 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 16:29:58 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Trey
Spot on analysis. The only thing which I'm confused about - and this is a tangental issue I've been confused about long before reading your piece here - is that I can't really think of a good reason why a government composed strictly of Libertarians would be better than one composed strictly of Objectivists. The Objectivists, being unburdened by the "size principle" in their epistemology, would be more competent at protecting individual rights because they wouldn't be categorically opposed to making the government "large" if necessary - and that in and of itself would be a protection of individual rights since they would "get it done right the first time" and thus not waste resources through a string of ineffectual "small government" pokes at the problem - but in the short-term, where there aren't any emergencies and everything's just about even, I can't see what the difference would be.
What I mean by that is that presumably, if Libertarians were in power, it would be because the culture by-and-large are libertarian too. The majority of people agree with notions like private property, capitalism, and individual rights - but none of them understand any of them too deeply or hold solid opinions about more fundamental issues in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. Conversly, if Objectivists ran the government, that seems to presume nothing about the culture. In fact, the culture could be completely opposed to Objectivist positions about pre-political issues but it wouldn't make a difference because Objectivists, (rightly) having no moral scrupples about ruthlessly "imposing" the mechanics of a government meant only to protect individual rights upon a hostile population (I use the word "impose", and I put it in quotes, only because I can't think of the right word to describe what it would mean for governors to retaliatory force, albeit preemptive, against the governed).
So basically, what I'm saying, is that both situations seem equally as volatile over the long run. On the one hand you have a situation much like the one which describes America's historical drift from "libertarian" (ie: ungrounded) ideas about individual rights animating the politics to it's current semi-statist mixed-economy because of the underlying contradictions, and on the other you have a situation where the Objectivists in the government, who rule with an iron fist, are hated by a mystical, faith-ridden, altruistic, and would-be collectivistic population. That, to me, would be a recipe for going to exactly the same place the one-libertarian US has gone in the course of two centuries; but instead of it being a slow drift, it would be a dramatic lurch forward.
I know many Objectivists hear this issue discussed, and they immediately reply with the canard "that's why we have to change the culture on a more fundamental level first", but that seems like a cop out. The fact is, what made Americans (ie: ex-Europeans) into "libertarians" was that they were forced to. When they came to this wilderness of a continent, resources were so scarce that there wasn't much room for the purveyors of mysticism, altruism, and collectivism in the culture any more. The characteristic respect for common sense, reason, self-interest, and free markets Americans possess came from being forced to realize that those are what worked, and that the opposites didn't.
So why can't a cadre of Objectivists, ruthlessly imposing their will upon today's messed up culture, not shock people into the same sort of last-resort, kicking-and-screaming respect for the fundamentals? I'm not saying it can - I don't know - I just don't see how any Objectivist can honestly denounce what the Libertarians are trying to achieve unless and until they have an explicit policy which takes everything I've described into account. As it stands now, "mainstream" Objectivism (ie: the ARI) seems to be pursuing a little of both (ie: things like the OAC operating along side things like the ARC in Washington). |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 16:31:21 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Trey
I shouldn't have said "better" in my first substantial sentence. "Any different from" was the right choice of words. Sorry |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 17:13:39 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Jay
E-mail: smoovegeek(at)gmail.com
I agree with the argument that an ungrounded political philosophy is problematic and that a cultural change needs to take place before sweeping political change. I also agree that the 'libertarian movement' and the LP in particular suffers from those who come to the ideals from unconsidered or philosophically dangerous positions.
However, I don't understand why one shouldn't label Rand as a 'small-L' libertarian when it comes to her political philosophy. I'm sure nobody would object to labeling her as an atheist, though there are many unsavory atheist individuals and groups out there. Granted, she arrived at her politics from a rational grounding in ethics/epistemology/metaphysics, and that is a very important distinction, but the defining principle of libertarianism as a political ideology is the non-aggression principle, which my reading of Rand suggests that she advocated strongly.
I've always been puzzled by the orthodox Objectivist position on supporting libertarian political figures or groups since leaders such as Dr. Peikoff have advocated voting for one or other of the major political parties in the past, and many Objectivists have turned out in support of the Tea Party movement. Democrats and Republicans certainly have no valid philosophical grounding for their positions, and they approach politics as a floating abstraction as well. It seems to me that if Objectivists are to throw their hat in the political ring at all, they would do better to support libertarian groups or candidates than Democratic or Republican ones. To act politically at all is to deal with people who generally have no underpinning for their ideals or worse, so if we hold our noses and dive in anyway, why not ally with those whose political ideals most closely match our own? Perhaps the popular notion of libertarians as cranks and naïve idealists would tarnish the name of Objectivism? I don't think Rand ever shied from idealism or placed her reputation in the public eye above her principles.
Maybe there's something big that I'm overlooking here, but I just can't figure it out. In the past, I have tried asking prominent Objectivists about this issue and gotten no response. Perhaps there is someone at NoodleFood who can shed some light on this for me and other people like me who undoubtedly frequent this blog. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 17:17:16 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: infallible
E-mail: jonathan(at)austin.rr.com
When talking with people, out of convenience, I use the "libertarian" label because most people will then grasp the basic practical application of what I believe. It's not totally accurate, and if I find someone interested, I'm more than happy to go into why I only use the label out of convenience, rather than accuracy.
One of the big problems with libertarians (and Libertarians) is that the foundation of their ideas is being against stuff. This is discussed in the article, but to spotlight it, libertarians are against big government. They're not really for anything, and certainly don't have any kind of overarching guiding ideas or moral foundation. That's why you can have all these disparate elements all be correctly identified as "libertarian." So, Trey, to answer your question: I don't think we could ever see a libertarian government, because by the nature of libertarianism, they couldn't unite enough to be a party or be cohesive enough to hold any kind of majority. They're only unified because of their opposition to government, not because of their support for freedom or rights. And this is what makes Objectivism far different from libertarianism. Libertarianism is against large government, but they don't know why. Objectivism is against large government because it violates individual rights. That core of rights is immeasurably important and while it is often missed by folks as a whole (especially libertarians that don't know what they're missing), is integral to the Objectivist philosophy.
