From: <n6666b@...>



> I find it that on a "Nathaniel Branden list," arguing about Objectivism

and

> libertarianism, no one seems interested in addressing what I have written

on

> this subject.



I just did, in my response to Peter Smitt, but perhaps with all these

postings, it got lost, so here is my response, below:



Peter Smitt <psmitt@...> wrote:



[quoting from the NB piece on Libertarianism]

>

<snip>

> > In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is

> > commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn

> > Rand is commonly referred to as "a libertarian philosopher." Folks, we

> > are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it.



As much as I respect NB's work in the field of psychology, I couldn't

disagree more with him on this point.  "Libertarianism" is commonly

understood by many people outside the "movement", in my own experience, when

it has come up in conversation, as anarchy.  From what I've observed, AR is

thought of as a "libertarian philosopher" mainly from people inside the LP

or Kelley's organization.  Most people outside the "movement", in my

experience, are very confused as to what Objectivism is all about and have

formed all kinds of incorrect associations with it.  There is one article

from a leftist website I read where the author even equates Ayn Rand of

being "of the same genre" with Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, so

misconceptions about Objectivism are very much still out there, no doubt

about that.  It is true enough that there is still some association of

libertarianism with Ayn Rand, but since ARI has been successfully making

more contact with the press and is taking great pains to distance

Libertarianism from Objectivism,  this is rapidly changning.  I have no

intention of "getting used to it", any more than I would want to "get used

to" Ayn Rand's mis-association with L. Ron Hubbard or Fascism.   The

association of Objectivism with "Libertarianism", as it exists today, is

just as outrageous.  Schwartz has solid citations and documentation in his

article for what Libertarianism has associated itself with.  I consider this

very comparable to the word "Liberal".  Although "liberal" once had a very

honerable meaning of someone advocating limited government, in the interest

of clear communication, I would not consider describing myself as such

today, nor would I ever join today's party of "liberals", the Democrats.



> So I'd like to know what the position of the objectivists on this list

> is. Either they agree with Peikoff and think that libertarians are the

> archenemy of objectivism,



Yes, that is my position.   I support Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz on

this issue, 100%.



>or they agree with Branden (who calls

> himself a libertarian) that objectivism is just one particular brand

> of libertarianism.



Absolutely not.



>It's either-or, you cannot have your cake and eat it

> too. In view of previous posts I'd expect that they would strongly

> disagree with Branden's article. But so far their silence has been

> deafening.



You are correct.  Now you have me on record that I do, in fact, disagree.



Monica Pignotti

Monica,



That many people are confused about Objectivism and about libertarianism

hardly needs to be argued.   That is why, in my own books, I define precisely

what I mean by libertarianism.   My experience is obviously different from

yours, in that I can hardly think of a single person I've talked to who

thinks libertarianism means anarchism (taken literally).  Given the amount of

confusion about these terms today, whatever position we take we will need to

do some explaining and also we will need to define our terms.  So that's not

a shortcoming peculiar to libertarianism.



AR was not willing to surrender "selfishness" because of people's confusion

as to the meaning of the term.   I am not willing to surrender

"libertarianism" to the likes of M. Rothbard and P. Schwartz.   One could cut

through this whole be describing oneself as a "limited government

libertarian."  Or, for some of us, an "Objectivist libertarian.



Life is good.



Nathaniel Branden





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, n6666b@c... wrote:

> AR was not willing to surrender "selfishness" because of people's

confusion

> as to the meaning of the term.   I am not willing to surrender

> "libertarianism" to the likes of M. Rothbard and P. Schwartz.

One could cut

> through this whole be describing oneself as a "limited government

> libertarian."  Or, for some of us, an "Objectivist libertarian.



Dr. Branden, I don't believe Schwartz was attacking libertarianism

with small l, just like he wouldn't attack liberalism. The tradition

of libertarianism is probably longer than that of Objectivism, and

some may argue that the even the likes of Adam Smith were

libertarian. In the recent years, however, as we all know, the term

has been hijacked by a 'quasi-anarchist', 'quasi-

environmentalist', 'quasi-lots of things' party.



With all this in light, I disagree with the thesis of your paper,

and especially with the title: We're All Libertarians Now, which

seemed to be implying that there's no use disagreeing with the LP,

since them and us are the same. I didn't find anywhere your formal

disassociation from LP's principles, nor a statement of clear

distinction between their quasi-philosophy and the noble tradition

of historic libertarianism.



