For the Ayn Rand lovers

[Bond 281]

You've been talking to different libertarians than I have.

It really seems like you don't have a concrete idea of what libertarianism and objectivism are. The hedonistic libertarian and the strict religious libertarian will argue for almost the exact same thing. As will the objectivist. The point of libertarianism is that it doesn't matter what you believe, you don't have the right to force your ideas on anybody else. Let people be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Many libertarians are also very big on property law and economic freedom. Objectivists hold the same values, but for differing reasons maybe. What I'm saying is that the reasoning behind what they want is 100% completely, absolutely irrelevant. They both want more or less the same thing. Freedom.

 

[dross]

You've been talking to different libertarians than I have.



I agree with this statement, but I'm not sure it's sufficient.

What do you mean by "sufficient" in this context?

 

[Fletch]

It really seems like you don't have a concrete idea of what libertarianism and objectivism are.

I've studied both, and I am a staunch libertarian, but not an Objectivist, although my time with Objectivism does inform my thinking. I agree with Dross when he says that libertarians owe Rand a great debt. I mean no disrespect when I criticize Rand or libertarians, but there are important differences between the Objectivist and the libertarian which are all too casually dismissed by libertarians.

The hedonistic libertarian and the strict religious libertarian will argue for almost the exact same thing. As will the objectivist. The point of libertarianism is that it doesn't matter what you believe, you don't have the right to force your ideas on anybody else. Let people be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Many libertarians are also very big on property law and economic freedom. Objectivists hold the same values, but for differing reasons maybe. What I'm saying is that the reasoning behind what they want is 100% completely, absolutely irrelevant. They both want more or less the same thing. Freedom.

Unlike most Rand fans (not necessarily including or excluding you in this), I actually took the time to read her non-fiction work; I didn't just stop with Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. And the one thing that I know for certain from that is that to Rand, the practical consequences of coming to the same conclusions are utterly irrelevant if one did not arrive at those conclusions properly. To her, doing the work was absolutely paramount. If you did not do the work, you are no more worthy of being called "human" in Rand's eyes than the looter Dagny Taggart shot for refusing to think. Simply waking up one day and saying "live and let live" was as disgusting to her as demanding to live by the product of another's labor.

A prime example of this is a friend of mine who read Atlas Shrugged and pestered me to read it for something like a year. Then he bought me a copy and demanded that I read it, all the while preaching the virtues of Rand's philosophy. When I finished reading it, we discussed the book, and in that discussion it came out that he read about 3 pages of John Galt's speech and then skipped to the end of it. It was completely lost on him that Rand would hate him in the worst way for co-opting her work like that, without having done her the service of actually reading and understanding it. He is also a staunch libertarian, but Rand would call him a looter of ideas -- her ideas, to be specific. The process is what's important.

 

[88GT]

I had this discussion the other night with a colleague. My position was that Rand has done more to hurt the concept of liberty than help it. In my experience, people read AS at an early age and can find common ground with the message of the book. Suddenly, they think are Objectivist scholars. Objectivism is a branch of philosophy. While it may share some common themes with the concept of liberty, they are simply no the same beast. What has evolved is this, Rand detractors automatically associate her with Libertarianism and vice versa - see OP for proof.

The argument of actually getting your money back, using public resources, etc. is one had in very principled voluntaryist circles... I.E. not INGO or within say, the Libertarian party.

Threadjack: I have read that voluntaryist philosophy opposes electoral government. How is that the voluntaryist philosophy is any different from socialism/communism in as much as it is premised on an assumption that all people hold the same moral code and will abide by it at all times?

Like it or not, government creates an minimum standard, based in part on a prevailing moral code, to protect those who want to live according to that code from those that don't. I do not see how people can function in the anarchical environment that would exist in the voluntaryist's perfect world?

This isn't meant to be confrontational. I would like to understand how the voluntaryist reconciles the reality of human nature with their idea of a perfect world.

A prime example of this is a friend of mine who read Atlas Shrugged and pestered me to read it for something like a year. Then he bought me a copy and demanded that I read it, all the while preaching the virtues of Rand's philosophy. When I finished reading it, we discussed the book, and in that discussion it came out that he read about 3 pages of John Galt's speech and then skipped to the end of it. It was completely lost on him that Rand would hate him in the worst way for co-opting her work like that, without having done her the service of actually reading and understanding it. He is also a staunch libertarian, but Rand would call him a looter of ideas -- her ideas, to be specific. The process is what's important.

I skipped to the end of the speech after the first 10 pages of it. I can't imagine there was anything new and earth-shattering to be found in the other 50. Though, to be fair, I did read the rest of the 1100 pages. (And though it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, the point I took home was that the language of the looters is universal through time and culture.)

