Libertarian Party is an organization, and at its face value should be
embracing the libertarian values, which I classify it as the
economic/political branch of Objectivism.

I chose to affect the party and align the philosophical basis with
the stated party policy, instead of letting "the pollutants" take
over.
I am convinced that, just like Rand did while defending the term
capitalism, Libertarian Party is worth saving, for it is what most of
us stand for - regardless of some individuals or defenders of the
party do or say.

Jak Karako
LPNY state chair



--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "barger9999"
<barger9999@y...> wrote:
> 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