I appreciate and agree with the points made by Dr. B. and Diana. I
was once intrigued by the fact that Ayn Rand had told writer Joan
Kennedy Taylor that her politics was "libertarian." And, at one
time, Rand had little or no problem describing it as such or drawing
parallels with it---whatever her discomfort with the word (as so well
expressed in Nathaniel's essay). Just yesterday, in fact, I heard a
very interesting interview with Rand.

In contrast to conservatism, which she rejected as "futile and
disastrous," Rand states in that interview: "People like the
libertarians, [Ludwig] von Mises or [Henry] Hazlitt [both of whom
Rand knew and highly recommended to her readers], do not advocate a
mixed economy. The so-called libertarians are much better in that
respect."

Note: She wasn't condemning the group as a whole---the way Peter
Schwartz did---as a bunch of whim-worshipping tribalists. She goes
on:

"The libertarians are a loose group; they do not have a specific
program; the differences will vary from individual to individual. In
a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is in the
fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them,
exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their
philosophical frame of reference, it varies from man to man, and we
are usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework, but
in agreement with most of their economic theories. Now, Objectivism
is not a political-economic movement, at least not primarily.
Objectivism is primarily a philosophical movement, which means that
we derive our politics and economics from a certain philosophical
framework . . . We do agree with much of their political-economic
views."

(See "Conservatism versus Objectivism: An Interview with Ayn Rand"
circa 1963-64)

I suspect that the debate over the use of "libertarianism" reached
fever pitch ~because~ of the anarchists within libertarian politics.
But describing Objectivist politics as "libertarian" is no different
than describing Objectivist ethics as "egoist." OBVIOUSLY,
Objectivism has enormous differences with other ~forms~ of
libertarianism and other ~forms~ of egoism, but that doesn't make it
any less libertarian in the political sphere or egoist in the ethical
sphere. It's all a question of classification.

And since libertarianism as a political doctrine is simply the 20th
century equivalent of classical liberalism, and that use of the
word "liberal" in today's political culture has been preempted by its
use to describe "welfare statism," I, quite frankly, do not see what
the big deal is.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member, of the Libertarian
Party. I'm a registered independent. I occasionally vote for LP
candidates when I despise the choices among the major parties.
Whatever my voting patterns, I can certainly attest to the fact that
small-l libertarianism is ~much~ broader than upper-case Libertarian
Party Politics.

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
---