NoodleFoodlers (E-mail) | Recent Comments NoodleCaboodle (Info) | Archives | Blogroll RSS Feed (Via E-mail) | OList.com Coalition for Secular Government | FIRM
A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!

Wednesday, November 05, 2008 A False Friend of Liberty By Diana Hsieh @ 12:06 AM Note: I meant to post this some weeks ago, but the bailout derailed that plan. While it pertains to the just-past election, it's still relevant. The absurdity that Ron Paul is a defender of liberty should now be at an end, given his endorsement of the worst possible candidate for president, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. The Constitution Party seeks to impose Biblical law on America. I was going to quote some relevant sections of their platform, but the Preamble says it all: The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. Let's consider what that would mean in practice. On abortion: The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. ... We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father. No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. ... In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells. Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. On drugs: The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered. On marriage: The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. ... Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. ... We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. Gambling: Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states. On immigration: We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration. On the judiciary: We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand. On statehood: We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary. By endorsing a candidate from the Constitution Party, Ron Paul has clearly shown that he's no friend of liberty. Instead, he's endorsed a theocratic government in which Christians would force everyone to comply with the demands of their faith at the point of a gun. The fact that Ron Paul is still regarded as a defender of liberty within libertarian circles shows -- yet again -- the effects of rejecting any philosophical foundation for liberty. The word "liberty" loses all of its meaning, such that statists (and kooks) of all stripes are regarded as pro-liberty friends and allies. Labels: Election, Libertarianism   E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments [18] (New Page)     Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Objectivist Party? By Diana Hsieh @ 12:03 AM Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said: I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot. If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated. In Liberty, Dr. Tom Stevens Presidential Candidate Objectivist Party I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response: Tom, I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive. The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections. That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible. The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.) Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less. Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts. After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger: The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.) So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself: Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition. (I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.) So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons. Labels: Activism, False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism   E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments [17] (New Page)     Thursday, June 12, 2008 Singleton on Libertarians By Paul Hsieh @ 2:24 PM Alex Singleton of the British Telegraph made the following interesting statement about the British Libertarian party: What it will do, like the Libertarian Party has done in the United States, is to tarnish the libertarian brand, allowing the crazier aspects of libertarian thinking to come to the fore, and achieving nothing of any merit. I don't know anything about the UK Libertarian Party so I can't comment on them. But there is the interesting issue (which Singleton did not pursue) of why the American LP has allowed the "crazier aspects" to dominate. A good place to start is Ayn Rand's own critiques of Libertarians here and here. Peter Schwartz has made similar comments here. If a political party purports to defend "liberty", but it takes the position that no proper philosophical grounding is necessary to defend that view, and hence it welcomes "supporters" who advocate all manner of good and bad philosophical views as equal allies in the cause of liberty, what will be the natural outcome? Just as Gresham's Law states that, "Bad money drives out the good", the philosophical equivalent is that bad ideas will drive out the good whenever their respective adherents attempt to