 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, December 5, 2008 at 1:04:47 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
So in effect he coined a term that has nothing to do with the words he used to coin said term.
I've got a good one, I read it in a book somewhere.... Where is John Galt?
John. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 6:21:03 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Joseph
E-mail: JGiampa(at)vcom.vt.edu
Completely odd. I cannot imagine someone having read Ayn Rand's works, be changed/motivated (whatever term you want to use) by them, and then not care to talk about her philosophy. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 7:47:07 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
This guy might be called an "objectivist agnostic." We have a hard enough time trying to espouse the clear, fully-integrated and logical ideas of Objectivism without these kinds of wackos confusing things. I often wonder where in the brain such short-circuiting happens? Most shocking is his "optional" approach to capitalism. Does this guy also have the "optional" choice to eat? The "optional" choice to buy a coat to wear outside when it's 10 degrees? |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 9:20:08 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
I wonder how many socialist "John Galts" there are in this person's view? |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10:03:51 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"You do not care to talk about Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) metaphysical views."
I wonder if this fool ever heard of, say, A. J. Ayer.
Wow. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10:17:26 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
This is SO patently ridiculous I would be strongly inclined to believe it if the guy later claimed he was doing this to make fun of "Objectivish" Libertarians. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 12:44:55 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Ryan Mulkerin
E-mail: rmulkerin(at)gmail.com
The guy says that the reason an "affinity for laissez-faire capitalism" is optional is because "some people don't care to study politics." so I think the objection to that is a bit overblown.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the general rejection of an integrated philosophy. Trying to associate John Galt, of all characters, with this kind of wishy-washy, compromising philosophy is outrageous. By the way, I noticed that the site has a few articles relating to the Atlas Society. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 14:07:01 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: IchorFigure
Putting the "WTF" tag to good use I see. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 14:20:31 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Fast Eddie
E-mail: thunder.rolled(at)gmail.com
URL: http://thundertales.blogspot.com
The clearest evidence of the level of intellectual rigor of the originator is that his term employs a political identification as a suffix and he then suggests you can apply your own prefix when applying it to yourself.
He apparently doesn't know whether he is coming or going.
An enthusiasm for the study of politics isn't required to have an affinity for laissez-faire capitalism. An economic truth is not a political process. |
|
| Friday, December 5, 2008 at 21:59:05 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Liberpragmatarianism... |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 4:21:24 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Craig J. Bolton
E-mail: lawecon(at)cox.net
This is rather amusing. Two Objectivist arguing about what it would mean to be an Objectivist Republican. I wonder if the Marxist Leninists had similar arguments about what it would mean to be a Marxist Leninist Fascist in Mussolini's Italy. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 5:00:10 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Fortitudine
E-mail: canadian.republic(at)hotmail.com
URL: www.thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com
Yes, as Atlas Shrugged clearly outlined, John Galt was only luke-warm in his support for laissez-faire capitalism, making it perfectly justifiable to use his name to describe a libertarian pragmatist.
How absurd and infuriating.
And would somebody care to explain why a stipulation for being a "John Galt Republican" is a distaste for discussing Ayn Rand's metaphysics or metaphysics in general? |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 9:33:36 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Tim Peck
E-mail: timothypeck(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://timpeck.blogspot.com/
I have found similar confusions among libertarians when I have confronted them with the necessary and unapologetic embrace of the concept of laissez-fair capitalism as the only acceptable form of a proper political-economic social system -- a term they find shy-making; as I document in a recent discussion:
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2008/11/conceptions-of-capitalism.html
I feel that it is good to discover these confusions early in order to avoid ultimately useless alliances. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 9:57:40 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Tim,
I find all this completely strange, because when I encountered libertarianism, around 1969, it was virtually identical to Ayn Rand's political philosophy. All the libertarians I met accepted the idea that force may be used only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use; all of them accepted rights of life, liberty, and property as the implementation of that idea, and thought of rights as sanctioning individual freedom of action without granting any claim on anyone else's labor or goods; and all of them regarded full, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism as the only economic system that was consistent with those principles. In fact, the libertarians I personally knew were all also admirers of Ayn Rand. And they considered Ayn Rand to be a libertarian, and Objectivists to be libertarians.
