--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, n6666b@c... wrote:
> AR was not willing to surrender "selfishness" because of people's
confusion
> as to the meaning of the term. I am not willing to surrender
> "libertarianism" to the likes of M. Rothbard and P. Schwartz.
One could cut
> through this whole be describing oneself as a "limited government
> libertarian." Or, for some of us, an "Objectivist libertarian.

Dr. Branden, I don't believe Schwartz was attacking libertarianism
with small l, just like he wouldn't attack liberalism. The tradition
of libertarianism is probably longer than that of Objectivism, and
some may argue that the even the likes of Adam Smith were
libertarian. In the recent years, however, as we all know, the term
has been hijacked by a 'quasi-anarchist', 'quasi-
environmentalist', 'quasi-lots of things' party.

With all this in light, I disagree with the thesis of your paper,
and especially with the title: We're All Libertarians Now, which
seemed to be implying that there's no use disagreeing with the LP,
since them and us are the same. I didn't find anywhere your formal
disassociation from LP's principles, nor a statement of clear
distinction between their quasi-philosophy and the noble tradition
of historic libertarianism.

In fact, until you write today that you didn't agree with the LP I
was firmly convinced you did agree. I mean hey, TOC and LP are good
buddies, and you endorse TOC and give lectures there. Then there's
your essay with a provocative title. It really leaves little to the
imagination.

I am glad you officially disassociated yourself with any things
related to the LP (I didn't misrepresent your position, right?). If
only you made this clear in the essay, and made a clear distinction
between small l and big L (a minutae but enormous difference),
there'd be no doubt on the subject.