Objectivists cannot be Libertarians?
Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I have been told both politely and impolitely by fellow Objectivists that one cannot be both an Objectivist and a Libertarian. I have heard this even here in the Gulch. I profess to being both.
Rand went on rants, literally, against Libertarians. Do not join, she says, “‘libertarian’” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.”[“Ayn Rand Letter,” Vol 1, No. 7, page 3, Jan. 3, 1972.] It does not take one deeply schooled in argument to recognize the ad hominem attacks in this one sentence, but the significant point is she set up a straw man in that Libertarians as such do not subordinate reason to whims and are not anarchists. Yes, there are some Libertarians who do and are one or both of these things, but are some Objectivists.
A Libertarian is simply a person who subscribes to the Non-Agression Principle (NAP). Nothing more, nothing less. So long as a person agreed with the NAP, one could be a communist or an anarchist. Libertarians are united only by the NAP and not by any other unifying principles or outlook on life. To be a member of the LP there is one requirement and only one: you must agree to the NAP. [https://www.lp.org/membership July 11, 2016.]
Picking up the theme from Rand, Ayn Rand Institute “Distinguished Fellow” (whatever that is) Peter Schwartz went so far as to say Objectivists should not be “trafficking with Libertarians.” [“On Moral Sanctions,” by Peter Schwartz, May 18, 1989.] This sounds similar to me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or any other cult, proclamation prohibiting contact with the outside world. And, indeed, several Objectivists have shunned me ever since I said I disagreed with them. If I had been a JW, then I would be “disestablished.” The point is the same: disagree with the dogma and you are out of the club.
During 1985 Schwartz wrote a series of articles in his “Intellectual Activist” publication. These are published, according to the introduction, in a condensed version as Chapter 31 in the book “The Voice of Reason.” Schwartz again sets up the Libertarian as a straw man and then sets about attacking the straw man. I am not going to detail his laboriously stated errors and ad hominem attacks because it is not relevant to my question below.
Apparently the subject is still something of interest to ARI. Schwartz lists, among his Talks and Lectures credits, “Analyzing Libertarianism: A Case Study in Thinking in Principles.” [https://ari.aynrand.org/experts/peter.... July 11, 2016] I could not access this, but I image it is more of the same diatribe he previously presented. I say this because as recently as July 2, 2016, [https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2016/07/.... July 11, 2016.] ARI touted a discussion to be streamed the following day on the subject. I missed that.
Here is the problem for me. A principle of Objectivism is the NAP. Restated in the words of Rand: “… no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others.”
The only principle required of Libertarians is: “To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Over the decades, every time an Objectivist tells me I must choose between being an Objectivist and a Libertarian, I point out the above and ask a question. To date I have not received even the courtesy of an answer.
I ask: How are these two principles mutually exclusive?
Rand went on rants, literally, against Libertarians. Do not join, she says, “‘libertarian’” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.”[“Ayn Rand Letter,” Vol 1, No. 7, page 3, Jan. 3, 1972.] It does not take one deeply schooled in argument to recognize the ad hominem attacks in this one sentence, but the significant point is she set up a straw man in that Libertarians as such do not subordinate reason to whims and are not anarchists. Yes, there are some Libertarians who do and are one or both of these things, but are some Objectivists.
A Libertarian is simply a person who subscribes to the Non-Agression Principle (NAP). Nothing more, nothing less. So long as a person agreed with the NAP, one could be a communist or an anarchist. Libertarians are united only by the NAP and not by any other unifying principles or outlook on life. To be a member of the LP there is one requirement and only one: you must agree to the NAP. [https://www.lp.org/membership July 11, 2016.]
Picking up the theme from Rand, Ayn Rand Institute “Distinguished Fellow” (whatever that is) Peter Schwartz went so far as to say Objectivists should not be “trafficking with Libertarians.” [“On Moral Sanctions,” by Peter Schwartz, May 18, 1989.] This sounds similar to me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or any other cult, proclamation prohibiting contact with the outside world. And, indeed, several Objectivists have shunned me ever since I said I disagreed with them. If I had been a JW, then I would be “disestablished.” The point is the same: disagree with the dogma and you are out of the club.
During 1985 Schwartz wrote a series of articles in his “Intellectual Activist” publication. These are published, according to the introduction, in a condensed version as Chapter 31 in the book “The Voice of Reason.” Schwartz again sets up the Libertarian as a straw man and then sets about attacking the straw man. I am not going to detail his laboriously stated errors and ad hominem attacks because it is not relevant to my question below.
Apparently the subject is still something of interest to ARI. Schwartz lists, among his Talks and Lectures credits, “Analyzing Libertarianism: A Case Study in Thinking in Principles.” [https://ari.aynrand.org/experts/peter.... July 11, 2016] I could not access this, but I image it is more of the same diatribe he previously presented. I say this because as recently as July 2, 2016, [https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2016/07/.... July 11, 2016.] ARI touted a discussion to be streamed the following day on the subject. I missed that.
Here is the problem for me. A principle of Objectivism is the NAP. Restated in the words of Rand: “… no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others.”
The only principle required of Libertarians is: “To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Over the decades, every time an Objectivist tells me I must choose between being an Objectivist and a Libertarian, I point out the above and ask a question. To date I have not received even the courtesy of an answer.
