Hi Steve,
Thanks for your feedback, although I think you have
a significant misunderstanding of the crux of my
argument.
First of all, I did not state anywhere in my email
that "libertarianism as a political position is
somehow corrupted, because allegedly a lot of openly
unsavory people are L.P. members". I stated nothing
about LP members. My argument stems from an analysis
of the small-l libertarian canon, not the sundry
members of the LP.
Steve writes that I fail "to properly distinguish,
the difference between a political PARTY, and a
philosophical POSITION." Again, I do not reference
the LP; but I do see small-l libertarianism as a
politico-economic position, NOT a philosophical
position. And by philosophical I mean grounded in
metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. If you
disagree with my statement, I have a challenge for
you. David Boaz, Ludwig von Mises, Douglas Casey,
Nathaniel Branden, Murray Rothbard, Mark Skousen are
just a few of the many libertarian thinkers and
writers. My challenge is this: find a common
metaphysical/epistemological/ethical foundation among
these thinkers. It would be difficult even among just
two of these thinkers. They often disagree
considerably on political/economic theory as well.
My argument was never that small-l libertarianism,
properly defined, does not represent classic
liberalism. I fully understand this. Many consider
Locke to be the fountainhead of classic liberalism
political philosophy, but does that make his ideas of
pseudo-Cartesian representationalism correct and
consistent with respect to his political philosophy?
Certainly not. The same holds true for libertarians.
There is no common philosophical base structure. My
main argument was that libertarianism is a failure of
INTEGRATION into a broader philosophical context, and
therefore detrimental to Objectivists who adopt the
position. They are, in effect, compromising their
core philosophical principles to achieve an agreement
concerning political ends. The causal relationship is
reversed.
I will draw on The Fountainhead to best illustrate
my point. The modern architects destroy the unity of
the buildings by compromising all sorts of
conflicting architectural principles and styles, such
as putting ridiculous facades and ornamentation on a
modern skyscraper. Small-l libertarians are inverted
modern architects. They have an attractive outer
facade in the form of classical liberal politics, but
a hideous foundation and skeletal structure, or in
some cases, none at all. This type of philosophical
building will not stand up. I used to wonder why
libertarianism has not grabbed a major foot-hold since
it has been around for quite awhile now. I think this
lack of philosophical integration is the answer.
There is no appeal to the more fundamental
epistemological/ethical principles. Contrast this
with the Greens in Europe who have had major success
because of the appeal to the altruist moral code.
NB states in "We're All Libertarians Now" that "we
stand for something wider and more comprehensive:
we're champions of individual rights. We're advocates
of a non-coercive society." I still think this is
within the politico-economic realm. I think the
cultural shift will occur with an appeal to reason,
objective reality, and rational self-interest. This
is even wider and more comprehensive than individual
rights/non-coercive society, which is really an
outgrowth. So if we are talking about a concept for
this wider philosophical context, libertarianism
clearly is inadequate. If we are talking a concept
for individual rights/political and economic freedom,
~libertarianism~ is significantly inferior to
~capitalism~ for the reasons I outlined in my previous
email. In addition, the libertarian canon is loaded
with philosophical baggage that is antithetical to
reason/self-interest fundamentals. So for outsiders
looking in on libertarianism, there is no clear and
cohesive foundation--all you have is a fourth floor
suspended in mid-air.
In regards to your argument concerning atheism and
Communism, I would first state that an automatic
connection here is generally not made between the two
as you suggest. It simply means lack of belief in God
or a deity. It does not mean that you adopt the
principles of Communism. I have known many atheists
from many different philosophical foundations, and the
direct connection to Communism is not automatically
made. It then becomes a matter of whether that
viewpoint fits into the wider philosophical context.
Note here that atheism represents a contradiction in
the Communist fundamentals. In Communism they do
support a power higher and the subjugation of man's
life, the only difference is that it is the
Proletariat will instead of the supernatural. They
deny man's mind, his free-will, and his
value-judgments. Man's values become a fait accompli
determined by his economic status. So in fact, the
Communist adoption of atheism represents a diversion
from their mystic/altruist/collectivist fundamentals.
Flourish,
Michael



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