Why then should there be a separate word "libertarian" at all? Well, in the first place, because Objectivism endorsed a number of writers who were not Objectivists: notably Ludwig von Mises in economics and Isabel Paterson in politics. What were such writers to be called? "Liberal" was too confusing, though historically justified; "classical liberal" was better, but a bit too broad; so "libertarian" came to be accepted as a word for strict adherents of noninitiation of force, individual rights, and laissez-faire capitalism. Rand believed in those things, in political philosophy, so she was classed as a libertarian, AND as an Objectivist; Mises and Paterson were classed as libertarians but NOT as Objectivists. And, in that sense, I called myself a libertarian, and still do. On the other hand, I hesitate to call myself an Objectivist, because I do not agree with ALL of Rand's conclusions or arguments, and I don't want to spend time debating whether any specific disagreement is or is not fundamental enough to make it improper for me to use that label; I would rather talk about specific issues, present my views and my reasons for holding them, and let others judge for themselves both whether they're consistent with Rand's ideas and whether they're true.
But since then, it seems, a couple of things have happened. First, the people who agreed with those core political ideas began recognizing themselves as doing so, and calling themselves "libertarians," and those took on a group identity, so that "libertarian" was no longer simply a descriptive philosophical label, like "compatibilist" or "theist," but a name for a social group, like "Existentialist," "socialist," or "Christian." Second, that social group began recruiting. Third, many of them took up political activism as a form of recruitment. (I was never a political activist; I thought reasoned discussion and education were more viable.) And finally, the people who got recruited came to be looser and looser adherents of the philosophy, to the point where it's now virtually a synonym for "conservative Republican." And as a result, I find the label "libertarian" as it is now used a very poor fit.
But abusus non tollit usum: the debasement of the original concept doesn't necessarily mean that the original concept was wrong. Ayn Rand recommended the works of a number of other authors who did not share all of her philosophical positions; I read Mises, Paterson, and Bastiat, among others, because of her recommendation. She and they had certain political and economic views in common, without agreement on more fundamental philosophical issues. That political philosophy on which they agreed needs to have a name, and "Objectivism" won't do for that name. If "libertarianism" won't do either, what other label would be better? |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 10:16:50 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- I've always thought the term "classical liberal" was the most appropriate term to describe the enlightenment-based defenders of political freedom. The term "libertarianism" -- in its modern usage -- was meant to be more inclusive -- meaning that mystics, altruists, utilitarians, anarchists, and other people wholly incapable of defending freedom were included under its banner -- and deliberately so. The result is that any and all kinds of statists are now regarded as libertarians in good standing.
The term has undoubtedly gotten worse, but that's just the chickens coming home to roost. The term was always bad. As I wrote way back in 2004:
Precisely what meaning does the concept "libertarianism" have? Is there some set of core political doctrines held in common by those commonly considered libertarians, such as Milton Friedman, John Locke, Jan Narveson, Ayn Rand, David Friedman, George H. Smith, Rod Long, Adam Smith, Friedich Hayek, Julian Simon, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Jefferson, and so on? I think not. Such libertarian thinkers differ widely in the foundations of their political views: moral versus economic, egoistic versus altruistic, utilitarian versus deontological versus teleological, and so on. They differ in their substantive views of the proper political order. Some libertarians are anarchists; they seek to abolish the state in favor of private defense agencies. Others advocate a minimal state limited to police, the courts, and national defense. Others are willing to use government to solve so-called market failures, educate children, and provide for the poor. Such libertarians also often diverge in their implementation of rights, including on abortion, self-defense, animal rights, intellectual property, and more. Given these substantial and wide-ranging differences, the term "libertarianism" seems to be based upon family resemblance more than any feature (or features) common to all. Such a mixed-bag concept seems epistemologically indefensible to me... and virtually useless.
