The main problem I have with Mr. Moellor's comments, is that he
fails to properly distinguish, the difference between a political
PARTY, and a philosophical POSITION. This is the same error, Schwartz
makes.
This is a mistake.
His argument may or may not be a proper argument for not joining
the Libertarian PARTY; but he insists by implication that
libertarianism as a political position is somehow corrupted, because
allegedly a lot of openly unsavory people are L.P. members.
The essence of libertarianism, is classical liberalism.

Consider: There are unsavory people-people with numerous
divergent philosophical premises, who call themselves "atheists".
Did Rand shy away from calling herself an "atheist", because
openly irrational people like Madeline Murray O'Hair and Joseph
Stalin were "atheists"?

Many "God-fearing" Americans years back equated, in their
minds, "atheism", with "materialism" and especially, "Communism"!
It was right that Rand did not join any groups that espoused
atheism, such as O'Hair's American Atheists. (This would be parallel
to not joining the Libertarian Party).

But, Rand never said: 'I Can't call myself an "atheist' anymore,
because the word has been corrupted to imply 'Godless Communism', in
many people's minds!!
So, she called herself a small 'a' atheist, and didn't associate
with the O'Hair's of the world.
Parallel to that approach-IF it was her position that Rothbard
and others were not to be associated with, she could and should have
stayed away from the L.P. But, just as she was still a small 'a'
atheist, in spite of O'Hair and Stalin and any other unsavory
character who also called himself an "atheist", by the same token,
she was still a small 'l' libertarian, in spite of the alleged
irrationality of the CAPITAL 'L' Libertarian PARTY.

Why didn't Rand reject the label "atheist", then, which was MUCH
more "corrupted" in the public mind, ("Godless Communism"), than
libertarianism ever was. (Stipulating that it was "corrupted" at all!)
Thanks!
Steven Barger

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Michael Moeller
<moeller_log@y...> wrote:
> 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