So how would a government of libertarians be practically different from a government of Objectivists? The difference comes when you get to that level of popularity and size. A party or group of libertarians wouldn't function because they'd be split on what government can and can't do. Without that guiding philosophy, you'll still have fights about abortion, religion, foreign aid and intervention, war, and state restrictions on personal liberty because there's no core idea to which they can refer. (And it's worth noting that one can be pro-life or pro-choice and be libertarian, Christian, Pagan, atheist and all between and be libertarian, xenophobic and bellicose and be libertarian, etc.) For Objectivists, I think that it's pretty easy to decide such things because it comes down to individual rights rather than opinion. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 17:30:31 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Jay and others --
I struggled with many of these issues in the past. Particularly regarding the legitimacy of calling Ayn Rand's politics, I recommend this post:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/04/socialist-dreamin.html
And the comments:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/view.pl?postid=107941896945396488
I've collected most of my past writings on libertarianism (and other related topics) here:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff/
If you've not read those essays, I recommend that you do. Due to my own personal history, I've written more on the topic than any other Objectivist.
I do think that the landscape with respect to the term "libertarian" has changed somewhat in recent years: it often is used in a very loose kind of way to refer to people who want less government intrusion, to refer to a distinctive libertarian movement. However, I still think the label should be eschewed -- precisely because Objectivists should not be presenting themselves as the allies of the anarchists, animal rights advocates, pro-lifers, welfare-statists, pedophilia-defenders, and Ayn Rand haters common in libertarian circles.
I do not wish to empower those kinds of people. They are not my allies; they would represent a grave danger to my life and liberty. If rights are ever to be respected in America again, Objectivism must distance itself from such people -- and therefore, from the libertarian banner they work under. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 19:35:29 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Greg: I think the question is more complicated than that, because the term "libertarian" is equivocal.
Consider, for comparison, a label such as "atheist" or "deontologist." These refer to positions on specific philosophical issues; they do not refer to comprehensive philosophies. If we say that Ayn Rand was an atheist, or Immanuel Kant was a deontologist, that tells us what each of them thought about one issue in philosophy. Their position on that issue was part of a larger philosophical perspective, and not the most fundamental part; and it was shared with people who adhered to quite different positions on other issues . . . for example, Rand was an atheist, but so is Richard Dawkins, and so were Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jean-Paul Sartre. And yet, we can define "atheist" rationally as "a person who does not believe in God or gods," and we can validly say that Ayn Rand was an atheist, because she did not believe in God or gods.
In the same way, we can define a libertarian as a person who believes that force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. That's a specific position in political philosophy, and one that has specific implications: support for a legal code based on individual rights of life, liberty, and property, and for an economic system in which individuals exercise those rights . . . that is, laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivists would insist that all of those words have to be used with specific meanings, but I don't see any problem with saying that libertarianism, rightly understood, involves adherence to positions based on the right understanding of the words in question. And in that purely descriptive sense of "libertarian," Ayn Rand clearly was a libertarian.
The word is sometimes used more broadly: to refer, for example, to people who accept compulsory taxation within strict limits, or who favor having government exercise a few more powers than a proper Objectivist government would accept. And that gets a bit problematic. But Ayn Rand herself set the precedent of having ongoing intellectual relationships with people who had such ideas, and even of recommending their books: for example, those of Ludwig von Mises or Henry Hazlitt, or Isabel Paterson's "The God of the Machine." It does not strike me as a violation of Rand's Razor to say that Rand, Mises, and Paterson had a broader political philosophy in common, and one that was different from that of majoritarian democrats, for example.
The matter becomes trickier when we shift from using the word "libertarian" for a specific philosophical idea, or for a body of closely related philosophical positions, to refer to a loose cultural or political movement. For example, there are people who claim to believe in individual rights, but would extend the right to life to fetuses (which are not individuals), or to nonhuman animals; there are people who would deny any property rights in land, or transfer factories to the ownership of the assembly line workers. In these cases, we have a similarity of verbal formula being used to form alliances with people whose actual positions are antithetical to individual rights and capitalism. The political aspirations of the Libertarian Party have led them in that direction, as shown most recently with their accepting large numbers of disaffected conservative Republicans into the party. And, for that matter, the efforts of the von Mises Institute to build bridges with racist groups have deeply discredited them.
Nonetheless, we do need a label for "the political philosophy that Ayn Rand shared with such thinkers as Ludwig von Mises and Isabel Paterson, and more broadly with the American founders." In particular, I adhere to that political philosophy, and in many respects my views are closer to Rand's than to those of the others who adhere to it. But I don't think I should call myself an Objectivist, both because I'm not a spokesman for the Objectivist movement and because I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's ideas on any branch of philosophy (though I think she showed astoundingly good judgment both on what to reject and on what to affirm, and came up with some extremely good arguments for her positions). Is there a label that better fits my point of view than "libertarian"? |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 22:39:20 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Richard
I watched the CATO event as well and had to bear with that bit. It's ridiculous when someone calls Rand a Libertarian after all of her explicit comments to the contrary. It's like calling her a Socialist because she was an idealist. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 23:46:58 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
Just as God lives in the gaps of human knowledge, the Libertarians live in the broken conceptual links found in the works of Von Mises, Hazlitt et al. Objectivists should try to fill those gaps and leave no space for Libertarians to sit and spread their tentacles. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 23:56:32 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jason Crawford
E-mail: jasonc(at)alumni.cmu.edu
URL: http://www.jasoncrawford.org
Good summary, Greg. I'll keep this piece in mind to refer people to next time someone asks me about this. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7:23:42 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/
Greg,
If Objectivists aren't libertarians because Objectivist politics included a philosopic basis that libertarianism lacks, then logically Objectivists shouldn't call themselves atheists, individualists, radicals for capitalism, etc.
