Some background: Last year, in a private e-mail to him, I explained my reasons for declining to attend the LSS. With permission, he reprinted my e-mail on his blog as a follow-up to another post he had about what one must believe to be a libertarian. Essentially, I explained that I regarded libertarianism as a movement that ultimately is anti-freedom, and that I thought it morally wrong to sanction it.

In any event, the comments between the two of us (i.e., comments to my “The One Way to Defeat a Rational Argument”) became longish and went far afield from the topic of the original blog post. I think that they help shed additional light on the libertarianism issue and, accordingly, I’ve reproduced them, together, in a new blog post, below.

Peter wrote:

Well… not at every venue available to you, Paul. You don’t come to the Liberty Summer Seminar to express your dissenting voice against libertarians…

You’ve told me that attendance at events like these implies agreement with the organizers and their principles. If that’s your view, what venues have you spoken at, and how many “reason and reality” conferences are there?

Incidentally, I do advocate reason. But I’m open to hearing what others have to say.

I replied: Ah, well, as you know, I don’t regard the Liberty Summer Seminar as an opportunity for me to advocate freedom. As I’ve explained elsewhere, the net effect of an Objectivist doing a talk at a libertarian event is to give libertarianism an undeserved reputation for being a movement that defends freedom.

Those who deny the existence of existence; who deny that reason, and reason alone, is man’s means of obtaining knowledge; or who deny ones own life to be ones own highest value, rationality to be ones highest virtue, or ones own happiness to be ones highest purpose; are all people who will – in one instance or another – argue that government should not defend a person’s freedom rationally to pursue his own happiness. Yet libertarianism deliberately avoids taking a stand on metaphyics (reality), epistemology (reason), and ethics (rational egoism), in an attempt to gain the support of those who hold anti-reality, or anti-reason, or pro-altruistic philosophies; to gain the support those whose beliefs do not consistently support freedom.

Why give people the impression that I think a Hegelian’s arguments; or a mystic’s arguments, or an altruist’s arguments; are somehow worthy of serious consideration? They are not. But were I to stand amongst them; or to appear to be in league with them; it would be inferred that I think that freedom can be obtained when those committed to the facts of reality work with those who are committed to denying the facts of reality; that freedom can be obtained when those who regard divine revelation as a means of obtaining knowledge work with those who know reason alone to be effective in the discovery of knowledge; that freedom can be obtained when those who regard rational egoism to be pure evil work together with those who regard rational egoism to be the height of goodness; that the freedom rationally to pursue ones own happiness can be won by implicitly sanctioning altruism, irrationality, and the myth of the supernatural.

I’ve spoken/written numerous times as a guest of television programs; in newsmedia and magazine interviews; in major daily newspapers (including columns in the National Post and Toronto Star); in magazines (including the Fraser Forum, Consent, and the now defunct “Wealthy Boomer”), at Freedom Party dinners, conferences and media events; at private functions; at numerous all-candidates debates in 4 elections; on radio programs; on youtube (where I’m a partner); on my blog, etc.. I even spoke at the Liberty Summer Seminar before I understood how much of a mistake that was for one who wants a freer society. You can find much of it (though, clearly, not all of it) linked from my main web site: http://www.paulmckeever.com

Reason and reality conferences are held every year (see, for example, http://www.objectivistconferences.com ) though, clearly, there should be many more: if you want freedom, advocate reason.

Peter replied:

I’ve accused you in the past of strawmanning libertarians, and I have another opportunity. The word “libertarian” does not function in the way you think it does. It does not represent a “closed” system. Neither, incidentally, is Objectivism (if you take the work of the Objectivist Center–now the Atlas Society–seriously).

How do you figure that the Liberty Summer Seminar is not helping the freedom movement? Can you name a speaker, or anything, for that matter, that doesn’t serve the ends of promoting liberty? Why is it so “much” of a mistake?

Because we don’t just repeat what Ayn Rand said? Surely, surely there’s room for disagreement. And, besides, the LSS is not an advocacy event, it is an educational event. We intend, and do, discuss various views on liberty. We always have plenty of objectivists who attend, and who are happy to participate in the discussion.

It’s possible, you know, for people to be wrong about things, Paul. And to be wrong about them while not being evil or being willfully ignorant. Some of us just haven’t heard the right arguments (or we find the arguments presented to be wanting).

I replied: Peter, in the past you’ve accused me of straw-manning arguments, and then proceeded to prove my argument by saying that libertarianism brings together anyone who advocates its political strategy (you might call it a philosophy, I wouldn’t), regardless of their metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. Here’s a direct quotation, of you, from your blog:

Libertarianism is broad and “lacks” foundations not because libertarians don’t hold foundational views that would exclude many others, but because the word “libertarian” applies to the conclusion of an argument, and not the argument itself. For the sake of an argument, you can define your terms in special ways for special purposes. But when you are using the ordinary notion of “libertarian” you are referring to people who share the belief that government should be massively restrained (for whatever reason–including consequentialist and deontological reasons).

