In 5 sentences: What is Objectivism, and how does it differ from libertarianism?

A member of the facebook.com community asked:

“Can someone explain to me in 5 sentences or less what objectivism is and how it differs from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism without saying “it’s Ayn Rand’s philosophy,” telling me to read a book, or sending me a hyperlink. I just want a short explanation. That’s all. —> EDIT: Use a dozen sentences if necessary. Just don’t write a novel or use philosophical lingo I won’t understand.”

I replied as follows: Read more

Government, Libertarianism, and the Two Worlds: An Open Letter to Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette

Gentlemen:

Your December 6, 2012 discussion on The Blaze in respect of Mr. Jillette’s book “Every Day Is An Atheist Holiday” has been forwarded to me by a person who asks “How can we better expand our tent without compromising any principles?”. Having now watched your discussion with great interest, I offer you the following in the hope that you might find it helpful in your efforts to build a big tent that is actually pro-freedom. Read more

Ayn Rand's Finest Condemnation of Libertarianism

Over the years, I have read several compilations of Ayn Rand quotations concerning libertarianism. For the first time today, I was able to listen to Ayn Rand’s the Questions and Answers following her April 11, 1976 speech at the Ford Hall Forum, titled “The Moral Factor”. Her answer there was arguably the most succinct and essential statement of her views on why libertarianism deserves to be condemned. Read more

Tolerance, Libertarianism, and the Conservatives' Religious Culture War

A strategy is emerging. Dare to point out the influence that religion is having upon government policy, and the defenders and apologists for such a mixture of religion and government will pretend that the condemnation of that mixture is somehow a call for religious people to be denied the freedom to air their views. For many, what may be more surprising is the observation that libertarians – a group that claim to be in favour of individual freedom – can be found amongst those defenders and apologists. Read more

"If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism

Richard wrote:

“What’s your gripe with libertarians? A libertarian is, by definition, a person who believes that the only action that may properly be banned in a free society is the initiation of force…”

I replied:

The only thing wrong with libertarians is their libertarianism.

The essential characteristic of libertarianism is that it regards Rand’s non-aggression principle to be axiomatic.

Does existence exist? “If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, metaphysics is irrelevant to achieving freedom…metaphysical squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom”, replies libertarianism.

How does a man discover knowledge, such as knowledge of a proper code of ethics? “If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, epistemology is irrelevant to achieving freedom…epistemological squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom”, replies libertarianism.

Is rationality a virtue or a vice? Is obedience (for example, to the alleged will of an alleged supernatural being) a virtue or a vice? Is doing what feels good a virtue, or a vice? Is it right to sacrifice of oneself? “If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, ethics is irrelevant to achieving freedom…ethical squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom”, replies libertarianism.

Why should we all refrain from violating the non-aggression “axiom”? “That doesn’t matter” answers libertarianism.

If it doesn’t matter why we should all refrain from violating the non-aggression “axiom”, what do I say to someone who tells me it doesn’t matter why we should all violate the non-aggression “axiom”? “Ask him why he makes that claim”.

What if he doesn’t have an answer? “Then, clearly, lacking an answer, he’s lost the debate. Tell him he’s wrong” says the libertarian.

But what will I do if he doesn’t agree? “Agree to disagree”, comes the ultimate reply.

Well, then what? What if he and his ilk, seeing no reason not to violate peoples life, liberty and property, keep violating those things? “Well, that’s when it’s time to break out the guns” or “Well, that’s what the ballot box is for”.

Ultimately, libertarianism confronts irrational opposition to freedom not with reason, but with force. It has to: asserting that its position is axiomatic, it has denied itself a rational defence of its position. All that is left is bullets and ballots.

Should a parent pimp out his 8-year-old to a pedophile so as to have the money needed to feed the child? Should your country’s government ever order a pre-emptive military strike in a country that has not yet actually attacked your country? Is land for peace a good policy? Will more publicly funded basketball courts prevent poor kids from turning into gangland murderers? Does poverty and boredom turn one into a murderer? Is anarchism ideal? Raise questions like this among libertarians and the shite will hit the fan. There will be a flurry of allegations that “that’s not the libertarian view” or “you don’t speak for all libertarians”, or “it depends”, or “you think too much”, or a host of ill-fated analyses that start with things like “Well, let me see…if my freedom ends at the point of your nose, then…hmm, how does that relate to appeasement, or the age of majority, or land for peace or…well, I’m not sure, but I’m sure that libertarianism has an answer and I’m sure it was stated by one of the great libertarians like Locke, or Jefferson, or Paine, or Mill, or Bentham, or Hume, or Smith, or Rothbard, or…”.

This will be followed, in the “Libertarian Party”, with a decision such as “Anarchist libertarians can be members, but don’t have the right to vote”.

Ask a typical libertarian: What, exactly, are rights? “Well, they’re things you possess.” Like a screw-driver? “No, more like a deed”. Where do they come from? “Well, they’re self-evident, but there are good arguments that they serve the greater good, that most people want them, or that god gave them to us”. Can you violate a right? “Sure, by not respecting it”. Why is it bad not to respect a right? “Because they’re inviolable, or inalienable, or…well, because they’re absolute”. Ah. So the violation of inviolable or absolute things is morally wrong? Why? “Well, would you want someone to violate your rights? Of course not. Obviously, its wrong”. Ah.