One of Rand's reason for not liking the term libertarian probably had to do with Rothbard, who was an anarcho-capitalist. A second was her rather exaggerated claims of originality on this, and other, matters. You wouldn't know if from reading her books how much she was influenced by Carl Snyder, H.L. Mencken, Isabel Paterson, and Rose Wilder Lane. Dr. Burns notes that Rand had a heavily marked up version of Herbert Spencer's Man Against the State.
-Neil Parille |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 8:27:51 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)gmail.com
Mrs. Hsieh wrote:
"However, I still think the label should be eschewed -- precisely because Objectivists should not be presenting themselves as the allies of the anarchists, animal rights advocates, pro-lifers, welfare-statists, pedophilia-defenders, and Ayn Rand haters common in libertarian circles."
I think this is a major point. And we can add anti-Semites to this sorry list of degenerates who infest the waters of libertarianism, many of whom have clawed their way out of the muck and onto libertarian websites and magazine mastheads. They aren't the fringe of the fringe anymore. LIBERTY magazine's broadside against an alleged Jewish/Zionist cabal that forced America into the Iraq war is but one of many idiotic (and unchallenged!) fairy tales that make up the libertarian "critique" of America. I wonder what Alisa Rosenbaum would have thought of that?
And you can hold your breath until you drop dead waiting on any of the libertarian celeb/scholars like Boaz to say, "Uh...I can't sanction this bigoted nonsense."
There's no future in the libertarian rat hole. Sane people should stay out. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 9:11:30 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Rory Hodgson
E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com
Greg said, "In this view, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism. This sets up the natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion, which is pretty easy to pick out in their policies and rhetoric and reactions to world events. "
And now bringing in what 'infallible' said:
"When talking with people, out of convenience, I use the "libertarian" label because most people will then grasp the basic practical application of what I believe. It's not totally accurate, and if I find someone interested, I'm more than happy to go into why I only use the label out of convenience, rather than accuracy."
I had this exact same issue with a libertarian today. I got into a discussion of the death penalty. I said that I don't know whether it ought to or ought not to exist, but that I think the Government has the *right* to do it, in cases where someone is locked away for life. The point of prison is to make someone effectively dead to the rest of the world. The point is to remove them as effectively as possible. When they are locked away for life, it might be (but I am undecided) if it would be more effective (and more just) to just kill them.
Anyway, I might be wrong on that, but the point is he didn't say that the Government would emphatically not have have the right (in the sense of it being ethical): his point was that it would make the Government "too large". How could I, as a Libertarian (I had earlier accepted the label, for the sake of argument, to see what he had to say) be for something that gives the Government the power over life and death? Was I not giving too much power to the Government and making it "too large"? I expressed surprise, saying that I thought our freedom from an intervention with our rights was more important, and that if he wanted to take issue with me, surely it should be over whether the death penalty intervenes with our rights. But no, he insisted it was the "size" of the Government that matters.
I should have asked him, in hindsight, how exactly one measures the "size" of a Government. Surely it cannot be a simple numerical size, or even scale, because different countries and different States/Counties/Provinces/Towns/whatever within those countries would require a different amount and scale of government (a small country which only sells weaved-baskets and cheese burgers would have no need for an Intellectual Property court, for instance). If he means, "How much the Government intervenes in our lives", well, that's still an imprecise and unhelpful definition. If I live in a crime-ridden area, I would not take a deployment of more patrolmen to that area - which would mean more of the Government in my life - to mean I was now living in a police-state. I think this whole notion of 'interference' or 'intervention' conflates the idea of proper and improper Government, and fails to make the accurate distinction, which is between "Proper" and "Improper" government, which is, supposedly, what they were attempting to do to begin with.
***
Also, I'll say something to Trey above:
The problem with those Libertarians, is that they are watering down the issue, and conceding the moral point to the other side, thus weakening their chances of ultimately effectng the culture or the politics. Now, imagine if they were actually consisent and rigorous, and accepted that they need a moral base, and came over to Objectivism -- how much stronger would we be, and how much sooner would we reach our end goal, with this segment of the population now Objectivist.
The point isn't what they are doing, so much as what they are failing to do, and the fact that their failures, though we cannot see it, are the absence of so much good that could exist if they saw what they needed to do. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 9:19:05 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Gideon Reich
E-mail: gideon.reich(at)gmail.com
URL: http://armchairintellectual.blogspot.com
The fact is, if one takes a number of issues out of context we have a lot in common with some Conservatives and Liberals as well, particularly the more rational individuals of these two groups. But any deeper look at the overall philosophy clearly distinguishes Objectivism from any of these. As Greg points out, it's an epistemology thing. Our methodology of thinking in terms of principles (particularly moral principles) sets us apart for all major ideological groups. In some respects one could argue we are closer to religious Conservatives, because they too tend to emphasize morality. Of course, their morality of altruism based on mysticism is usually not confused with ours. In other respects, at least in claimed adherence to reason, we're closer to the Liberals, but they seem to fail completely when it comes to understanding markets or principles of economic freedom. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 9:30:34 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, Trey. You ask what the difference would be between Libertarians magically being in charge vs. Objectivists magically being in charge. Of course, neither can be magically in charge, and I think that in *both* cases there would have to be a big shift in the culture for that to happen and be maintainable (no ruthlessly imposing wills or "iron fist" stuff needed or desired -- if the culture is fundamentally misaligned with the government in the ways you toy with, then there'll be some kind of bloody uprising to resolve the conflict). The thing about shifting the culture isn't a cop-out, it's simply recognizing a fact.