***
In the rest of the post, I argue that the term "libertarian" doesn't work as a merely descriptive concept like "egoism." You should find that interesting. It's here:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/04/socialist-dreamin.html
At the time, I wasn't sure whether the concept could be (or should be) salvaged. Now I basically agree with Don's comment:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/view.pl?entry=107941896945396488#1 |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 11:16:07 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Diana,
In the post of yours that you link to, you end by saying,
"I suspect that it is possible to form and define the concept "libertarianism" in an epistemologically respectable way. However, if done, then many people who are widely regarded as libertarians will no longer be so, leading to chaos in communication. So perhaps it is best to avoid the term altogether. But really, it would be nice to have a single term to describe Ayn Rand's politics, since it does share many basic features with the politics of earlier thinkers like John Locke and some of the US Founding Fathers. In that case, "classical liberalism" would be a good general term. Yet Ayn Rand's philosophic foundations differ substantially from even those original classical liberals. So where does that leave me? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure."
And in the post by Don Watkins that you link to, he offers the definition of "the Objectivist political philosophy" as
"A political philosophy characterized by a rights-based approach and advocating laissez-faire capitalism, a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, where all property is privately owned."
He goes on to argue that it is possible to recognize people who are not Objectivists as adherents of that political philosophy, and cites the Founding Fathers as an example. If so, then "Objectivism" can't be a proper label for that political philosophy. We need to be able to say, "Objectivists agree with X, Y, and Z in advocating P," where "P" represents Don's definition. And we need a label for P. Back when I encountered libertarianism, "libertarianism" meant P. Obviously, its meaning has changed. But when I say "I am a libertarian," what I mean is "I am a supporter of P." I'm not sure what would be a better label for that position. "Classical liberal" seems problematic, if only in that classical liberals accepted taxation as legitimate, and did not aspire to abolish it even in the distant future. "Radical for capitalism" has some appeal, but the trouble there is that "capitalism" has been at least as badly debased as "libertarianism." See for example the arguments that capitalism, or laissez-faire, has failed, because the Bush/Greenspan economic policies have turned out badly. Some other, more specific term would be helpful. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 14:39:03 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
William,
I appreciate your thoughfulness. I would argue that an Objectivist ought not to designate him/herself as "libertarian" not only because this concept subsumes altruistic and utilitarian "defenders" of capitalism - it also subsumes those who oppose capitalism, oddly enough (or not).
Noam Chomsky has called himself a "libertarian" as well as a "libertarian socialist." Once "libertarian" becomes a prefix to a social system that prohibits the market for the factors of production, any link with capitalism is removed.
I certainly would like to live in a world where the concept "libertarian" refered to Objectivist politics. It would make expressing myself more convenient. Yet I believe this is wishful thinking. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 14:52:07 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Kevin Clark
So if I understand things, "libertarianism" originally stood for the Objectivist political philosophy standing apart from the rest of the system. Then it became corrupted as it attempted to become a political and social movement. It would be nice to have a term that meant the politics of laissez-faire capitalism in the context of full individual rights and the non-initiation of force principle. If that's what "libertarian" meant than I would call myself a libertarian. But that is not what libertarian means today. Today, it really means nothing as so many different ideas are subsumed under that name. Now that I think about it, there really is no widely accepted term for the politics of uncompromised individual rights in our culture. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 14:55:01 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
William,
I appreciate your thoughfulness. I would argue that an Objectivist ought not to designate him/herself as "libertarian" not only because this concept subsumes altruistic and utilitarian "defenders" of capitalism - it also subsumes those who oppose capitalism, oddly enough (or not).
Noam Chomsky has called himself a "libertarian" as well as a "libertarian socialist." Once "libertarian" becomes a prefix to a social system that prohibits the market for the factors of production, any link with capitalism is removed.
I certainly would like to live in a world where the concept "libertarian" refered to Objectivist politics. It would make expressing myself more convenient. Yet I believe this is wishful thinking. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 16:46:31 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Kevin said, "So if I understand things, "libertarianism" originally stood for the Objectivist political philosophy standing apart from the rest of the system."
I don't think that was ever the case. Was the term "libertarian" ever so strict that Murray Rothbard did not qualify as one? Surely not. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 16:58:36 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- If you're going to get so specific as to require opposition to taxation, then I'd say that you're definitely in the realm of the Objectivist politics. That's just not a standard view in other circles, including libertarian circles.
