Great Topic. I am going to have to take the side of
Rand on this one for many reasons.
NB writes:
"I've needed to say, "I'm not a Democrat nor a
Republican, but a libertarian." Then listeners often
say, "Could you define libertarianism"--and we're off
to the races."
If this is the standard, then why not say that you
are classical liberal, and then put forth an
explanation of what that means. I assume many do not
follow this path because the concept has been
corrupted by modern liberalism. The same corruption
exists within the concept of libertarianism. The
problem with libertarianism is that it has two main
errors of integration.
The first integration failure is the problem of
essentials. When one posits a concept, it should, at
the very least, bring into focus its essential
characteristic(s). The essential feature, in the case
of libertarianism, should be a minimalist view of the
state where the state is constrained to protecting
individual rights. Does this essential characteristic
strike most people when the concept is put forth?
Hardly. I used to refer to myself as a small-l
libertarian, and almost nobody I argued with made the
integration of that concept on the terms I suggested
above. More often then not, many of these people
would equate me with either an anarchist, or a civil
libertarian. What's worse, there is a
feckless/"lunatic fringe" political connotation
associated with this concept. Like it or not,
libertarians are tainted with ineffectuality and
superfluity.
I subscribed to Liberty and read other libertarian
books and publications in order familiarize myself
with the philosophical foundations of libertarian
writings. I found that the writers came from all over
the philosophical map. Some defended the minimalist
state with religious views (many are religious), some
were anarchists, others were pseudo-collectivists, and
so on. Since Objectivism has such a strict
philosophical structure, why would I want to unite
with such an unsavory hash of ideas? I decided to
treat libertarianism the same way I do conservatism,
that is, to let them fight the battle for liberty on
their own grounds. Even though the stated political
ends may be the same, I don't think it can be properly
defended on their grounds. Many of these people may
be won over to the side of Objectivism, but
Objectivists gain nothing from throwing themselves
into the same political ring. In fact, it hurts the
philosophical foundation of Objectivism because an
invalid philosophical association will be drawn due to
their political association.
This leads into what I think is the 2nd failure of
integration with regards to libertarianism, namely
that the concept is not conjoined to a broader
epistemological/ethical framework. What is the
libertarian ethical defense of the minimalist state
and individual rights? If you look to much of the
libertarian canon, the answer will come out of a
muddle of conflicting and contradictory ethical
principles (utilitarianism, hedonism, etc.). My
thoughts are that people need to agree on
ethical/epistemological grounds, then the
politico-economic premises will be a natural
outgrowth. If we instead say, "Well, we agree on
political ends, let's worry about the philosophical
differences later", all that will result is an
incoherent, non-foundational, floating jumble--which
is exactly what libertarianism IS!!! The fact that
one must distinguish between libertarianism and
Libertarianism is itself proof of the convoluted
nature of this concept.
Chris points out that libertarians are primarily
concerned with politico-economy, and as Objectivists,
"we derive our politics and economics from a certain
philosophical framework..." This is precisely why
libertarianism is pernicious with respect to
Objectivism--it ignores the hierarchy of knowledge.
Without this hierarchical context, the individualist
political principles CANNOT be properly defended. As
further proof, read Liberty or other libertarian
publications and you will find that the writers draw
all sorts of different implications from the same
political principles. Why is this? Again, because
most of them do not operate from the same
epistemological/ethical context. Contrast this with
concept of modern liberalism, which is more clearly
understood because most of the advocates do operate
from the same epistemological/ethical context.
Rand was correct in stating that "capitalist" is
far superior to "conservative" or "libertarian". This
is primarily due to 3 reasons:
1) The concept of capitalism is more universally
understood. I have found that most people, at least
implicitly, grasp the fact that capitalism means
private ownership and voluntary exchange (although I
had somebody tell me that fascism is a capitalist
state, HELP!!). Even though this primarily defines
one's economics, political and economic principles are
so intimately interwoven that by defining the nature
of one, you define the nature of the other.
Capitalism, understood in the correct context, can
then be easily integrated with the proper function of
the state--to protect individual rights. To give it
other functions, like the redistribution of wealth,
would violate the fundamental tenets of capitalism.
2) Capitalism has taken on a very positive
connotation, unlike libertarianism. I am only in my
twenties, and as a result, have mostly received a
positive reception with regards to my advocacy of
capitalism. The outright vitriolic denunciation of
capitalism seems to have faded before my generation.
Except for the most closed-minded and crude liberals,
I have found that most people silently acknowledge
capitalism's superiority, at least in terms of
practical efficacy. Once they concede the practical
efficacy, it is much easier to make the link to
capitalism's moral superiority. And that, I think, is
the ultimate goal--to win people over by appeal to
ethical/epistemological fundamentals, not political
ones. As many people have stated, the cultural
victory will be won on the fundamental philosophical
battlefield, not the political one.
3) In relation to my previous two points,
"capitalism" is much easier to integrate into a
hierarchical philosophical framework than
"libertarianism". Rand often speaks of the
mystic-altruist-collectivist axis. These concepts go
hand-in-hand, the
epistemological/ethical/politico-economic structure is
well integrated and consistent. The same is true with
regards to the reason/rational
self-interest/capitalist axis. The concepts are also
well integrated and consistent. Now if we replaced
"capitalism" in this philosophical structure with
"libertarianism", the structure is not consistent or
well-integrated. Examining the libertarian canon, one
could not reasonably declare that the writers have a
consistent reason/rational self-interest foundation.
Rand emphasized this hierarchy by stating that she was
a capitalist, but more fundamentally, an
individualist, and even more fundamentally, an
advocate of reason and objective reality. Can one
make this organic link if the concept of "capitalism"
is replaced by "libertarianism"? Examining many of
the movement's main thinkers and writers, it would be
extremely hard to make a positive case.
I don't understand why many Objectivists feel the
need to adopt the term "libertarian". Why fight for a
corrupted concept when when a much better one is
readily available? I say, leave conservatism to the
Conservatives and libertarianism to the Libertarians.
We are all Capitalists now--and that's a good thing.
Flourish,
Michael


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com