Anyway, their different ways of thinking about politics would result in different approaches to governing, even if you want to posit that both somehow start from the same place. This is because the Objectivists would be consciously aiming at recognizing and defending individual rights because they recognize that as THE governing principle of the domain (and they would have the basis to best sort out just what that means in the myriad challenging cases that will arise). The Libertarians would not be animated by that principle, and to the degree they tried to incorporate it in their efforts they would also not enjoy any coherent basis to do that sorting out of the myriad challenging cases that will arise. All of this would have real consequences for peoples lives.
If both are really shooting for doing good government, then over time there would be a dramatic divergence. As I wrote: "If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this [libertarian] confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite." |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 10:00:12 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, Jay. Yes, there is some measure of agreement between Objectivists and Libertarians on isolated concretes (or at least the words people use to refer to some things). There's also big disagreements on other isolated concretes -- both between Objectivists and Libertarians and between Libertarians and Libertarians when you you move beyond the words they use (see Paul's excellent Cardiac Surgeon piece I link to near the end of the post).
If Libertarianism were nothing but that grab bag of words and a set of policies that happen to be in the majority of their group, then I would roll my eyes at them about as much as I do the Democrats or the Republicans, and deal with them all similarly.
But they are NOT like the major parties. They hold themselves out as "the party of principle" -- and they have that conceptual framework and they use it to define themselves and their ideals. That framework is seductive and poisonous for the reasons I outlined, so as long as they rely on that framework (and they certainly still do), I have to keep my distance because it is so dangerous to my goal of genuine liberty.
Besides drawing and supporting the horrid types of people others have listed above, that way of thinking disarms innocents to the unassailable "principled arguments" for anarchism and the like. Why would I associate myself with that and encourage MORE people to fall prey to the subtle, long-term mortal danger I discussed in the article -- just for the short-term "gain" of an on-off alliance that might get a block of votes together on some concrete measure once in a while?
That seems like suicide to me. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 10:37:06 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Sajid
On the Libertarian versus Objectivist debate there is actually a simple litmus test to tell an libertarian from an Objectivist--conflict resolution. Libertarian is ultimately a political system that has stolen the abstraction of freedom and limited government from Objectivism. However, if you ever ask a Libertarian how he intends to put his political system in place, he will be forced to come up with legal and ethical arguments. And then all you will end up hearing is either a support of anarchy (couched as "anarcho-capitalism"), moral relativism (it is impossible to differentiate between right and wrong) and a mindless rehashing of one principle and only one principle--"force should not be initiated".
This is like saying I am a Newtonian physicist. I believe in F = ma and nothing else. Even though you can derive ALL of classical mechanics from that simple principle (and perhaps you need conservation of energy), you still wouldn't be much of a physicist. It would be impossible for you, within your frame of thought to discover electricity, Magnetism, Quantum Mechanics or Special Relativity. It is interesting to note that prior to the discovery of electricity, this so called Newtonian Physicist would actually be indistinguishable from an actual physicist for all practical purposes. But if you ever asked him what physics really means he wouldn't be able to tell you because he is not really a physicist, just a pale imitation.
This is the same with Libertarians. Strictly speaking, they are not philosophers at all. As Nietzsche said, it is not "freedom from what" but "freedom for what". When Libertarians want liberty, why do they want it? For their own happiness? To indulge their whims without judgement? Blank out (I personally think it is the latter). When Libertarians are able to advocate a serious system of government that includes principles of conflict resolution that actually work I can start taking them seriously. Till then it is just a fad and it will be impossible for Libertarianism to ever have a significant foothold on American thought.
I would also like to add that one of the things Ayn Rand did not really discuss was philosophy of law and this lends Objectivism to being hijacked by Libertarianism. Given that both "Night of January 16th" and "The Fountainhead" had significant and very important court scenes, we can conclude her preferences for "due process" and how justice should be done. Also, given the fact that in "Think Twice" the lead protagonist actually commits a murder, we can also conclude exactly what she thinks of "Non-initiation of force" as a fundamental principle. I maybe wrong on this, but I do believe a well thought out system of the philosophy of law and conflict resolution from an Objectivist perspective is necessary and missing from the Objectivist cannon. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 11:22:01 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: John Donohue
E-mail: john(at)jrdonohue.com
URL: http://jrdonohue.com
The motive for the Boaz tactic is theft. There is such an important penumbra of good will and personal inspiration around Ayn Rand, and so little around libertarianism (agree they don't stand for anything) that any chance to coat tail is grabbed. They always try to spin it around, too, "Ayn Rand, libertarian, contributed some good things to our movement." Sometimes they add "But most of us have gone far past her."
Libertarianism - Ayn Rand = 0 (or far less)
The above mentions of hate of Rand by libertarians I recently found (in a forum debate) to be no exaggeration. The von Mises Institute is now overrun with the most radical element of left-anarchists and they are vicious in their denunciation of Ayn Rand, especially in the area of intellectual property rights. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 11:29:34 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: John Donohue
E-mail: john(at)jrdonohue.com
URL: http://jrdonohue.com
addendum: perhaps the libertarian hatred of intellectual property rights is the epistemological 'size' error as well. They hate corporations. I mean, the anarchists HATE corporations. They know the only way a corporation can get large is if it establishes and obtains rock-solid legal protection for its intellectual property, including trademarks.
Also, someone said above "If the libertarians were in power...."
To be consistent they would have to maintain that the gaining and maintaining of "power" is wrong. There can be no libertarian government, no libertarian nation, no libertarian law. How is that any different than. . . nothing? |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 13:34:02 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, William. You write that you "think the question is more complicated than that, because the term 'libertarian' is equivocal."