I ask: How are these two principles mutually exclusive?
Actually, Leonard Peikoff did a podcast explaining that liberty isn't by itself a very sound basis for a moment, which the libertarians as a term is based. However, he did say that Objectivist may work with Liberation to achieve common political goals.
The best I can do to answer your question.
You "Imposed" since you gave a different definition of ML and are assuming she is using that def.
She appropriately used "anti-conceptual mentality"; see also Vol !!, #16
I won't answer again - no value; nothing here is a negative on Rand.
Complete Rand quote:
“I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between man and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon — a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless “safety” of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness,
which he is afraid to achieve.
“For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between
man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality.”
Rand deals with the subject of evolution only in the first sentence of the first paragraph above, and then changes the subject. She comes back to the subject in the second paragraph, and here she is completely wrong. Scientists did not use the term “missing link” in 1973 (or any other time, really) and she proposes the missing link might be the anti-conceptual mentality — and the anti-conceptual mentality has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution.
All that is important here is that you agree with all fundamental principles/values of Rand's.
The missing link is a non-scientific term for any transitional fossil or species, especially the great apes (of which we are one), linking back to last common ancestor which is connected with human evolution. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature.
The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to a god. The idea of all living things being linked through some sort of transmutation process predates Darwin’s theory of evolution
The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination and I most often hear the phrase uttered by creationists as proof their god created each species separately and independently. You can see this at the Institute for Creation Research website (https://www.icr.org)
I am an Objectivist who does not look at Rand as one who, for all the good she has done, is inerrant.
Her metaphysics certainly shows she is on the side of science (vs mysticism); more importantly, on the side of nature. She had a serious question about evolution, however, due to the Missing Link that science has never resolved. She didn't take a stand because - aside from not needing to as a philosopher - there were questions within the study of evolution, not that mysticism was an alternative.
She obviously looked at the issue; she simply could not fully resolve - as no one else has - the mystery of the Missing Link. Note, however, that she did provide a hypothetical explanation.
Are you an Objectivist concerned that she had a flaw, or a skeptic attempting to discredit her?
The creation–evolution controversy involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the earth, of humanity, and of other life. Such is hardly trivia, especially to a person claiming to be a philosopher, and she did not even look at the issue. The most cursory examination, even in 1973, would have shown overwhelming evidence for evolution and none, zero, for creationism (the alternative). Rand, the atheist, was unwilling to commit to science in the face of mysticism.
Did I misrepresent her view?
She was referring to the 'missing link" between man and animal, and simply questions how evolution could leave such a drastic distinction.
She did not "refuse" to take a stand; she simply did not fully study evolution as it was not a philosophical issue. Science has not fully "figured it out", and she certainly would not have been in a position to do so.
2. NAP wouldn't apply to Russia at that time in history The other cheek had already been turned. Where it runs into trouble is being told we should do 'someting' about 'some' situation only to find out the next quote is 'what gives you the right to....." Usually form the left. Usually for cheap political gain..."
My answer is 'you did.' You could have done something but couldn't wouldn't didn't and won't I can do something and have the 'will' to act and the moral fiber to act correctly. You do not. But next time I'll let you go first. What game me the right? Common Politeness.
I support the Libertarian Party as being the only current on the ballot in all states political party that comes close to rational political views.
What ARI calls "fundamentals" and what I believe from my own deep reading and study are truly the "fundamentals" are not the same thing. As an Objectivist I must go with what I understand to be the core not with what some group claims is such.
I would agree that a true Objectivist is not rationalistic. Which is why I have my doubts with ARI as I believe that they sometimes are.
However for the many reasons "mainstream" Objectivists tend to be dismissive of the Libertarian Party (what we could call capital-L Libertarians), it might not do them any good. That is, I suspect that if the Libertarian Party ever achieved power, its Objectivist wing would do as well as the moderate branches of the Russian Revolution did after the revolution. Or even the slightly less vicious branches (Trotsky, please call your office). The Libertarian Party is rather a philosophical mess, and the one thing power is good at (yes, Virginia, even if the Libertarians had it) is selecting for the most vicious.
Sure, it is hard to imagine the Libertarian Party being truly equivalent to the Communists; but I think the same principle would apply on a lesser scale.
"The non-aggression principle (or non-initiation-of-force principle) is all that libertarians really have in common." The trouble I have with the statement is that the LP platform is based on a political movement, not a philosophy, and therefore it does not define it philosophically - which is to say "why is the initiation of force evil"?
That is to say, without philosophy, how can one go from the non-initiation-of-force principle to a platform? Of course, the platforms of two LP members may be different from another, but then the question remains: what makes it a political party? It must be a loose collection of similar beliefs. The loose collection of similar beliefs may be correct beliefs but the lack of philosophic answers makes the movement susceptible to vast differences of opinion. It is a collection of opinions, not a structure of facts.
John Stossel hosted a Libertarian from the CATO institute who supported Bernie Sanders and claimed that even Hayek found it necessary to provide a safety net to the poor and disenfranchised. That kind of comment represents an alien or sometimes even repulsive set of values to other Libertarians. How much more so for those who hold the initiation of force as the evil? How much more so for Objectivists?
With the result that a libertarian would wait until we get a launch detection before even building a missile.
Load more comments...