Libertarianism is not a philosophy. It is a “big tent” electoral strategy to try to pull together as many people who – for whatever reason – believe that they love and want “liberty” – however they might personally conceive of it – into a political party that will advocate “freedom”. Visit any libertarian function (well, don’t actually do it), and you’ll find an assortment of mystics and moral relativists, some of whom have even read Rand but who clearly either missed her meaning or disagreed with her. You’ll also typically find, interspersed among them, other people who claim to be libertarians for various reasons: the “pro-free speech” crypto-nazi, because – he explains – the laws of his country punish him for saying that Aryans should live separately from blacks (he’s usually really good at quoting Voltaire…poorly); the constitutional originalist who loves Jefferson and Paine, says that constitution was not properly changed to incorporate the power to tax income, and is sure that the constitution doesn’t prohibit the government from banning abortions; the NAMBLA member who says he is defending every 8-year-old child’s choice to make decisions for himself concerning his or her sex life…etc.

And, just try being an advocate of reality and reason in a group of libertarians. Freedom Party’s biggest detractors? Not Liberals. Not socialists. Not Conservatives. Libertarians. Why? Because we want a single, rational legal system, common to all, designed for the sole purpose of preventing people from engaging in irrational conduct that interferes with the rational pursuit, by others, of their own happiness. Because we refuse to try using non-essential arguments to justify capitalism. Because we expressly condemn non-essential arguments for capitalism (and, sometimes, those who use them), especially and most harshly when they are presented by people who claim to be advocates of reality, reason, morality, individualism, consent or capitalism (or of “freedom” or “liberty”).

Libertarianism is ‘freedom’ for dummies, mystics, hedonists and moral relativists. It appeals to people who don’t care why freedom is good for man; to people who are okay with just agreeing with the non-aggression “axiom”, for whatever reason; to people who will cherry pick quotes from a mish-mash of philosophers and economists whose philosophies or economic views are/were in many ways conflicting, and call them all “great libertarian thinkers in history”; to people who would call Jesus a “libertarian” because he was reportedly unhappy with a dude who buried his talents of gold for safe-keeping instead of investing them and getting a return on his investment; etc.

Libertarianism’s utter disregard (even scorn) for the role of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics in achieving freedom, together with its erroneous claim to represent those who want freedom, render it a high-profiled failure, and a continuous source of evidence for the falsehood that reality, reason, rational egoism, individualism, freedom and capitalism are indefensible.

As Rand said:

…the guiltiest men are not the collectivists; the guiltiest men are those who, lacking the courage to challenge mysticism or altruism, attempt to bypass the issues of reason and morality and to defend the only rational and moral system in mankind’s history – capitalism – on any grounds other than rational and moral. (from “What is Capitalism”, in Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal).

Mark Hubbard wrote:

..I have always assumed that Libertarianism is informed by Objectivism as its philosophy…

I replied:

I think that the most accurate assumption, in this regard, is that Murray Rothbard (the father of libertarianism) thought the non-aggression principle – if somehow obeyed – to be something that rendered the underlying metaphysics, epistemology and ethics non-essential. I think that Rand’s reaction to his mystical wife ticked him off sufficiently that he actually spent time writing papers/books alleging that those who agreed with Rand – having rejected mysticism, and having demanded that capitalism be justified only rationally – were “cultists”, that Rand was a witch who didn’t live up to her own philosophy, and various other smears that persist to this day (with the assistance of eager, if desperate, Humeans, Kantians, and the like). I think that libertarianism is Rothbard’s legacy: a stillborn, consistently and routinely failed effort to prove Rand wrong about her assertion that freedom and capitalism could be justified only on rational and moral grounds.

What’s Wrong with Dave Rubin’s “Classical Liberal” Infomercial

In a new, two minute infomercial, Dave Rubin provides his viewers with an answer to the question “What is a Classical Liberal?”. Sadly, the bright and affable host of The Rubin Report gives his viewers an answer that deliberately strips away so much distinguishing philosophy as to leave the term “classical liberal” little more than a term used to refer to a desired but elusive big, inclusive collective of unprincipled and intellectually disarmed dreamers. Read more

Right in Front of Your Eyes: Surveillance and Freedom

Knowledge is not necessarily power. However, Edward Snowden’s disclosure that the U.S. National Security Agency (“NSA”) monitors the electronic communications of private citizens without a warrant has led many to conclude that the U.S. government is approaching the point of omnipotence, and to express fear and anger that the U.S. government will use that power to control them. That outrage stands in stark contrast to the support or resignation one finds in respect of substantive laws that allow the government to violate lives, liberty, and property. The contrast unveils both a bleak truth about the governed’s desire for individual freedom, and a requirement for its achievement. Read more

Are you a redian?

Are you a redian? Want to find out about the most promising political movement on the planet and its promise of communities of freedom, harmony, and abundance? Read on. Read more

You Keep Asking, Now We Answer: Freedom Party versus Libertarian Party

The word “libertarian” is used in both a formal sense and an informal sense. When a socialist Liberal politician exclaims that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, he is called a civil “libertarian”. When a theocratic Conservative politician calls for a reduction in taxes, he too is called a “libertarian”. And when an “anarcho-capitalist” economist calls for the elimination of government, he is called a “libertarian”. So what does the word actually mean? Read more

Harper is not Harper: the libertarian Conservative delusion

Libertarian Conservative writer Gerry Nicholls wrote a blog post on the National Post’s “Full Comment” blog the other day in which he did his best to argue that A is not A. His subject was a book by Marci MacDonald titled “The Armageddon Factor”, in which she writes of the influence that evangelical Christians have over Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and over matters of policy in Canada. The thrust of his argument is that the book will not succeed in turning people away from supporting the Harper Conservatives, but that it may actually drive social (read religious) Conservatives into the Harper Conservative camp. I see at least three problems with this theory. Read more

Next Page »