From: <n6666b@...>

> I find it that on a "Nathaniel Branden list," arguing about Objectivism
and
> libertarianism, no one seems interested in addressing what I have written
on
> this subject.

I just did, in my response to Peter Smitt, but perhaps with all these
postings, it got lost, so here is my response, below:

Peter Smitt <psmitt@...> wrote:

[quoting from the NB piece on Libertarianism]
>
<snip>
> > In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is
> > commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn
> > Rand is commonly referred to as "a libertarian philosopher." Folks, we
> > are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it.

As much as I respect NB's work in the field of psychology, I couldn't
disagree more with him on this point. "Libertarianism" is commonly
understood by many people outside the "movement", in my own experience, when
it has come up in conversation, as anarchy. From what I've observed, AR is
thought of as a "libertarian philosopher" mainly from people inside the LP
or Kelley's organization. Most people outside the "movement", in my
experience, are very confused as to what Objectivism is all about and have
formed all kinds of incorrect associations with it. There is one article
from a leftist website I read where the author even equates Ayn Rand of
being "of the same genre" with Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, so
misconceptions about Objectivism are very much still out there, no doubt
about that. It is true enough that there is still some association of
libertarianism with Ayn Rand, but since ARI has been successfully making
more contact with the press and is taking great pains to distance
Libertarianism from Objectivism, this is rapidly changning. I have no
intention of "getting used to it", any more than I would want to "get used
to" Ayn Rand's mis-association with L. Ron Hubbard or Fascism. The
association of Objectivism with "Libertarianism", as it exists today, is
just as outrageous. Schwartz has solid citations and documentation in his
article for what Libertarianism has associated itself with. I consider this
very comparable to the word "Liberal". Although "liberal" once had a very
honerable meaning of someone advocating limited government, in the interest
of clear communication, I would not consider describing myself as such
today, nor would I ever join today's party of "liberals", the Democrats.

> So I'd like to know what the position of the objectivists on this list
> is. Either they agree with Peikoff and think that libertarians are the
> archenemy of objectivism,

Yes, that is my position. I support Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz on
this issue, 100%.

>or they agree with Branden (who calls
> himself a libertarian) that objectivism is just one particular brand
> of libertarianism.

Absolutely not.

>It's either-or, you cannot have your cake and eat it
> too. In view of previous posts I'd expect that they would strongly
> disagree with Branden's article. But so far their silence has been
> deafening.

You are correct. Now you have me on record that I do, in fact, disagree.

Monica Pignotti