 

[Fletch]

I skipped to the end of the speech after the first 10 pages of it. I can't imagine there was anything new and earth-shattering to be found in the other 50. Though, to be fair, I did read the rest of the 1100 pages. (And though it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, the point I took home was that the language of the looters is universal through time and culture.)

In this discussion with you, the point is moot. You are not holding forth Rand's philosophy as something that should be adopted by all (or perhaps more importantly, claiming that you have adopted it yourself). My friend was doing both of these on the basis of a book he hadn't completely read, in ironic ignorance of what was truly being stated by its author.

For purposes of this discussion thread, I am only endeavoring to defend Rand on her own terms, and I don't really see you attempting to equate her work with general libertarian theory. That's the difference.

 

[Fletch]

What do you mean by "sufficient" in this context?

I'm not ignoring you; I've been trying to figure out a way to put it. If you read your post that I responded to, and mine that immediately preceded it, there's a subtle difference. From my perspective, yours says that freedom is the ultimate end, and if it results in morality, that's a good thing. My position is more that freedom is a prerequisite for morality. Indeed, freedom has no purpose without morality; morality is the point of freedom. In this way I am exactly like Rand: we both believe that morality (perhaps even Morality) is an imperative, not an option. What exact shape that Morality takes is of course open for discussion and debate, as it should be.

 

[88GT]

In this discussion with you, the point is moot. You are not holding forth Rand's philosophy as something that should be adopted by all (or perhaps more importantly, claiming that you have adopted it yourself). My friend was doing both of these on the basis of a book he hadn't completely read, in ironic ignorance of what was truly being stated by its author.

For purposes of this discussion thread, I am only endeavoring to defend Rand on her own terms, and I don't really see you attempting to equate her work with general libertarian theory. That's the difference.

Wow. I didn't mean it to be so serious. Just a casual observation and a little chuckle that such a deep meaning could be so easily discerned from three pages of a fictional speech. And then laughing some more because I only read 10 pages.

 

[Bond 281]

I've studied both, and I am a staunch libertarian, but not an Objectivist, although my time with Objectivism does inform my thinking. I agree with Dross when he says that libertarians owe Rand a great debt. I mean no disrespect when I criticize Rand or libertarians, but there are important differences between the Objectivist and the libertarian which are all too casually dismissed by libertarians.

Unlike most Rand fans (not necessarily including or excluding you in this), I actually took the time to read her non-fiction work; I didn't just stop with Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. And the one thing that I know for certain from that is that to Rand, the practical consequences of coming to the same conclusions are utterly irrelevant if one did not arrive at those conclusions properly. To her, doing the work was absolutely paramount. If you did not do the work, you are no more worthy of being called "human" in Rand's eyes than the looter Dagny Taggart shot for refusing to think. Simply waking up one day and saying "live and let live" was as disgusting to her as demanding to live by the product of another's labor.

A prime example of this is a friend of mine who read Atlas Shrugged and pestered me to read it for something like a year. Then he bought me a copy and demanded that I read it, all the while preaching the virtues of Rand's philosophy. When I finished reading it, we discussed the book, and in that discussion it came out that he read about 3 pages of John Galt's speech and then skipped to the end of it. It was completely lost on him that Rand would hate him in the worst way for co-opting her work like that, without having done her the service of actually reading and understanding it. He is also a staunch libertarian, but Rand would call him a looter of ideas -- her ideas, to be specific. The process is what's important.

The process is important philosophically, sure. You're right in that libertarians are vastly differently from objectivists, and would be looked down upon. Maybe I need to brush up on my Ayn Rand, but I still don't see how they're so politically different. If you could, can you give me a few examples of how an objectivist would want something important that is at odds with libertarianism, politically speaking.

 

[Fletch]

Wow. I didn't mean it to be so serious. Just a casual observation and a little chuckle that such a deep meaning could be so easily discerned from three pages of a fictional speech. And then laughing some more because I only read 10 pages.

I'm not taking any offense, if that's what you're implying. I did think your response was funny, I just wanted to further clarify my own position. I get myopic that way sometimes. It's all good.

 

[Fletch]

The process is important philosophically, sure. You're right in that libertarians are vastly differently from objectivists, and would be looked down upon. Maybe I need to brush up on my Ayn Rand, but I still don't see how they're so politically different. If you could, can you give me a few examples of how an objectivist would want something important that is at odds with libertarianism, politically speaking.

If we accept Rand as the final arbiter of Objectivist philosophy, I have already done so: she believed in gun control, as I stated somewhere upthread.

