RoR: Forum

Excellent analysis, Steve.

It seems to me that the egalitarian 'social engineer', M. Gladwell, could have written this economic essay.

Ed

Post 41

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 6:47pm

Ed: "In the end, Rand hated conservatives more than liberals, and libertarians perhaps the most."

I would classify Objectivists as a subset of libertarians. From one of the wikipedia definitions of libertarian: "A believer in a political doctrine that emphasises individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market') and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened."

Essentially, Objectivists share much of the same philosophical conclusions as most libertarians, but arrive there by a rigorous philosophy grounded on logical reasoning from certain starting principles. Non-Objectivist libertarians may take different paths, but wind up reaching most of the same conclusions -- even if that path consists of serially embracing false ideologies and seeing them blow up in their face one by one, until all they are left with is a philosophy remarkably consistent with Objectivism.

In short, Rand's fierce hatred of libertarians seems to stem not from irreconciliable philosophical differences, but rather that they didn't adopt her method of deriving her philosophy and then pay her appropriate homage.

If someone disagrees with the logic above, perhaps they can identify for me some major aspect of Objectivist philosophy that is inconsistent with what most libertarians believe?

Post 42

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 8:36pm

Reason as the highest value. Non-belief in intrinsicism.

Post 43

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 8:50pm

The difference between minarchism and anarchy is a serious philosophical difference and to be an Objectivist one needs to be a minarchist. Some libertarians are minarchists, but some are anarchists.

Some libertarians are socialists (I can't for the life of me figure that one out), some libertarians are back-to-the earth agrarians, some are libertarian communists (I don't even try to figure out that mess), Christian Libertarians, etc. The lack of rationality in play in this immature hodge-podge of psuedo-ideas would be enough to make anyone sick. This is intellectual whim-worshiping taken to an extreme.

I've edited this to make it clear that I agree with Bill's post below - Libertarian is a term that is being corrupted. I'm a libertarian (more precisely an Objectivist), but the day is nearly there where the term "libertarian" is one I won't want to stand by.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/17, 11:23pm)

Post 44

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 10:31pm

As it was originally conceived, a libertarian is simply one who believes in the principle of liberty, i.e., in the non-initiation of force? This is strictly a political position, and as such does not take a position on the principle's philosophical derivation. Accordingly, Objectivists are a subset of libertarians, not an alternative to them. Every Objectivist is a libertarian, but not every libertarian is an Objectivist.

Unfortunately, the designation "libertarian" seems to have been corrupted by some very strange bed fellows and remarkably clueless and unphilosophical fellow travelers. I fear that the term is slowly going the way of the term "liberal," which has now come to mean the very opposite of someone who believes in and supports political liberty.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 2/17, 10:39pm)

Post 45

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 12:41pm

Bill: "As it was originally conceived, a libertarian is simply one who believes in the principle of liberty, i.e., in the non-initiation of force? This is strictly a political position, and as such does not take a position on the principle's philosophical derivation."

I don't think that's strictly a political position. Why should we have a social system of individual liberty? Because it's *morally* wrong for a person to initiate force against another person. Of course that principle applies only to social morality and not personal morality, so it's not a complete moral theory (nor offers any metaphysical or epistemic foundation, obviously).

Bill: "Unfortunately, the designation "libertarian" seems to have been corrupted by some very strange bed fellows and remarkably clueless and unphilosophical fellow travelers."

I'm curious as to what you mean. Are you saying this is a new phenomenon? To the best of my knowledge, the libertarian movement today isn't much different in philosophical composition from when Rand referred to it.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/18, 9:19pm)

Post 46

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 1:41pm

Jon,

By saying that libertarianism is "strictly a political position," I didn't mean that it wasn't also a moral position. I meant that, qua political principle, it didn't specify a moral or philosophical justification.

When I said that the term "libertarian" seems to have been corrupted by some strange bed fellows, I was referring to the idea that it consists in essence of a principled support for the right to liberty. There were certainly problems within the movement back when Rand was alive -- with people who claimed to be libertarian but were not -- but I think the situation may well have worsened.

- Bill

Post 47

Friday, February 19, 2010 - 11:05am

Bill,

By saying that libertarianism is "strictly a political position," I didn't mean that it wasn't also a moral position. I meant that, qua political principle, it didn't specify a moral or philosophical justification.

Okay. But I think it's normal to think that when someone says X is "strictly" in one category they mean that X is only in that category.

Bill: "When I said that the term "libertarian" seems to have been corrupted by some strange bed fellows, I was referring to the idea that it consists in essence of a principled support for the right to liberty. There were certainly problems within the movement back when Rand was alive -- with people who claimed to be libertarian but were not -- but I think the situation may well have worsened."

That's what I was sincerely interested in knowing. How specifically has the situation worsened in your view? What kind of people have been involved in the libertarian movement in recent years that weren't involved when Rand talked about it? As far as I know, there have always been anarchists, religionists, pragmatists, nihilists, anti-abortionists, anti-immigrationists, anti-corporationists, etc. involved in the libertarian movement (some in very prominent positions), though of course not all libertarians ascribe to any of those views.

