind?) and "overt anarchists" (are "covert" anarchists acceptable?). I submit that if you want to be an overt anarchist and refuse to avail yourself of government police and courts of law, that is your business. Peter Schwartz makes it his.

Ayn Rand declaimed against rock and roll. It is mindless, drug induced, etc., etc. Anyone here on SOLO who enjoys rock and roll is engaging in evil, immoral, irrational behavior, which cannot be tolerated, sanctioned, or ultimately allowed -- at least, according to the guidelines of Peter Schwartz and the Ayn Rand Insititute.

Was I kidding in #1? Well, I was poking fun at ARI. I was not kidding. Within the context of human society, the essence of political freedom is the ability to ignore the actions of others. Denouncing taxation is one thing. Denouncing modern art is another. Not that modern art does not deserve denouncing, but that once you start with that, the next thing is that you condemn anyone who finds pleasure in it. What about roller coasters and carousels? What is "rational" pleasure -- and what must be condemned?

Dean and Joe (and others) like rock and roll. Dean and Joe consider themselves Objectivists -- as do we all. My point is only that within the framework of Objectivism there are those -- such as Peter Schwartz -- who are so uptight and self-controlled that they condemn others who are different from them.

Major Premise: What I do it moral.
Minor Premise: You do something else.
Conclusion: You are immoral.

Again, it is not just a matter of looking down your nose. The ARI and Peter Schwartz include rock and roll and gay rights with criminal counterfeiters. Speak up when they come for the counterfeiters, because they are coming for you next.

Post 16

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:16am

This last post was horse shit. You know very well that a strict ortho Objectivist like Schwartz will draw a strict line between what is morally judgeable and what is legally enforceable. You are taking one set of Objectivist ideas out of the context of a broader ethical and political system.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 10/22, 1:19pm)

Post 17

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:28am

I wrote, "It should be obvious to anyone familiar with libertarianism that libertarians zealously oppose the use of physical aggression by individuals and governments, as this is an essential part of their doctrine"

Wayne Simmons replied, "Which libertarians are you referring too? The libertarians who opposes the "State Terrorism" of Israel? Or, the libertarians who champion Israel's right to use retaliatory use of force against Palestinian Terrorists? The libertarians who support the jihadists? Or, the libertarians that oppose them?"

Well, Israel does employ physical aggression against others; it does initiate force against them, so it is perfectly consistent for a libertarian to oppose this. And Palestinian terrorists do employ aggression against others - do initiate force against them - so it is perfectly consistent for a libertarian to champion Israel's right to use retaliatiory force against the terrorists. As for the "libertarians" who support the jihadists, I don't regard them as true libertarians; a libertarian is one who opposes physical aggression against others, not one who supports it.

Wayne continued, "Mr. Dwyer, it's meaningless that libertarians oppose physical force. Perhaps, you mean the initiation of physical force."

Yes, that's what I meant, because I used the term "physical aggression," not "physical force." Physical aggression ~means~ the initiation of force, not retaliatory or defensive force.

He adds, "But, if you mean this, who defines when the initiation of force has taken place? (see above)."

If this is a problem for libertarians, it's a problem for Objectivists as well. Does Ayn Rand specify when the initiation of force has taken place (how could she?), or does she simply identify the principle as a guide to determining when individual rights are violated? What you, Peter Schwartz or Leonard Peikoff regard as the initiation of force is not part of Objectivism. It is simply what you or they believe to be the application of Objectivist principles to a particular situation. The same is true of libertarianism, which holds the same non-initiation of force principle as Objectivism, which principle, by the way, was not discovered by Ayn Rand, contrary to the claims of ARI spokespersons. The NIOF principle was enunciated by 19th Century individualists in virtually the same form and wording as Ayn Rand presented it, and if I'm not mistaken was present in John Locke's philosophy in a less explicit form. Yet ARI claims that present-day libertarians "plagiarized" the principle from Rand. If there is any plagiarism here, it is Rand herself who is guilty of it, since she obviously got the principle from her libertarian predecessors without acknowledging their contribution.

You ask, Why is [NIOF] wrong? Why is liberty a value?" There are many arguments for this, economic, political and philosophical, that were given by libertarians before Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. Are you seriously questioning this? Do you believe that before Rand came on the scene, no good arguments for individual rights or liberty had ever been given?

- Bill

Post 18

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:01pm

"Dean and Joe (and others) like rock and roll. Dean and Joe consider themselves Objectivists -- as do we all. My point is only that within the framework of Objectivism there are those -- such as Peter Schwartz -- who are so uptight and self-controlled that they condemn others who are different from them."

I appreciate the concern, Michael, but as long as Objectivists like Schwartz do not believe in the initiation of force, their condemnation as a personal opinion is a right. It's been stated here on SOLO before that we can choose to be offended or not; I choose not to. (I may CHALLENGE the view, but that's another story.)
An Objectivist society would NOT be like a Middle Eastern theocracy where one is punished for listening to certain types of music. Hell, even before the existence of rock, elders and kings were concerned with the moral fiber of musical influence, and claimed that certain notes and scales were enought to corrupt one's soul. Those guilty of listening to it were burned at the stake and such. Why would I fear Peter Schwart's "condemnation?". I don't see any torches coming my way.

Post 19

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 4:02pm