Also, if you reject the term "classical liberal" on the grounds of classical liberals accepting taxation, then I cannot see how you could ever call yourself a libertarian, given the wildly divergent views classified as "libertarian" today. That's a very minor difference in comparison to wanting to eliminate government and turn the US into Somalia, I would think.
It's perfectly possible that no good general term exists to describe a principled, rights-based politics. However, that is no argument for using of the worst junk concepts around, namely "libertarian." Personally, I don't want to be lumped in with anarchists, welfare statists, pro-lifers, animal rights activists, environmentalists, and worse. I don't wish to be confused with those people. I don't want to engage in the pretense that those people are defenders of liberty, let alone my political allies. They're not. |
|
| Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 17:47:07 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Anthony
"I find all this completely strange, because when I encountered libertarianism, around 1969, it was virtually identical to Ayn Rand's political philosophy. All the libertarians I met accepted the idea that force may be used only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use..."
Did all the libertarians you met accept the idea that "a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force"? It's interesting thinking about the implications of that simple statement. Obviously an exception has to be made for emergency situations (our right to self-defense), but except for emergency situations, that statement is quite defining, eliminates quite a lot of "libertarian" belief, and seems to be consistent with an Objectivist view of a proper political system. Personally, I haven't pondered on it long enough to know whether or not I agree with it.
I got the quote from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html, which cites “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109. |
|
| Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 0:11:41 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Mike V
E-mail: mv_92071(at)yahoo.com
Ayn Rand thought it worthwhile to fight for certain terms because, historically, they held the key to the concepts they named. For example, she insisted on advocating for the virtue of “selfishness”, because surrendering the term to altruism’s advocates meant allowing them to obliterate the legitimate concept of moral human self-interest. In her words, “It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong; it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”
Likewise, Miss Rand conscientiously was unwilling to give up the term “capitalism” to the modern liberals or the conservatives. In naming one collection of essays, “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal” and the lead essay “What is Capitalism?” she made it a goal to identify what capitalism actually is, what it depends upon, and what it entails. Unlike capitalism’s other defenders, she defined capitalism as not just an economic system, but as a complete social system, incorporating both politics and economics (calling it a “politico-economic” system).
It seems Miss Rand did not struggle with whether to call her political philosophy “libertarianism” or “classical liberalism” (at least not after she began to write the bulk of her non-fiction essays), probably because she thought it worthwhile to use the specific term “capitalism” in order to most effectively defend the concept from its enemies and its so-called “friends”. She would not, and we should not, stand for the “package dealing” of true capitalism with today’s mixed economy.
In the past, I myself, have pondered this issue without considering more carefully what Ayn Rand’s practice was. Now, I believe that she purposely choose to call the ideal social system of her philosophy “capitalism”, despite the possibility of confusion on the part of others, because the term historically meant exactly what she meant. She identified that capitalism had become an unknown ideal and that it was worth fighting to keep the name so as to make its true nature known.
I think that Objectivists should continue in this manner; we should hold on to calling our political philosophy “capitalism” and ourselves “radicals for capitalism”, thereby fighting, as did Miss Rand, to hold on to and clarify what capitalism’s true meaning is. |
|
| Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 8:21:22 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Diana's mention of acceptance of taxation by libertarians surprises me. I've more often seen libertarianism associated with tax resisters and protesters . . . the sort of people who argue that the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional NOW (which it plainly is not, under the sixteenth amendment) and who want to abolish taxation immediately, instead of, as Rand proposed, as the last step on the way to a fully free society. Some of them seem to think that tax cuts are a short cut to forcing a decrease in government power, which does not seem to have worked out, at least when the government controls the central bank and can adopt unsound fiscal policies. But the past few years have shown a systematic effort to widen the appeal of the Libertarian Party by weakening the rigor of its definitions; so probably there are a lot of low-tax "libertarians" around now.