cooperate as a political party. Over time, the inevitable demands to compromise will cause the better people to lose to the worse ones, and the crazier elements of the party will soon dominate. As Ayn Rand astutely noted: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." The same is true of compromise between those who trade in genuine currency and those who trade in counterfeit money. Or between genuine defenders of freedom and the faux defenders. For further discussion on this interesting topic, I also recommend her thought-provoking essay, "The Anatomy of Compromise" from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Here's one brief excerpt to whet your appetite: The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject. 1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins. 2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins. 3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side. Labels: Libertarianism   E-mail Paul Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments [12] (New Page)     Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Alex Epstein on Market Neutral By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM In this 35 minute "Market Neutral" podcast, Chip Hanlon interviews ARI's Alex Epstein. The description reads: "Ayn Rand Institute analyst, Alex Epstein, discusses government's proper role in 'fixing' the subprime mess. He also weighs in on Libertarians, with remarks that may surprise given the recent euphoria surrounding long-shot presidential candidate, Ron Paul." (Via Mike) I was able to listen to this podcast in early January. It was definitely interesting, particularly the comments on Ron Paul and libertarianism. I'm not sure that I agree with Alex's analysis of libertarianism, but it was good food for thought. Update: I recalled what in particular I disagreed with in Alex's analysis of libertarianism. It's posted in the comments. Labels: Libertarianism, Objectivism, Politics   E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments [15] (New Page)

NoodleFoodlers Diana Hsieh Paul Hsieh Greg Perkins Paula Hall Guest NoodleFoodlers Gina Liggett Roderick Fitts Brandon Byrd Blog Stuff Recent Comments RSS Feed Posts by E-Mail NoodleFoodlers Archives Ask a Question Blogger Trackbacks Technorati Trackbacks Reader Map Objectivism OActivists E-mail List OBloggers E-mail List OAcademics E-mail List Ayn Rand Lexicon False Objectivism Collection The Objective Standard The Undercurrent Ayn Rand Institute Ayn Rand Society DC Objectivist Salon Front Range Objectivism Activism Coalition for Secular Government Vote No on 48 Vote No on 59 Repeal the Bailout EPA Ruination FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) Good Stuff Diana's NetFlix Friends Paul Hsieh's GeekPress Meredith Brickell Ceramics The Balboa Experiment Blogroll GeekPress Politics without God We Stand FIRM Principles in Practice The Undercurrent Daily Improvisation Flibbertigibbet Gus Van Horn Rule of Reason Ari Armstrong Free Colorado Rational Jenn Myrhaf Ms. Think Spark A Synapse TUAW Mac Gems Mac OS X Tips O'Reilly Mac Blog Go Fug Yourself waiterrant.net Overheard at College Overheard in New York Whedonesque Volokh Conspiracy TheAgitator.com Marginal Revolution Little Green Footballs Instapundit.com Michael Eades Free the Animal Whole Health Source Modern Forager Art De Vany Mark's Daily Apple Heart Scan IF Life Go Frolic My Paleo Kitchen Artsy-Foodie Fitness Fixation Fitness Spotlight CrossFit Valhalla CrossFit Travels with Daisy Jamie's Travel Log Lifehacker 43 Folders Daytipper 3 Things Today LifeHack GTD in Academia DIY Life Steve Pavlina Thrutch The Hoondat Report Software Nerd The Edge of Reason Patient Power One Reality Valzhalla Galileo Blogs 3 Ring Binder The Little Things Optional Values Aesthetic Capitalist Wayne's Dirty Lab Lyle's Blog Robbservations Making Progress Applying Philosophy The Eleutherian Laureate Individualist Outlook Kindredist Born to Identify Try Reason! Erosophia Pedagogically Correct History At Our House Non-Trivial Pursuit Haight Speech TalkObjectivism Leitmotif Shaving Leviathan Personal Development Philosopher Stone Rhyme of the Day Mudita Journal Shawn Klein Wall of Separation The Torch Capitalism Magazine Dynamist Blog Deep Glamour Fly Bottle Joanne Jacobs Tim Sandefur Tom G Palmer Liberty and Power Positive Liberty Daily Dish EconLog Randex Talking To Myself Secular Foxhole Acid Free Paper Mike's Eyes Capitalist Lion The American Individualist Armchair Intellectual Literatrix Witch Doctor Repellent Benevolent Misanthropy Truth, Justice... Philosophical Detective Classical Values One Minute Case Francisco Gutierrez PhilosopherEagle noumenalself Ad Hoc Alexander Marriott KatieAllisonGranju.com Tightly Wound Cranky Professor Discriminations Leiter Reports Wickens.ca Stark Relief Passing Thoughts USS Clueless Anger Management Cox & Forkum Semper Vigilo Abandon Caution Purr Se Tom Rowland American Individualist peltz at hand Archives March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008