So many words. But they can't obscure this simple fact: if you have a political concept that subsumes both Objectivists and anarchists, then that means you see the two as sharing something *essential* politically, something central and causally meaningful about their natures, something that is supposed to help you think well about political stuff in general. That's what concepts are for.
But as I've explained, the Objectivist politics and anarchism are in fact polar opposites regarding what is important in the domain. So such a category would be complete epistemological crap. Do you want complete epistemological crap in your head? I sure don't. It'll muck up thinking, lead to poor identifications and poor choices, and cause real harm in one's life. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 14:30:13 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, Neil. I gave an analysis that was firmly grounded in the Objectivist methodology, and this is what should be significant to rational people. Besides not bearing on the case, your random, tentative, psychological speculation about Rand is irrelevant -- even if were true -- because it simply doesn't apply to folks like me and the Objectivists I know.
Did you read the article before commenting? I wonder since you seem to think my thesis is that "Objectivists aren't libertarians because Objectivist politics included a philosopic basis that libertarianism lacks." That's not what I was focused on. (Sorry that what I was focused on doesn't readily support your question implying an inconsistency.)
You ask: if it is fair to label Objectivists atheist and individualist and capitalist, then why wouldn't it be fair to also label them libertarian? As I labored to explain, you certainly *can* apply such a label, but you *shouldn't* because the category as developed and actually deployed is complete epistemological crap and will mess up your thinking. Since that complete epistemological crap is not just horribly dangerous, but also apparently subtle and spreads easily, I'm being extra careful with it. The other labels aren't currently associated with complete epistemological crap that's as virulent and dangerous.
And it's not like they get a complete pass when they are bandied about -- sometimes they need to be handled with care, too. "Capitalism" is often confused for anything involving property, business, and markets, including personal and governmental rights violations, so I routinely need to clarify that by 'capitalism' I mean the social/economic system that the recognition and defense of rights gives rise to. And "atheism" is routinely confused for an actual ideology with lots of positive content, so I routinely need to explain that atheism is not an ideology and that it implies vanishingly little about what I *do* think. See for example my article about the New Atheists and D'Souza that went into that: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/why-new-atheists-cant-even-b ...
And so on. Maybe off in the far flung future, 'libertarian' will become less dangerous and I can treat it more like these others. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 18:05:26 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Mel McGuire
Greg: "The politics of liberty that Objectivism advocates really does depend on a particular philosophical foundation. The Libertarian movement might be in a better position to understand this if they weren't so eager to set aside the fact that fundamental ideas are critically important."
In rejecting the necessity of philosophy--and thus reason, I'd say that Libertarianism rejects Objectivism at its root (and vise versa). The linked articles by Paul Hsieh and Ari Armstrong collect the evidence nicely. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 19:01:24 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Greg: Your comment about the impropriety of integrating Ayn Rand into the same category as, say, Murray Rothbard or Mikhail Bakunin is perfectly valid. And, in fact, the post of mine that you're replying to said "In these cases, we have a similarity of verbal formula being used to form alliances with people whose actual positions are antithetical to individual rights and capitalism," which I think ought to count as an endorsement of your position.
But what about the integration I was actually recommending: integrating Ayn Rand into the same category as Isabel Paterson and Ludwig von Mises, or earlier in history as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine? Obviously none of those people was an Objectivist, or had a proper ethical defense of individual rights and capitalism. But are you suggesting that to see these people and Ayn Rand as "sharing something *essential* politically, something central and causally meaningful about their natures, something that is supposed to help you think well about political stuff in general" is unjustified, and that to do so will only mess up one's thinking? That seems an extraordinary claim to make.
*That* is the integration I am talking about making, and the one that, I suggest, needs a label. That was the point of my comment about the term "libertarian" being equivocal: That it could be used either for the larger, invalid integration, or for this narrower, valid one.
Do you think there there are no essential similarities between Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, or between Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers?
If you do think there are such similarities (necessarily, at the level of political philosophy, not that of ethics or epistemology), do you think there is no point in having a name for the concept based on recognizing the similarities?
Do you have a name to suggest that's better than "libertarian"? (Seriously, I'd be glad to have one.) |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 23:39:38 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- If you wish to evoke the Enlightenment approach to rights and government -- as opposed to that of the modern libertarians (including anarchists and other unsavory types) -- I'd say that "classical liberal" is the term to use. I have no problem with speaking of Ayn Rand as a classical liberal in the tradition of Locke, Madison, and others -- despite some important differences between them. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 1:36:31 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
I concur with Diana; "liberal" is ultimately the term to use. The problem is that this term has been badly damaged by the Left's co-option of that movement and it's label (and conservatism's active aiding and abetting of such), necessitating the use of the term "classical".
As for the basic theme of this post -- "it's an epistemology thing" -- I find it fascinating how applied epistemology simply baffles conservatives like Neil Parille. It's like a sort of color blindness, so complete that they end up seeing only the parts that are visible to their crippled vision, and respond to *that*. It's no wonder that their comments invariably seem to suggest that they aren't actually familiar with the material.
Hell, that just about sums up nearly the entirety of what passes for mainstream commentary on Objectivist ideas. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 9:02:57 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Trey
Greg, I disagree with your dismissal of the notion that imposing a particular way of life upon a hostile population can affect lasting change. I'm not sure you're wrong to dismiss it eventually, but I know you're wrong to do it at this point. What I mean by that is that yes, unlike the early American colonists, who were "forced" by the nature of living on a wilderness continent to adapt libertarian/classical-liberal/implicit-Objectivist/whatever habits of thought and behavior, modern Americans who lived under the rule of a oligarchy of Objectivists would only be up against other people instead of the environment itself.
