| | Michael Marotta quotes a passage from Schwartz's essay that I omitted from my original post, viz., "[Libertarianism] 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."
Of course, this isn't true. If gay-rights activists demand preferential treatment that violates the rights of others (as some gay-rights activists do), then libertarianism would reject their demands as inconsistent with individual rights. The same with a criminal counterfeiter, who by passing off counterfeit bills commits fraud, which is an indirect form of force. As for the anarchist who, according to Schwartz, "is merely asserting his liberty," it is unclear what Schwartz is referring to. If the anarchist asserts his right to violate the law, even one that protects people's rights, then it is obvious that libertarianism would not approve of his actions.
Schwartz continues, "Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain 'wings' of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it."
I don't know what Schwartz means by "subjectivism" or "amoralism." If he means the idea that there is no objective right or wrong, then the very fact that libertarianism considers respect for liberty to be morally obligatory and the violation of it, morally reprehensible is sufficient to refute that charge. As for anarchism's being "integral" to the libertarian movement, again, it is unclear what Schwartz means by "integral" in this context. If he means essential or indispensable, then this too is false. In fact, a truly libertarian movement is incompatible with anarchism, for the following reasons:
Insofar as anarchism sanctions the enforcement of competing and therefore mutually incompatible views of justice, it necessarily sanctions the initiation of force, because if two legal systems are in competition with each other, at least one of them must be unjust and therefore coercive. To require that both of them be allowed to operate within a civilized society is to sanction a violation of rights and to betray the very principle of liberty on which libertarianism depends. The fact that anarchists call themselves "libertarian" does not mean that they are. And although it is unfortunate that anarchists have allied themselves with the libertarian movement, that does not mean that the movement itself is illegitimate; it just means that certain non-libertarian elements are associated with it. Let's not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Michael writes, "'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."
I was not aware that Objectivists oppose extending the same rights to gay partners as to married couples. Can you cite any statements by prominent Objectivists in support of your claim? My understanding of ARI's position on this issue is that the government has no business being involved in marriage, which is strictly a private issue between consenting adults.
Michael continued, "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."
Of course, it's your business, and I have no doubt that Schwartz would agree with you. Are you seriously suggesting that he would not?!
You write, "...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."
Again, I think you are misunderstanding where Schwartz is coming from on the issue of gay rights. I am sure that he is referring to militant activists who advocate preferential treatment for gays that conflicts with individual rights. As for refusing to avail yourself of the government police and courts of law, I presume that, according to Schwartz, you are free not to use them, but you cannot interfere with them by trying to enforce your own decisions in opposition to theirs.
Michael wrote, "Ayn Rand declaimed against rock and roll. It is mindless, drug induced, etc., etc."
Did she? I don't think so, Michael. Again, if you have references to back up this statement, I would like to see them. In fact, she stated in her writings on esthetics that no rational criteria have as yet been established for what qualifies as objectively good music.
You continue, "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."
Now, who's engaging in a smear campaign?! Criticize Schwartz and ARI if you must, but don't descend to their level, please! :-(
You wrote, "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."
Excuse me, Michael, but you can't have it both ways. You say, "Not that modern art does not deserve denouncing..." and then proceed to decry its denunciation. So which is it? Either it deserves denouncing or it doesn't.
You add, "What about roller coasters and carousels? What is 'rational' pleasure -- and what must be condemned?" Where did you get the idea that ARI objects to roller coasters and carousels? The official Objectivist position on pleasure (as enunciated by Nathaniel Branden in his NBI lectures) has always been that if you enjoy it, go for it, so long as it doesn't interfere with a more important principle or value.
You write, "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 is moral.
"Minor Premise: You do something else.
"Conclusion: You are immoral."
This is nonsense. Neither Schwartz nor his colleagues advocate anything like this. Where do you get this stuff?! Now I almost regret my initial criticism, lest it be associated with yours. :-P
- Bill
|
|