(emphasis added)

I don’t care to rehash – yet again – why freedom cannot be defended without reference to a rationally-defensible metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical base. Those interested can read here, or here, or watch here:

You write:

The word “libertarian” does not function in the way you think it does. It does not represent a “closed” system. Neither, incidentally, is Objectivism (if you take the work of the Objectivist Center–now the Atlas Society–seriously).

First: a thing is what it is. That’s the law of identity. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is Ayn Rand‘s philosophy. Ayn Rand called her philosophy “Objectivism”. The various innovations that others want to pass off as her philosophy, by representing those innovations as “Objectivist”, are not a part of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and, so, are not Objectivism (whether those innovations are right or wrong). Objectivism is no more an “open system” than the concept “off” is open to including the concept “on”.

Second: I don’t take the work of David Kelley’s “Objectivist Centre-now the Atlas Society-seriously”. It tends to be associated with people who falsely call themselves Objectivists, and who speak at libertarian meetings. Related video:

You write:

How do you figure that the Liberty Summer Seminar is not helping the freedom movement?

Because it both implicitly and explicitly promotes libertarianism as being pro-freedom when it is not. Libertarianism, being a “big-tent” electoral strategy that intentionally denies the importance of metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues to freedom, is anti-freedom in its effect.

Can you name a speaker, or anything, for that matter, that doesn’t serve the ends of promoting liberty?

Peter Jaworski, libertarianism, and the Liberty Summer Seminar.

Why is it so “much” of a mistake? [for an advocate of reason to attend or speak at the Liberty Summer Seminar]?

Because doing so helps give libertarianism an undeserved reputation for being pro-freedom when, in fact, it is anti-freedom. It is a mistake because those who are committed to reality and reason are pro-freedom.

Surely, surely there’s room for disagreement.

Of course, but not in the context of a pro-libertarian function. For example, I’m disagreeing with you right now.

And, besides, the LSS is not an advocacy event, it is an educational event.

Its purpose is to educate people…about libertarianism; or, at the very least, to educate in a way that implies libertarianism is a pro-freedom movement/strategy.

We always have plenty of objectivists who attend, and who are happy to participate in the discussion.

Believing you are an Objectivist is different from (a) being an Objectivist, and (b) acting as one. For example, I know anarchists who erroneously consider themselves to be Objectivists. Objectivists understand that to attend the Liberty Summer Seminar is to provide the sanction of the victim of altruism, irrationality, and unreality. A person truly committed to freedom looks at an invitation to the Liberty Summer Seminar, and shrugs.

It’s possible, you know, for people to be wrong about things, Paul.

You demonstrate that amply.

And to be wrong about them while not being evil or being willfully ignorant. Some of us just haven’t heard the right arguments (or we find the arguments presented to be wanting).

Tell me Peter. You are an intelligent guy. You have the capacity to read and understand Objectivism if you want to. You seem to imply that you have done the reading. What do you think about Hume and skepticism?

Peter replied:

I asked: “Can you name a speaker, or anything, for that matter, that doesn’t serve the ends of promoting liberty?”

And you wrote: “Peter Jaworski, libertarianism, and the Liberty Summer Seminar.”

And I say: I was never a speaker at the LSS. I only co-host the event, I don’t speak at it. And add that that’s a pretty harsh indictment of me, personally, and you really shouldn’t do it without knowing me better. You don’t know where I diverge with Objectivism, and I think even Rand would insist that you collect more evidence before you cast so harsh a judgment. I might say the same of you, Paul, since I think Objectivism is a poor way to promote liberty. Unless you think you know that I like Mozart. In which case I stand corrected–since knowing that someone thinks this or that thing is aesthetically pleasing is sufficient to judge their character… ahem…

You asked: “Tell me Peter. You are an intelligent guy. You have the capacity to read and understand Objectivism if you want to. You seem to imply that you have done the reading. What do you think about Hume and skepticism?”

And I say, 1. thanks!,
2. I’ve read every significant work Ayn Rand ever wrote. Every non-fiction book, and every work of fiction, including Night of January 16.
And 3. You’ll have to be more specific. What are we talking about, exactly? Is it Hume’s general point about the fact that we have to use our senses, that those are, of necessity, filters, that we don’t perceive the (what Kant called) “noumenal” world, but only phenomena? Or do you mean his point about causality, and our inability to “know” the future? Or do you mean Hume’s skepticism with respect to religion, the existence of a god or gods, and his argument against miracles? His skepticism with respect to metaphysics, and its usefulness in general (that is where the famous “condemn it then to the flames” quip comes from)? Or something else?