However, just because that distinction exists doesn't mean that average people would be able to see it. Early Americans weren't able to see it. Instead of organizing all of their rational ideas about the various branches of philosophy into a cohesive, explicit philosophical system, they simply called it all "Americanism"; and what you see today in the conservative movement - with their ineffectual appeals to tradition in defense of those characteristics against statism - is what failing to make that distinction has devolved into. It's the exact thing I'm describing in my hypothetical conjecture, just in reverse. They thought that their decision to yield to metaphysical imperatives was automatic in their "American character"; I'm suggesting that it's possible for them to think that the diktats of an Objectivist oligarchy are metaphysical imperatives.
So why wouldn't a government run by Objectivists be able to trick the people into regarding it as an immovable object, on par with the natural environment? You say that it's because there would be a bloody uprising. Well, I say put down that uprising - ruthlessly. Unlike the Libertarians - who hold the non-agression principle out of context just like they hold the value of "small government" out of context - Objectivist governors wouldn't be philosophically disarmed from doing what needs to be done to get people to fall in line and respect individuals rights. Keep that up long enough and eventually they give up, give in and, hopefully, begin to look in to why these damn Objectivists are so successful (ie: they learn that Objectivist diktats *are* metaphysical imperatives - not because they are Objectivist diktats, but because the Objectivists are right).
Ironically, this is exactly the approach Objectivists support when it comes to America affecting change internationally. Why wouldn't it work domestically?
I agree with you fully that over the long-term, the fundamentally anarchic approach to all things government implicit in Libertarianism would lead to violations of individual rights (just like the fundamentally unphilosophical approach that the early Americans took has lead to the conservative movement, with it's only recourse after the "tradition defense" being it's own brand of statism: theocracy). But that is exactly why I'm painting this alternative picture: to get you to realize that the only time in history when there was a "cultural change" towards more rational ideas about these things is when settlers on a virgin continent were forced to accept them or die. And even then they didn't get it completely right (as our subsequent decline back into a culture of faith, altruism, and collectivism demonstrate). You can talk all you want about how cultural change needs to happen before either group could ever hope to come into power, but again, that seems like a cop-out. How do you propose to change the culture when the most fundamental avenues open to you - the places where you get to express, to a wide and expectant audience, the only things which seperate Objectivists from Libertarians - are forcibly controlled by the statists in the government?
I'm talking here about things like public radio and television, the public school and university system, libraries. Unlike through blogs on the internet, watching Fox News, or even through reading a novel, these are actually the places where people expect to pick up their fundamental ideas. Those are the things we should be thinking about getting our hands on. Not getting invited to participate in and maybe influencing, but controlling - completely. They shouldn't be controlled by any government period, but now that they are, they should be used to inure the populace to Objectivist notions.
Anyways, I'm getting off on a tangent about one of a "myriad of challenging cases" those in power would have to consider in their protection of individual rights. It's pointless here to discuss it too much, but I hint at it because like it or not, the first step that a government "animated by the principle of recognizing and defending individual rights" would have to take, today, in reality as it currently stands, would be to use what exists now as a means of "violating individual rights" (ie: delivering retribution to a population who thought they could get away with statism) towards the ultimate goal of getting to a point where those weapons are no longer needed.
To be opposed to that - for no other reason than because it's "not what the government should be doing" - is to, ironically think just like a Libertarian. It's taking an idea out of the context of reality. It's complaing about the metaphysical fact that ends cannot just spontaneously come into existence without real, concrete, very specific means; just like Libertarianism is essentially a complaint about the metaphysical fact that men require governments.
Anyways, food for thought, and far more nutritious than simply regurgitating the same old distinctions (however true) between Objectivists and Libertarians just to maintain your good standing with the Diana Hsieh's and Leonard Peikoff's of the Objectivist movement. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 9:49:27 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
"Anyways, food for thought, and far more nutritious than simply regurgitating the same old distinctions (however true) between Objectivists and Libertarians just to maintain your good standing with the Diana Hsieh's and Leonard Peikoff's of the Objectivist movement."
Trey,
You were doing fine until this last paragraph, where you implicitly (being charitable there, not sure why) accuse Greg of writing this essay (which BTW is the best I've seen on this topic, speaking as an ex-Libertarian), just to suck up. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 10:00:06 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Trey said, "Anyways, food for thought, and far more nutritious than simply regurgitating the same old distinctions (however true) between Objectivists and Libertarians just to maintain your good standing with the Diana Hsieh's and Leonard Peikoff's of the Objectivist movement."
That's really, really offensive -- not to mention unfair and simply wrong. Do you expect any Objectivist to engage you in serious discussion of your (flawed) analysis after suggesting in advance that they're just sucking up to me and Leonard Peikoff? I hope that Greg tells you to bugger off, but that's his choice. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 10:49:50 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Trey, you're a real piece of work -- buzz off. Don't bother trying to say anything to me again unless it's prefaced with the biggest ass-kissing apology this site has ever seen and prominently displays a level of humility that better suits your rather modest capacities.
(And thanks Steve and Diana. Of course it was only a matter of choosing how much to tone down my first choice of words.) |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 11:11:15 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, William. I am with Diana and Jim -- the term "classical liberal" seems fine for that purpose.
(Sorry, I didn't understand that when you said "the question is more complicated than that," that you weren't referring to the question I was addressing in the article, but this other related thing that you were interested in.) |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 11:46:11 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
"Of course it was only a matter of choosing how much to tone down my first choice of words."
Given that the other major topic in the comments is the prudes thread, maybe you shouldn't have. ;) |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 12:12:23 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Klaus Nordby
E-mail: artistgeek(at)klausnordby.com
URL: http://www.klausnordby.com
A great piece, Greg, my compliments!!!
Also thanks for the many fine follow-ups in the comments.
