5 ms·

This is a great example of why libertarians are not to be confused with Objectivists. Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism

This is a great example of why libertarians are not to be confused with Objectivists. Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism and long-term rational selfishness required to properly support political conclusions in favor of freedom. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied, and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism (which many libertarians implicitly embrace). On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing - there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation, to name a few random examples. Objectivism isn't pervasive enough yet for political change based on it to occur, and libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values, or with itself.) So if you consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like where Welch and his ilk are heading, I invite you to read Ayn Rand and new scholarly works that examine her philosophy deeply (Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist".)

TheTarquin 17y ago
You attack Libertarianism on the grounds that it has adherents that disagree widely on several topics. So does that mean that if I found some Objectivists that disagreed on points of policy, that Objectivism would "mean so many things that it means nothing?" Your argument certainly seems to imply as much.
chrispine 17y ago
> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied You are aware that libertarianism predates objectivism? I invite you to consider that to be rational is to WIN. Libertarians, unlike most objectivists, understand this (or at least appear to, in that they tend to take the pragmatic view, with pretty much amounts to the same thing). If you want good health care, and one system gives you good health care, but is somehow philosophically impure... don't you think maybe the philosophy is irrelevant?
ubernostrum 17y ago
Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622
- lmkg 17y ago
  I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    I'm happy to admit that it's a rhetorical device designed to encourage further reflection and analysis; back during my philosophy days that was a big part of what I learned to do (and this is by no means the most outrageous position I've explained -- that crown probably goes to the day I argued for post-natal "70th-trimester" abortions as a critique of expansive parental/governmental rights over teenagers). But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from "internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another troubled philosophy).
- dgordon 17y ago
  Not even close. You sound like one of the millions of other critics whose reading of Ayn Rand consists of one Bob The Angry Flower comic. (This one: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif )

TheTarquin 17y ago

You attack Libertarianism on the grounds that it has adherents that disagree widely on several topics. So does that mean that if I found some Objectivists that disagreed on points of policy, that Objectivism would "mean so many things that it means nothing?" Your argument certainly seems to imply as much.

chrispine 17y ago

> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied You are aware that libertarianism predates objectivism? I invite you to consider that to be rational is to WIN. Libertarians, unlike most objectivists, understand this (or at least appear to, in that they tend to take the pragmatic view, with pretty much amounts to the same thing). If you want good health care, and one system gives you good health care, but is somehow philosophically impure... don't you think maybe the philosophy is irrelevant?

ubernostrum 17y ago

Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622

lmkg 17y ago
I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  I'm happy to admit that it's a rhetorical device designed to encourage further reflection and analysis; back during my philosophy days that was a big part of what I learned to do (and this is by no means the most outrageous position I've explained -- that crown probably goes to the day I argued for post-natal "70th-trimester" abortions as a critique of expansive parental/governmental rights over teenagers). But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from "internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another troubled philosophy).
dgordon 17y ago
Not even close. You sound like one of the millions of other critics whose reading of Ayn Rand consists of one Bob The Angry Flower comic. (This one: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif )