Hi Steve,
I will try to be more clear in my formulation.
Again as I stated numerous times in my previous
emails, I accept libertarianism when taken in the
political context of meaning a minimalist state and
individual rights. Taken in this narrow political
context I never stated that there is something with
libertarianism per se, as suggest you suggest. And in
this context, my argument was that ~capitalism~ is a
far superior term due to its acknowledged historical
success, its historically acquired positive
connotation, the fact that it is more universally
understood, etc. In summary, taken as a political
position, ~libertarianism~ is valid, but inferior to
~capitalism~.
Next I examined ~libertarianism~ from the more
fundamental philosophical point of view. I did this in
answer to those who argue that ~libertarianism~ should
be used instead of ~capitalism~ because it is wider
and more comprehensive philosophically. Now when you
examine the libertarian canon from a deeper
philosophical point of view instead of just the
political one, you find it IS a failure of
integration. The main thinkers and writers are all
over the map when they try to ground it in a
philosophic base. You make a false dichotomy here
when you state that I do not properly distinguish
between the libertarian MOVEMENT and the libertarian
POSITION. My question would be, how do you divorce
the movement (which I take to mean the main writers
and thinkers of that particular ideology) from the
positions they advocate?
I guess I can best illustrate my point by using
another example. Say I am a regular person who finds
myself in agreement with the political positions of
libertarianism. In order to get a better
understanding of the basis of libertarianism, I decide
to read some books by prominent libertarian authors,
subscribe to libertarian publications, and so forth.
What would I learn about the ethical basis of
libertarianism? How about the epistemological basis?
I agree that taken just politically, there is
nothing wrong with libertarianism per se. However,
one's philosophy does not represent a grab-bag of
positions--atheism grabbed from here, libertarianism
grabbed from there, and so on. Philosophically, one
starts with objective reality and reason, then one
works up to rational selfishess, and then on to
individual rights and voluntarism. You must observe
the hierarchy and build from the ground up, not from
the top down.
In short, what I am really saying is
Objectivists need not unify with libertarians because
stated political ends may be the same. ~Capitalism~
is more than adequate to cover the political/economic
position and adopting ~libertarianism~ will only muddy
the waters. Not because ~libertarianism~ is an
invalid political position per se, but when the
philosophic context of its main writers and thinkers
is observed, you get a hash of conflicts and
contradictions.
Objectivists should just be objectivists, and when
advocating a political/economic position, let's make
it ~capitalism~, not ~libertarianism~.
Flourish,
Michael

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