To some extent, this alleged "terminological problem" is an American problem, since in the US the word "liberal" pretty much means "leftist." Here in Europe (I'm in Norway) the term "liberal" isn't a leftist-only term, as it conveys much more the term's original idea of being pro-freedom, but it's still useful for us to speak of "classical liberals." And while Ayn Rand obviously isn't *exactly* like Adam Smith or J.S. Mill (to say the least!) -- "classical liberal" is at least not a term which lumps AR & Objectivism with the politically insane -- and epistemologically blind -- "freedom-for-pedofiles" crowd. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 23:45:56 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
Greg, I learned more about this issue from your post than I did from reading the Peter Schwartz article, "Libertarianism: The perversion of Liberty. Three cheers!!! |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 18:06:45 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Curious
Greg and Diana,
Interesting post and comments. I have a question: what is the definition of 'libertarianism'? Who falls within the concept 'libertarian'? Are people utilitarians iff they "offer a two-dimensional approach [to political philosophy] based on degrees of personal and economic freedom [so that] libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism[, thereby setting up a] natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion." Are people utilitarian iff they are "anarchists, animal rights advocates, pro-lifer, welfare-statists, pedophilia-defenders, and Ayn Rand haters"?
Is Richard Nozick a libertarian? His 'minimum state' theory would seem to align nicely with the thought experiment Greg provides, but most would consider him a libertarian.
Finally, isn't the government that reserves the power of conscription 'bigger' in the relevant sense since it has one power more than the non-conscription government, namely, the power to draft individuals (even if it has not exercised that power)?
I would really like to get your thoughts on this. I'm not an Objectivist (I'm not nearly familiar enough with Rand's works), but I consider myself a Nozickian libertarian. Nozick was conscious of the criticisms that 'anarcho-capitalists' would levy against him, and his minimal state theory is a direct response. I've never understood the hostility that Objectivists have towards [all forms of?] libertarianism, and I'm really trying to understand how Objectivism differs from all species of libertarianism.
Thanks in advance. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 0:37:16 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/
The real problem here is that the Libertarians' error is reinforced whenever some Objectivist starts a discussion of Objectivism with a non-Objectivist at the point of ethics, or (???) politics. If the Objectivist does not start with ontology and epistemology front and center, the predictable result in the non-Objectivist's mind will be misintegration - of which Libertarianism is the paradigmatic specimen.
Ayn Rand's novels are great at motivating interest, but the best recommendation to someone who is asking about the philosophy, is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 11:02:34 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
"Curious," I am having a hard time following your questions.
For a discussion of the definition of a libertarian, please refer to Cato's materials and the several resources I indicated, or just go to Wikipedia's page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism. My brief description seems perfectly fair and useful for the purpose of making my point. (And I don't understand why you slid into asking about utilitarianism -- you'll need to clarify that.)
As for Richard Nozick being a libertarian or not, that's not a name I know. Are you talking about ROBERT Nozick? Then yes, of course he's counted as a big libertarian. Just like Rand and Rothbard and countless others. How is this relevant?
And as for whether the conscription-including government is slightly "bigger" than the non-conscription one -- well, yes it is. That's precisely why I chose that for the example.
Finally, I don't see how my point could be taken as indicating a hostile attitude toward all forms of libertarianism, if by that you mean a hostile attitude toward anyone whose thinking would be classified as libertarian. Being an Objectivist, I am included in that category and I'm obviously not against myself -- and there are plenty of thinkers covered by the category whose ideas I have a good deal of sympathy with. My point here is that the category itself and the thinking behind it is epistemological poison and shouldn't be used at all. That's completely different than saying anyone so-classified is bad.
If you really need it framed in terms of conflict, then here: I am saying that in the end, someone simply won't be my friend in (actual) liberty so long as their thinking is animated by the above classification scheme. No matter how many of their concrete policies I may smile at, and no matter how much they may decry others I frown at, they are nonetheless upholding and propagating a *standard* which in fact paints the opposite of political goodness as the pinnacle of political goodness. That's bad and dangerous and something I'll object to every time it comes up. Self-identifying "libertarians" all seem to be animated by and uphold that classification scheme -- here in America, it's the "libertarian movement's" primary tool of education and recruitment. So, despite any merits their thinking may otherwise have, I know that in the end they simply won't be my friend in liberty. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 13:32:48 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Curious
Greg,
Thanks for the response. And sorry for all of the mistakes (Richard, Utilitarian, etc.) My brain must have been fried last night.
Again, thanks for the response; very instructive. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 20:15:12 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Trey
I hate that I have to say this:
I could have commended Greg's work here if it were written for another purpose other than what I said it was, but it's clear that it was not. It could be a great propaganda piece - short, biting, and to the essential point of the entire topic - which, if edited slightly, could possibly influence a lot of Libertarians and would-be Libertarians very profoundly. But it isn't that. It's written by and for Objectivists, about a particular instance of Libertarian Rand-fawning (nothing new), so that we can all revel in our philosophic superiority. Not only that, but the point it makes isn't even original! Schwartz made it just as clearly in "Libertarianism: A Perversion of Liberty" and Binswanger alluded to it in "Anarchism Vs. Objectivism." Granted, the former had it buried inside an article of much wider scope than Greg's post was, while the later only alluded to it since his article's scope was a less fundamental aspect of the issue, so neither could have had the polemical power Greg's piece could have, but like I said, as it stands now, neither can Greg's because it wasn't written for polemical purposes either. Both were written for the education of those sincerely interested in the whole of Ayn Rand's thought (ie: Objectivists), and how to apply it to the particular people and issues they face in reality. That is of course a laudable and necessary activity, but also like I just said, it's been done. Why repeat it every time Libertarians do what they do? Why not just quote relevant passages from Schwartz' essay if, suddenly, there seems to be a flux of new Ayn Rand admirerers who happen to be particularly ignorant of Libertarianism's flaws?