I’ll answer all of them, I guess, and going backwards: 4. Condemn it to the flames, I say! Largely stuff we shouldn’t bother with, akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Not all of it, mind you, but large, large chunks of it.
3. Miracles? Nonsense. God? I don’t believe. The supernatural? Humbug.
2. Hume’s right. And he’s usually grossly misunderstood. He does not deny causality, merely our ability to “know” this. Kant’s response is to insist that cause and effect is a frame we must use in order to understand the world in the first place. Awakened from his dogmatic slumber by Hume (if only Objectivists could be so roused), Kant’s response is pretty good, in my mind. We might append it here and there, and insist, for instance, that we have every reason to use cause-and-effect reasoning as a justified and legitimate *assumption,* even though we can’t *know* this without faith (and faith is a bugaboo, Paul). Incidentally, and contrary to Rand’s and Peikoff’s bastardization of both Kant and Hume (one wonders if they ever bothered to actually read them), neither of them “condemn” us to uncertainty or undermine our ability to think or reason. It does not undermine “man’s mind.” All it does is admit a fact: There’s stuff we can’t know (although some of that stuff we have excellent reason to go on as an assumption).
1. Yup, Hume’s right about this as well. We can’t step outside of our heads, as it were. We need reasons to think that our senses convey accurate information about the world. Reasons that are extra-sensesual (I don’t want to use “sensual” since that has a double-meaning…). But our senses are our only means of acquiring information about the external world, and so we’re stuck with the instruments we’ve got. But they *are* instruments and filters. They do not give us the world-as-it-is, they give us the world-as-it-appears-to-us. Of course, we can construct other instruments that tell us more–like the discovery that colours are not “in the objects” (as it were), but are rather the result of light waves bouncing off of them and interacting with our eyes in certain ways.

We have better and worse reasons to accept the world-as-it-appears-to-me (note the use of “me” rather than “us” here, since we don’t have access to a collective brain, but must constitute some sense of world-as-it-appears-to-us through a combination of world-as-it-appears-to-me). But that’s all we have–better and worse reasons, not “knowledge,” strictly speaking.

So I’m basically on-board with Hume, but it doesn’t lead to things Rand or Peikoff thinks it does.

One other thing: “Believing you are an Objectivist is different from (a) being an Objectivist, and (b) acting as one. For example, I know anarchists who erroneously consider themselves to be Objectivists. Objectivists understand that to attend the Liberty Summer Seminar is to provide the sanction of the victim of altruism, irrationality, and unreality. A person truly committed to freedom looks at an invitation to the Liberty Summer Seminar, and shrugs.”

a) duh and b) duh. You might know anarchists who consider themselves Objectivists, but I know Objectivists who think they know things that they don’t. A person truly committed to freedom looks at an invitation to the Liberty Summer Seminar and does what they can to attend.

I replied:

I asked: “Can you name a speaker, or anything, for that matter, that doesn’t serve the ends of promoting liberty?”

And you wrote: “Peter Jaworski, libertarianism, and the Liberty Summer Seminar.”

And I say: I was never a speaker at the LSS. I only co-host the event, I don’t speak at it. And add that that’s a pretty harsh indictment of me, personally, and you really shouldn’t do it without knowing me better. You don’t know where I diverge with Objectivism, and I think even Rand would insist that you collect more evidence before you cast so harsh a judgment.

Peter, I have explained, at various times mentioned above, that libertarianism not only fails to promote freedom, but implicitly or explicitly (depending upon the libertarian, and the day) denies the necessity or relevance of a commitment to the facts of reality, to reason, or to objective morality in the promotion of freedom. You have as much as agreed with me without saying so, when you’ve said such things as this:

Libertarianism is broad and “lacks” foundations not because libertarians don’t hold foundational views that would exclude many others, but because the word “libertarian” applies to the conclusion of an argument, and not the argument itself.

As for my needing to know you better before making such an evaluation of your efforts: it is not as though you have not made your views amply known in writing and on your campus radio show. You have been a vocal advocate of libertarianism. Indeed, my understanding is that you just this weekend attended a Libertarian Party of Canada conference. Similarly, the Liberty Summer Seminar is a libertarian event hosted by you.

My argument (and that of Peter Schwartz, before me, in his “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty“) is that Libertarianism does not “serve the ends of promoting liberty”. If you understand my argument, then you will understand my conclusion that it also follows:

1. that (such as the Liberty Summer Seminar) which promotes, advocates or sanctions libertarianism as a way of promoting liberty is not serving “the ends of promoting liberty”; and
2. those who (like yourself) promote, advocate, or sanction libertarianism as a way of promoting liberty are, similarly not serving “the ends of promoting liberty”.

You write:

…I’ve read every significant work Ayn Rand ever wrote. Every non-fiction book, and every work of fiction…

You asked: “…What do you think about Hume and skepticism?”…our senses are our only means of acquiring information about the external world, and so we’re stuck with the instruments we’ve got….We have better and worse reasons to accept the world-as-it-appears-to-me …But that’s all we have–better and worse reasons, not “knowledge,” strictly speaking.

Regrettably, then, you cannot claim to be ignorant, or accidentally wrong, in respect of that which you are promoting.

And you will be familiar with the fact that, in proposing that Objectivists get on board with those who believe knowledge to be impossible, you are – not ignorantly or accidentally – asking that that which leads logically to freedom work together with that which undermines it entirely.

In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins. (“The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 145.)