In fact, until you write today that you didn't agree with the LP I

was firmly convinced you did agree. I mean hey, TOC and LP are good

buddies, and you endorse TOC and give lectures there. Then there's

your essay with a provocative title. It really leaves little to the

imagination.



I am glad you officially disassociated yourself with any things

related to the LP (I didn't misrepresent your position, right?). If

only you made this clear in the essay, and made a clear distinction

between small l and big L (a minutae but enormous difference),

there'd be no doubt on the subject.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:



> In fact, until you write today that you didn't agree with the LP I was

> firmly convinced you did agree. I mean hey, TOC and LP are good

> buddies, and you endorse TOC and give lectures there. Then there's

> your essay with a provocative title. It really leaves little to the

> imagination.



To the best of my knowledge, TOC is friendly with small-l libertarian

think tanks like Cato, but has never been anything like "buddies" with the

LP.  Where did you get that idea?



diana.



*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

|          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@...      |

|               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

|               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

Frankly I always thought Cato was, if not exclusively an LP think

tank, at least not condemning of the Party.



Same with IHS (Institute of Humane Studies). They talk about

libertarianism and offer courses on free market, so one COULD think

that they were just a small l think tank, but one of their

scholarships is named after billionaire Charle Koch!



Charles Koch is one of the links that ties LP, Cato, IHS in my mind.

He is one of the main financial contributors to the think tanks

(earning 4 billion dollars a year from the oil business inherited

from his father), and he was on the board of LP in 1970s, writing

its revised (and currently used) constitution!



So you see, one could very easily conjecture that all these small l

think tanks really don't mind LP at all, and in fact share many

things. There's no condemnation, no formal disassociation. It is

safe to say that there's a "libertarian front" out there, a foggy

conglomeration that consists of LP, Cato, IHS, and many more. It

seems that TOC endorses and is friends with this front, and makes

the same mistake that Cato and IHS make - not distinguishing the

small l from big L.



--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Diana M Hsieh <diana@d...>

wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:

>

> > In fact, until you write today that you didn't agree with the LP

I was

> > firmly convinced you did agree. I mean hey, TOC and LP are good

> > buddies, and you endorse TOC and give lectures there. Then

there's

> > your essay with a provocative title. It really leaves little to

the

> > imagination.

>

> To the best of my knowledge, TOC is friendly with small-l

libertarian

> think tanks like Cato, but has never been anything like "buddies"

with the

> LP.  Where did you get that idea?

>

> diana.

>

> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

> |          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@d...      |

> |               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

> |               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:



> Frankly I always thought Cato was, if not exclusively an LP think

> tank, at least not condemning of the Party.



Cato abhors the LP.  I know; I interned there for 6 months while in

college.  Ed Crane, in fact, founded Cato because he was completely fed up

with the LP.  Generally speaking, the LP was (and surely is still)

regarded an embarassment by Catons.



I don't know about IHS in particular, but I know that they long described

themselves as "classical liberal" rather than libertarian in order to

distinguish themselves from the LP kooks.  (When I was at Cato, "market

liberal" was the preferred term for similar reasons.)  But now the term

"libertarian" isn't so associated with the LP, so I believe that both

organizations are using it.



The fact that some major donors might support both the LP and libertarian

think tanks like Cato and IHS doesn't show that the think tanks themselves

support the LP.  Your conjectures, as reasonable as they might be in the

absence of information, are inconsistent with the facts.



diana.



*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

|          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@...      |

|               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

|               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

I appreciate and agree with the points made by Dr. B. and Diana.  I

was once intrigued by the fact that Ayn Rand had told writer Joan

Kennedy Taylor that her politics was "libertarian."  And, at one

time, Rand had little or no problem describing it as such or drawing

parallels with it---whatever her discomfort with the word (as so well

expressed in Nathaniel's essay).  Just yesterday, in fact, I heard a

very interesting interview with Rand.



In contrast to conservatism, which she rejected as "futile and

disastrous," Rand states in that interview: "People like the

libertarians, [Ludwig] von Mises or [Henry] Hazlitt [both of whom

Rand knew and highly recommended to her readers], do not advocate a

mixed economy. The so-called libertarians are much better in that

respect."



Note:  She wasn't condemning the group as a whole---the way Peter

Schwartz did---as a bunch of whim-worshipping tribalists.  She goes

on:



"The libertarians are a loose group; they do not have a specific

program; the differences will vary from individual to individual. In

a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is in the

fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them,

exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their

philosophical frame of reference, it varies from man to man, and we

are usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework, but

in agreement with most of their economic theories.  Now, Objectivism

is not a political-economic movement, at least not primarily.