Post 48

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 5:39pm

I meant to quote Bill in the first two lines in the above post. It's too old for me to change the mistake. I'm still interested in the response though.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/20, 5:41pm)

Post 49

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 11:06am

Jon,

If you are correct that the fringe elements within the libertarian movement have always existed to the same extent that they appear to exist now, then I was mistaken in saying that they have worsened. I became aware of them only after some years, so it's possible that things have not gotten any worse over time. Hopefully, that's the case. I haven't been following the movement all that closely.

Maybe Steve Wolfer can offer some additional information on this.

- Bill

Post 50

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 12:17pm

Bill, Jon,

I haven't been active in Libertarian politics at any time. I've only followed it, on and off, from the sidelines, like we are doing now. I've voted Libertarian very consistently (except where the candidate was a nut-case, and except those elections where Reagan was running) and I've registered Libertarian, but I haven't gone to rallies or meetings or organized.

My sense is the same as Bill's - that it has gotten much worse, but I don't have any evidence that is so. I suspect that it is, and that reason is the passing of years with colleges continuing to turn out students with less and less rational views of political philosophy. Once upon a time the availability choices of irrational political views taught at the university were fewer. Many of the variations of anarchy didn't exist decades ago.

A person might be able to research it by comparing the party platforms over the decades.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/21, 12:18pm)

Post 51

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 2:54pm

Steve, even assuming that college students are, in aggregate, much worse today regarding their view of government than a few decades ago--and I'm not necessarily convinced that's true--that isn't any reason to suspect that the modern libertarian movement is much worse today than it was back then. The modern libertarian movement may be larger than the Objectivist movement, but it has always been quite small as far as organized movements go and in no position to influence what is taught in U.S. colleges on a large scale. Therefore, "colleges continuing to turn out students with less and less rational views of political philosophy" can't logically be attributed to a negative philosophical trend in recent years within the libertarian movement.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/22, 2:58pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/23, 7:16am)

Post 52

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 4:10pm

Jon,

I only know that there is a large number of poly sci grad students that have weird political ideologies - like "Libertarian Socialism" - this is a fairly new thing. Once you only had keynsians (mixed economy pragmatic political scientist) and fabian socialists and a tiny sprinkling of capitalists and these were your professors. But their students branched out, and merged the active elements of deconstructivism with their political diet and came up with bizarre variations of political statism and anarchy - they studied Moammar Kadafi's little green book and mixed it with Proudhon's anarchy and Rousseau's noble savage to get some absurd commune libertarianism. I don't have any numbers for you - just my sense of what has happened over the decades.

Post 53

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 8:53am

Steve, I'm not aware of evidence that people who call themselves "libertarian socialists" are a "large number" of poly sci grad students. You say you have no stats, but you have a "sense" of that...how? Have you been spending a lot of time in college poly sci departments or in college poly sci discussion groups?

I don't know how new "libertarian socialism" is. But even if that incoherent idea was birthed within the last decade, I don't think it's a basis on which to logically infer that the modern libertarian movement as a whole is much worse than it was several decades ago, when all of the aforementioned classes of people also played a major role.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/24, 7:48am)

Post 54

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 11:27am

Jon,

From the beginning, I've said that I only have a sense of this - that I don't have numbers or solid evidence. You aren't going to squeeze out me what isn't there :-)

Did you attempt to look up the changes in the Libertarian Party platform over the years? Have you looked to see if there is a history to any of these more bizarre variations of Libertarianism?

I spent a couple of years messing about on Wikipedia and learned more than I wanted to know about recent poly sci grad students.

That's all I have.

Post 55

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 12:03pm

I'm not a historian, but I believe that libertarian socialism dates back to the early Marx (maybe further). The story is that when people pointed out to him that his ideas would have to be totalitarian in practice, he blithely accepted this consequence and remained a socialist. I don't know if that's the phrase he used, but I remember the phrase from 40+ years ago.
(Edited by Peter Reidy on 2/23, 12:38pm)

Post 56

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 1:23pm

I'm no hog farmer, but calling any sort of socialism "libertarian" is jut putting a pretty name on pig filth.

Post 57

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 6:20pm

Steve: "From the beginning, I've said that I only have a sense of this - that I don't have numbers or solid evidence. You aren't going to squeeze out me what isn't there :-)"

I'm not trying to squeeze anything out of you, Steve. I did acknowledge that you said you had no numbers to cite. I only asked what made you "sense" what you said. That's a fair question, I believe.

Steve: "Did you attempt to look up the changes in the Libertarian Party platform over the years? Have you looked to see if there is a history to any of these more bizarre variations of Libertarianism?"

No. I already know the Libertarian Party platform has never included anything akin to "libertarian socialism" or the like. The platform has never disavowed anarchism either. Of course, you really can't use the LP platform as a barometer of the whole libertarian movement. Many people involved in libertarian organizations aren't LP members or even LP voters. Even within the party, some people disagree with various ideas in the platform.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/23, 6:26pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 2/24, 7:46am)

Post 58

Monday, March 1, 2010 - 1:59pm