Because, at this point in the history of this topic, "educational purposes" is only a thin veneer for the true purpose of such repetitive writings: periodic allegiance pledging.
Introspecting about it, I suppose I included that last, insulting paragraph in my previous post in order to preclude any obfuscation (excuse me, debate) that would have resulted in response to the rest of my previous comment. Let's face it, real topic of this post - as are all posts by Objectivists having to do with Libertarianism - is the David Kelley issue. Because of historical incident, Libertarianism just happens to be the particular ideology which facilitates the discussion about it. Trashing Libertarians whenever possible is how we discuss this without having to admit that it isn't settled. If, in 1989, David Kelley had spoken to The American Atheists instead, people like Greg would be taking every opportunity possible to emphasize the differences between how those people came to calling themselves atheists and how Ayn Rand did. It's not a coincidence that the fundamental difference there - the one which creates all of the ethical differences between hedonists seeking a moral blank check from atheism and Objectivists seeking to ground morality in reason - is an epistemological one as well.
Had I left my previous comment neutered of it's last paragraph, at this point we would be engaged in a debate about the merits or demerits of political action per se, the degrees and types which are and are not appropriate, etc. Wait, that's wishful thinking. Rather, I would be continuing to try to engage in such a discussion, only to be greeted with the automatized canards their practicioners prefer to think of as reminders of the essential issue (as if I hadn't already agreed). I already saw that happening in Greg's response to my first comment. I guess I didn't want this to happen, because the truth is, it's a waste of time. All such mouthing serves to do is to prevent any serious, systematic exploration of Objectivist political action. Why should that be prevented? It leaves those at the top of ARI Objectivism free to tackle the issue at random, to never have to directly address that their actions implicitly conceed that they didn't know what they pretended to know when they schismed from Kelley, and to be praised as innovators every step of the way. The fact that ARI Objectivists will talk to people like Glenn Beck but not to people like David Boaz (it's better to have Beck's name linked with Rand than the word "libertarian"?) is so clearly an admition that their real criterion for decisions to engage has nothing to do with epistemological corruption and everything to do with audience size that anyone who says otherwise is an obfuscator with personal designs upon the Institute. It might be a valid distinction to make but, unlike them and their apologists, who will go on operating by it and hoping and ensuring that their highfaluten words to the contrary never catch up with their behavior, I'm willing to admit that I don't yet know if that's a valid distinction to make (let alone putting the entire credibility of Objectivism per se at stake by acting prematurely simply because recent events have beaten a path to my door).
So, just as they have gained from it over the last 20 years, it's obvious what the leaders of ARI Objectivism have to gain personally from continuing to get Objectivists to miss the Kelley issue by encouraging them to attack Libertarianism's fundamental flaw needlessly and, considering it's just one of a myriad of bad ideologies that share something in common with Objectivism, disproportionately, but what do the rank and file such as Greg gain from taking their advice and acting upon it for them? I couldn't say; I don't share that psychology. My only guess would be that they envision themselves as successors to the throne and that in order to keep themselves upon the radar, they must write repetitive and ineffectual (at least as far as the outside world is concerned) pieces such as this every once in awhile lest their zeal come into question. Diana Hsieh is higher up on the pyramid than Greg is and, just as Diana has to indirectly coddle people like Peikoff and Brook by periodically lashing out at their common enemies, Greg has to periodically coddle Diana to stay where he is; let alone advance.
My advice to you Greg is this: If you're actually serious about changing the world, and not just which URL your editorials appear upon, the next time Jennifer Burns, or Anne Heller, or any other Libertarianesque personality with a large audience thinks he can speak with authority about Ayn Rand and Objectivism, go to his event, stand up during the Q&A, and make the point you made in this article. Hell, I bet if you had sent it to him, Ed Hudgins would have asked your question for you. Whatever the method, that would have far more effect than writing this and posting it here ever could. But what am I saying? You could never do that Your mere presence there would be "sanctioning." |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 21:35:28 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Trey -- Thank you for the clarity. Since you choose to continue your wholly unjustified and offensive attacks on Greg (and me, and others), you are no longer welcome to post in the NoodleFood comments. Any future posts from you will be deleted. Go away, pronto. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 21:46:56 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Jason H
Trey,
I have been a supporter of the ARI for many years although I am not an intellectual who is closely associated with it. I have had disagreements with other Objectivists over the years but I have always found intellectuals associated with ARI to be civil and willing to engage in debate when I grant them the same civility. I tend to agree with ARI folks on the libertarian vs Objectivist debate although there are aspects of Objectivist politics that I still question.
Other than the fact that I tend to agree with the ARI side over who Diana calls the "false friends of Objectivism,", the thing I have always found puzzling about people like yourself is that you snidely dismiss people like Diana and Greg, attributing to them all kinds of bad motives, yet you take the time to come to this blog and write long arguments only to explicitly conclude that your audience is too immoral/spineless/stupid to be worthy of your time. I ask this sincerely: are you simply trying to intimidate the contributors and the readers of this blog to fall in line with your point of view? If so, you would seem to be doing the thing that ARI folks are often accused of doing. If not, what is it you are trying to accomplish?
With honest curiosity,
Jason H. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 23:52:11 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Just for the record, I strongly disagree with Adam's practice of recommending "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" to people unfamiliar with Objectivism. The book is very dense and difficult; most people would not be remotely ready to read it. The problem of confusion with libertarianism is simply not great enough to warrant that solution. |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 21:03:15 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Jason H
I suppose this is the kind of libertarian that Objectivists should tolerate, right? http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/42454.html
Give me a break. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Greg Perkins
Comments
