4 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".)

Semiapies 17y ago
You also forgot that Ayn Rand repeatedly denounced libertarianism while alive and made it clear she was not for minimal government, non-interventionism, or pretty much any of the major concerns of libertarian movements. Sadly, libertarians like me will be tarred with the Randroid label until the end of time, even the anarchists I've known who trace their ideas back to Lysander Spooner. Over the same timeframe, Objectivists will alternately denounce libertarianism and claim they invented it. Just one of those eternal tempests in a very small teacup.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  I don't think Rand said that. If she did I'd like to read it. Cite please where she says she doesn't want minimal govt. (She did say she didn't want zero govt.)
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Yes, and she repeatedly dismissed any non-Objectivists pursuing minimal government as anarchists. Anyone not under her sway simply couldn't be correct. Like the GOP, she talked a fine game about capitalism, but that is all.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      That's an assertion. Do you have a cite?
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        I'm not getting into a cite game on things Rand repeated so often that she said she was tired of people asking her about them. She repeatedly dismissed libertarianism as nothing more than a dressed-up leftist anarchist movement. Unless you have something more substantive to ask than "Oh, yeah?", we're done here.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        I have read a lot of Rand, both fiction and non-fiction, and never seen her say it once. Can you please point me to a source to read so I can correct my understanding of Rand's views?
        Semiapies 17y ago
        A good starting place would be googling "ayn rand" libertarianism. You will hit a lot of cited remarks by her among the hagiography and such.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        I read some. I found Rand trashing libertarians, but I did not find her trashing minimal government. Do you have any source on Rand not being an advocate of minimal government, as you claimed she is not? Here is a source where she does advocate minimal govt: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html > The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman
philwelch 17y ago
I read way too much Ayn Rand myself when I was about 17. Seven years later, I've found that Rand contradicts herself in a number of places--chief among them, as cited by generations of anarchist libertarians, is the inherent contradiction between the non-aggression principle and government. Where she doesn't contradict herself, she makes handwavy arguments backed by vague assertions about human nature which, by and large, don't hold up to the actual evidence. I've also found that treating social and political issues as axiomatic mathematical systems is the wrong way to go about things in the first place. Finally, you may have misread the central point of the article. It wasn't an unreserved support of socialized medicine, but rather an acknowledgement that, whatever the problems socialized medicine has, the fucked-up, cronyist mixed system we have in this country is even worse.
- maxharris 17y ago
  You misunderstand Rand. The important thing about her philosophy is her ethics, her epistemology and her metaphysics. My opinion is that once this is understood, the contradictions you see cease to exist. (Specifically, non-aggression is a conclusion, and is not axiomatic.) The political stuff is just a downstream consequence of a much deeper set of ideas. It's important, but politics is at the periphery of Objectivism (in that Objectivism has political implications, just like any other philosophy), far from the core.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    No, I understand Rand pretty well, though admittedly not as well as I used to. Her ethics comes to a conclusion--non-aggression--that contradicts with her political conclusion--government. Axiomatic logical systems don't mean you can derive contradictory conclusions as long as one is further downstream than the other. (If you do, you have chosen contradictory axioms, which has problems, especially if you explicitly choose non-contradiction as an axiom!) Not to mention, the logical path between Rand's axioms and the rest of Rand's philosophy goes through a thick layer of vague handwaving and unjustified assumptions.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
Nwallins 17y ago
> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied What is the basis for this assertion? > and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism I don't understand why you are using the word reverting. Are you implying there is something wrong with political conclusions that appear practical or altruistic? > On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing That people exist who pervert a term does not render the term meaningless. > there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation I agree there is no clear-cut libertarian stance on abortion, because there are several confounding factors upon which libertarianism does not opine -- e.g. when does life begin? The libertarian umbrella does indeed ostensibly cover anarchy, and it should not be a surprise that there is a spectrum of belief. If you desire a concrete libertarian platform, you can look to the Libertarian Party. > libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values Can you elaborate on this? By calling it a dead end, you are saying it has no future, but you are basing this on present-day values, as though these values can never change in the future. I am still unsure as to which values you refer. > or with itself.) Libertarianism does indeed cover a spectrum of beliefs. I don't see how that implies that it is a political dead end. Other viable political philosophies cover spectrums of belief (e.g. republicanism, conservatism, populism, liberalism, etc.)
ugh 17y ago
Are the Europeans who implemented that momentarily practical solution quite a few years ago currently not free? Won’t they be free in the future?
thrdOriginal 17y ago
This is a great example of someone comparing the principles of one (political) philosophy to some practitioners of another political philosophy. i.e. apples to oranges.
abstractbill 17y ago
This subthread is a great example of why progress in American politics seems so hard to come by: Every potential policy change seems to devolve into a discussion about what team people are on, and the similarities and differences between all the different teams (to me it's often very reminiscent of Monty Python's Life Of Brian - Peoples' Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front, etc).
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Funny that you cite an example meant to satirize British politics. Or in other words, welcome to democracy. :) The alternative in the US of course is bipartisanism, which has given us wonders not limited to every iteration of the PATRIOT act, including the recent renewal.
ibsulon 17y ago
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=427 http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_... speaks of the place of privilege in Objectivism. If every child was guaranteed equal access to health care, food, shelter, good education, and health care, I would have less of an issue. However, as Objectivism stands, what we really see is a de-facto neo-feudalism.

