Dear Michael;
You'd be surprised at how much we're in agreement on! The areas
of disagreement are important to focus on, here, though. Let me
explain.

You Wrote: "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." {End of quote}.

You are not making clear here, nor in the context of the rest of
your message, whether you're talking about
(small 'l')"libertarianism" as a philosophical position, OR, about a
(small 'l') libertarian MOVEMENT. If your statement, here, is
intended to refer to the MOVEMENT, then I can agree that
libertarianism will not prevail, unless grounded on a rational
epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. But, this is exactly what
Rothbard said, in "For a New Liberty". So, you and I are in agreement
with Rothbard on that point.

My libertarianism is grounded on Objectivist epistemology,
metaphysics, and ethics.

If, however, in your above-quoted statement, you
intended "libertarianism" to refer to the POSITION per se, not the
lib. MOVEMENT, then your statement is a non-sequiter. (That's why I
don't think you intended it that way). Substitute "atheism"
for "libertarianism", in your statement. Or, substitute "egoism".

("Atheism", "libertarianism" ,and "egoism" are specific
positions, each one held by a variety of people with very divergent
epistemological and metaphysical views).

"libertarianism" as a position, cannot be sensibly said to be " a
failure of INTEGRATION into a broader philosophical context". Just
like, "egoism" cannot be said to be "a failure of
INTEGRATION into a broader philosophical context". Or, "atheism".

So, if you were intending to imply that the libertarian MOVEMENT,
(which is much broader than just the L.P.), cannot flourish without
being properly grounded in a rational philosophical SYSTEM, then you
and I are in agreement on that; AND you are agreeing with Rothbard.

But: If someone holds the POSITION of libertarianism, but is a
nihilist, and a subjectivist, they are still a (small 'l')
libertarian. Just as Joseph Stalin and Ayn Rand were both atheists;
and Nietzsche and Rand were both egoists.

The POSITION of egoism per se, is not wrong, just because the
person advocating egoism reached that position, from a different
philosophical base, than Objectivists. Likewise, atheism.

Neither libertarianism ,egoism, nor atheism, as philosophical
positions, necessarily imply ANY one particular philosophical base.
It's just that these positions cannot be PROPERLY GROUNDED on
anything but an Objectivist, rational philosophical foundation.

But that just means that some people's libertarianism is not
properly grounded; NOT that there is something wrong with
libertarianism as a POSITION, per se.

This is a distinction that is crucial to make. Whether or not it
is tactically wise to work within a political party with libertarians
who don't share all of our philosophical base, is an interesting and
good question, on which honest people can disagree.

But the fact that SOME irrational people spout a classical-
liberal ("libertarian") position, doesn't mean the POSITION is
invalid; any more than irrational atheists spouting atheism, or
irrational egoists spouting egoism, invalidates atheism or egoism, as
proper positions for a rational person to hold.

Thanks!
Steven Barger


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