On the other hand, Mike's argument for not giving up the word "capitalism" just because a lot of people misuse it, package dealing laissez-faire capitalism together with mixed economies, could also apply to not giving up the word "libertarianism" just because a lot of people misuse that word.
On the point about abolishing taxation, I think it may be necessary to distinguish at least two categories. There is a broader category that includes philosophies based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, but does not adhere to strict noninitiation of force, as exemplified by acceptance of limited taxation (for example, the original constitutional model where federal direct taxation had to be in exact proportion to state population, effectively limiting the federal government to tariffs and excises). There is a narrower category that applies noninitiation of force strictly and looks to the ultimate abolition of taxation. Objectivism is the main exemplar of that narrower category, perhaps the only one; the classical liberals, even the best and most consistent of them, don't seem to have taken that step. So categorizing "Objectivism" as "classical liberalism" is misleading. But the two philosophies seem to belong together within a broader genus.
Anthony's mention of government as holding a monopoly of force hints at the question of anarchocapitalism. But I don't think I can formulate my view of anarchocapitalism in a short comment, and thus I can't offer a complete analysis of libertarianism. I do want to note that I believe the anarchocapitalists are wrong: the legal system of a free society can only be maintained by a government. |
|
| Monday, December 8, 2008 at 7:14:29 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"If you're going to get so specific as to require opposition to taxation, then I'd say that you're definitely in the realm of the Objectivist politics. That's just not a standard view in other circles, including libertarian circles."
That is just *ridiculous*, Diana. For god's sake: this was one of my very first vectors toward libertarianism, and I saw the moral argument from Robert LeFevre quite before I laid eyes on Ayn Rand. I don't know what you're calling a "standard view" or "libertarian circles", but most of the libertarians I know would just about go to war over that issue alone. |
|
| Monday, December 8, 2008 at 7:59:28 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Billy -- Of course, some libertarians are against taxation -- and vehemently so. However, just as many good and prominent libertarians held have argued for a welfare state and environmental regulations, many regard taxes as inevitable and necessary. I suspect that if you polled the senior fellows at the Cato Institute, a substantial portion would regard taxation as morally acceptable.
So my point is (and was) that "libertarianism" isn't significantly better than "classical liberalism" on this issue -- and it's far, far worse on many other issue. No classical liberal wants to turn America into Somalia or kill everyone who ever worked for government, for example.
Only Objectivism regards taxation as inherently immoral: you cannot cannot endorse taxation and still be an Objectivist. |
|
| Monday, December 8, 2008 at 8:03:15 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"However, just as many good and prominent libertarians held have argued for a welfare state and environmental regulations, many regard taxes as inevitable and necessary."
{snort} That's easy: they are *not* libertarians, and it doesn't make a difference what *anyone* calls them. |
|
| Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 14:47:00 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
Diana- In the last line of your post you ask, "What's the point of adding that Galt qualifier if doesn't mean anything?" It's a good question, and in a sane world it wouldn't have an answer. But I think it does, and it's not a pretty one. Here, I believe, is the same question in different context: What is the point of having Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto at a concert which has a program geared to 20th century Chance "music" and the "works" of John Cage. Chance music was the name given to the results of applying chance elements to the playing of specific notes, durations, and dynamics; John Cage's most famous book was called "silence" in which he extolled the importance of rests. He demonstrated what he meant in a "performance piece" in which a formally dressed pianist(it could have been an actor, there being no way to tell), came on stage, bowed to the wild applause of those in the know, raised the lid and the cover to the keyboard, and proceeded to sit in front of the piano for some 3 minutes and 54 seconds of, you guessed it, silence. This was not intended to be funny, by the way. The point? Nihilism. To make the strong weak and the weak strong. To thumb one's nose and flip one's finger at the entire history of western music. No, John Galt would not be a member of a group to which such "people" belong, but they, sure as hell, would like to be a member of John Galt's crowd. This is the point of all Nihilism I think (and perhaps the whole Original Sin idea). And notice, too, that in this way they can be with the best and not be bothered with doing anything productive. OMG John Galt's genius and independence along side James Taggert's Bush Republicanism all in one (NB for example?). |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Greg Perkins
Comments