Some of us may discard that notion as a byproduct of her Soviet upbringing, in which case I may have to dig a little deeper into some things which may not have an immediately noticeable effect on politics, such as her beef with Mises' Subjective Theory of Value (which I believe she got wrong, but which is still argued by her adherents today). The ramifications of such a fundamental difference aren't even obvious to me, but something about it makes me think that it could ultimately cause some significant problems.

It also goes back to my discussion with Dross over the ultimate ends: Freedom or Morality. I don't think most libertarians, particularly of the hedonist variety, would want to live under Objectivist freedom.

 

[88GT]

I'm not taking any offense, if that's what you're implying. I did think your response was funny, I just wanted to further clarify my own position. I get myopic that way sometimes. It's all good.

Phew!

 

[dross]

I'm not ignoring you; I've been trying to figure out a way to put it. If you read your post that I responded to, and mine that immediately preceded it, there's a subtle difference. From my perspective, yours says that freedom is the ultimate end, and if it results in morality, that's a good thing. My position is more that freedom is a prerequisite for morality. Indeed, freedom has no purpose without morality; morality is the point of freedom. In this way I am exactly like Rand: we both believe that morality (perhaps even Morality) is an imperative, not an option. What exact shape that Morality takes is of course open for discussion and debate, as it should be.

Thinking....

This is why you shouldn't leave us for so long. Reply coming....

 

[CarmelHP]

I think Fletch made me realize what I always found so off-putting about Ayn Rand. She demands that you approach her on her terms and ONLY her terms. There was always too much of the petty martinet there for me.

 

[Fletch]

I think Fletch made me realize what I always found so off-putting about Ayn Rand. She demands that you approach her on her terms and ONLY her terms. There was always too much of the petty martinet there for me.

She certainly was a self-important *****.

 

[88GT]

I think Fletch made me realize what I always found so off-putting about Ayn Rand. She demands that you approach her on her terms and ONLY her terms. There was always too much of the petty martinet there for me.

Is that much different than holding everyone to your standards and judging them accordingly?

 

[CarmelHP]

Is that much different than holding everyone to your standards and judging them accordingly?

As Rand would say, "почему, ваш приклад ушибает?"

 

[Bond 281]

If we accept Rand as the final arbiter of Objectivist philosophy, I have already done so: she believed in gun control, as I stated somewhere upthread.

Some of us may discard that notion as a byproduct of her Soviet upbringing, in which case I may have to dig a little deeper into some things which may not have an immediately noticeable effect on politics, such as her beef with Mises' Subjective Theory of Value (which I believe she got wrong, but which is still argued by her adherents today). The ramifications of such a fundamental difference aren't even obvious to me, but something about it makes me think that it could ultimately cause some significant problems.

It also goes back to my discussion with Dross over the ultimate ends: Freedom or Morality. I don't think most libertarians, particularly of the hedonist variety, would want to live under Objectivist freedom.

Gun control is one issue though. I think by and large there would be agreement on the idea of extremely limited government.

 

[Fletch]

Gun control is one issue though. I think by and large there would be agreement on the idea of extremely limited government.

Nevertheless, I have satisfied the requirement of the question as to how Objectivist libertarianism might differ from mainstream libertarianism in practical political terms.

Perhaps you should post a poll: how many folks on this board would be willing to accept total gun control if it meant total freedom in every other aspect of government/citizen relations.

 

[Bond 281]

Nevertheless, I have satisfied the requirement of the question as to how Objectivist libertarianism might differ from mainstream libertarianism in practical political terms.

Perhaps you should post a poll: how many folks on this board would be willing to accept total gun control if it meant total freedom in every other aspect of government/citizen relations.

I hardly consider one issue to prove that the political ideologies of both are radically different. Really what I've been saying is that Objectivism is a form of libertarianism, which you seem to give credence to when you say "Objectivist libertarianism." Libertarians who believe in gun control, I suppose.

As for the second point, I would argue that it's a paradox, because you can never have freedom from a government without guns. Freedom is resultant from the inability of others to force their will upon you. This is inversely proportional to the amount of force a government has.

 

[Fletch]

I hardly consider one issue to prove that the political ideologies of both are radically different. Really what I've been saying is that Objectivism is a form of libertarianism, which you seem to give credence to when you say "Objectivist libertarianism." Libertarians who believe in gun control, I suppose.

As for the second point, I would argue that it's a paradox, because you can never have freedom from a government without guns. Freedom is resultant from the inability of others to force their will upon you. This is inversely proportional to the amount of force a government has.

So in your first paragraph, a single issue is an irrelevant trifle, but in your second paragraph, that same issue creates a profound contradiction. Which is it?

And in the grand scheme of things, if the government has a monopoly on force, but is willing to spit-shake and pinkie-swear not to abuse that power to violate any other freedoms, what's the difference?