Semiapies 17y ago

You also forgot that Ayn Rand repeatedly denounced libertarianism while alive and made it clear she was not for minimal government, non-interventionism, or pretty much any of the major concerns of libertarian movements. Sadly, libertarians like me will be tarred with the Randroid label until the end of time, even the anarchists I've known who trace their ideas back to Lysander Spooner. Over the same timeframe, Objectivists will alternately denounce libertarianism and claim they invented it. Just one of those eternal tempests in a very small teacup.

xenophanes 17y ago
I don't think Rand said that. If she did I'd like to read it. Cite please where she says she doesn't want minimal govt. (She did say she didn't want zero govt.)
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Yes, and she repeatedly dismissed any non-Objectivists pursuing minimal government as anarchists. Anyone not under her sway simply couldn't be correct. Like the GOP, she talked a fine game about capitalism, but that is all.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    That's an assertion. Do you have a cite?
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      I'm not getting into a cite game on things Rand repeated so often that she said she was tired of people asking her about them. She repeatedly dismissed libertarianism as nothing more than a dressed-up leftist anarchist movement. Unless you have something more substantive to ask than "Oh, yeah?", we're done here.
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        I have read a lot of Rand, both fiction and non-fiction, and never seen her say it once. Can you please point me to a source to read so I can correct my understanding of Rand's views?
        Semiapies 17y ago
        A good starting place would be googling "ayn rand" libertarianism. You will hit a lot of cited remarks by her among the hagiography and such.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        I read some. I found Rand trashing libertarians, but I did not find her trashing minimal government. Do you have any source on Rand not being an advocate of minimal government, as you claimed she is not? Here is a source where she does advocate minimal govt: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html > The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman

philwelch 17y ago

I read way too much Ayn Rand myself when I was about 17. Seven years later, I've found that Rand contradicts herself in a number of places--chief among them, as cited by generations of anarchist libertarians, is the inherent contradiction between the non-aggression principle and government. Where she doesn't contradict herself, she makes handwavy arguments backed by vague assertions about human nature which, by and large, don't hold up to the actual evidence. I've also found that treating social and political issues as axiomatic mathematical systems is the wrong way to go about things in the first place. Finally, you may have misread the central point of the article. It wasn't an unreserved support of socialized medicine, but rather an acknowledgement that, whatever the problems socialized medicine has, the fucked-up, cronyist mixed system we have in this country is even worse.

maxharris 17y ago
You misunderstand Rand. The important thing about her philosophy is her ethics, her epistemology and her metaphysics. My opinion is that once this is understood, the contradictions you see cease to exist. (Specifically, non-aggression is a conclusion, and is not axiomatic.) The political stuff is just a downstream consequence of a much deeper set of ideas. It's important, but politics is at the periphery of Objectivism (in that Objectivism has political implications, just like any other philosophy), far from the core.
- philwelch 17y ago
  No, I understand Rand pretty well, though admittedly not as well as I used to. Her ethics comes to a conclusion--non-aggression--that contradicts with her political conclusion--government. Axiomatic logical systems don't mean you can derive contradictory conclusions as long as one is further downstream than the other. (If you do, you have chosen contradictory axioms, which has problems, especially if you explicitly choose non-contradiction as an axiom!) Not to mention, the logical path between Rand's axioms and the rest of Rand's philosophy goes through a thick layer of vague handwaving and unjustified assumptions.
  - Semiapies 17y ago

Nwallins 17y ago

> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied What is the basis for this assertion? > and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism I don't understand why you are using the word reverting. Are you implying there is something wrong with political conclusions that appear practical or altruistic? > On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing That people exist who pervert a term does not render the term meaningless. > there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation I agree there is no clear-cut libertarian stance on abortion, because there are several confounding factors upon which libertarianism does not opine -- e.g. when does life begin? The libertarian umbrella does indeed ostensibly cover anarchy, and it should not be a surprise that there is a spectrum of belief. If you desire a concrete libertarian platform, you can look to the Libertarian Party. > libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values Can you elaborate on this? By calling it a dead end, you are saying it has no future, but you are basing this on present-day values, as though these values can never change in the future. I am still unsure as to which values you refer. > or with itself.) Libertarianism does indeed cover a spectrum of beliefs. I don't see how that implies that it is a political dead end. Other viable political philosophies cover spectrums of belief (e.g. republicanism, conservatism, populism, liberalism, etc.)

ugh 17y ago

Are the Europeans who implemented that momentarily practical solution quite a few years ago currently not free? Won’t they be free in the future?

thrdOriginal 17y ago

This is a great example of someone comparing the principles of one (political) philosophy to some practitioners of another political philosophy. i.e. apples to oranges.

abstractbill 17y ago

This subthread is a great example of why progress in American politics seems so hard to come by: Every potential policy change seems to devolve into a discussion about what team people are on, and the similarities and differences between all the different teams (to me it's often very reminiscent of Monty Python's Life Of Brian - Peoples' Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front, etc).

Semiapies 17y ago
Funny that you cite an example meant to satirize British politics. Or in other words, welcome to democracy. :) The alternative in the US of course is bipartisanism, which has given us wonders not limited to every iteration of the PATRIOT act, including the recent renewal.

ibsulon 17y ago

http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=427 http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_... speaks of the place of privilege in Objectivism. If every child was guaranteed equal access to health care, food, shelter, good education, and health care, I would have less of an issue. However, as Objectivism stands, what we really see is a de-facto neo-feudalism.