Objectivism is primarily a philosophical movement, which means that

we derive our politics and economics from a certain philosophical

framework . . . We do agree with much of their political-economic

views."



(See "Conservatism versus Objectivism:  An Interview with Ayn Rand"

circa 1963-64)



I suspect that the debate over the use of "libertarianism" reached

fever pitch ~because~ of the anarchists within libertarian politics.

But describing Objectivist politics as "libertarian" is no different

than describing Objectivist ethics as "egoist."  OBVIOUSLY,

Objectivism has enormous differences with other ~forms~ of

libertarianism and other ~forms~ of egoism, but that doesn't make it

any less libertarian in the political sphere or egoist in the ethical

sphere.  It's all a question of classification.



And since libertarianism as a political doctrine is simply the 20th

century equivalent of classical liberalism, and that use of the

word "liberal" in today's political culture has been preempted by its

use to describe "welfare statism," I, quite frankly, do not see what

the big deal is.



I am not now, nor have I ever been a member, of the Libertarian

Party.  I'm a registered independent.  I occasionally vote for LP

candidates when I despise the choices among the major parties.

Whatever my voting patterns, I can certainly attest to the fact that

small-l libertarianism is ~much~ broader than upper-case Libertarian

Party Politics.



Cheers,

Chris



---

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm

---

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Matthew Sciabarra"

<chris.sciabarra@n...> wrote:

> I appreciate and agree with the points made by Dr. B. and Diana.  I

> was once intrigued by the fact that Ayn Rand had told writer Joan

> Kennedy Taylor that her politics was "libertarian."  And, at one

> time, Rand had little or no problem describing it as such or

drawing

> parallels with it---whatever her discomfort with the word (as so

well

> expressed in Nathaniel's essay).  Just yesterday, in fact, I heard

a

> very interesting interview with Rand.

>

> In contrast to conservatism, which she rejected as "futile and

> disastrous," Rand states in that interview: "People like the

> libertarians, [Ludwig] von Mises or [Henry] Hazlitt [both of whom

> Rand knew and highly recommended to her readers], do not advocate a

> mixed economy. The so-called libertarians are much better in that

> respect."



You said that this was circa 1963-64, before the LP had been

established. In her essay of a much later date (the 70s), "What Can

One Do", in the Ayn Rand Letter, she clearly advised people not to

join the Libertarians.  If you would like to see the exact quote, I

can get that for you.



> Note:  She wasn't condemning the group as a whole---the way Peter

> Schwartz did---as a bunch of whim-worshipping tribalists.



She did condemn them harshly in her essay, "What Can One Do", written

in the 1970s, after the formation of the LP.  In 1963-4, she was

speaking in a much different context.  After she saw the results

of "Libertarianism" in action, she obviously changed her views.  This

is understandable, given her very inductive thought process.  From an

academic point of view, I would also tend to want to take written

material over what was spoken in an interview, when there is a

conflict, especially since that written material was of a later

date.  Now you might want to argue that she meant the "party" in that

issue, but she didn't specify this, so I would have no reason to

assume that.



Chris, I'll ask you the same question I asked NB.  Do you know what

the actual origin and definition of the term, "libertarian" is and

who originally coined it?  It would certainly give us a much sounder

basis for the usage of the term if we knew this.



Monica Pignotti

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve,

   I more thing I wanted to say.  You write:

"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."

   Most emphatically NO.  To claim that one can be a

subjectivist and at the same time a libertarian (which

I will take to mean an advocate of individual

rights/non-coercive state) is to claim a

contradiction. In stating this, you are cliaming that

a subjectivist can at the same time be an advocate of

objective reality.  Notice one of Rand's critiques of

Nietzche (actually it might have been NB's essay) is

that his egoism is not really egoism in the true sense

of the word, but rather an altered form of altruism.

   One cannot just make a grab-bag of positions and

then say they accept all of the positions equally; and

thus can be considered an advocate of all the stated

positions.  One must observe the philosophical

hierarchy.  To the extent there are contradictions in

the specific positions, the most fundamental

philosophic principles/positions win.  Contradictions

do not exist in reality--which includes the

philosophic content of one's mind. From the quote

above, your subjectivist is still a subjectivist, the

libertarian position will represent a contradiction to

his subjectivism.

Thanks,

Michael



__________________________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

http://platinum.yahoo.com

Diana, thanks for information. Why is it that none of the classical

liberal/libertarian think tanks officially disassociate themselves

with LP? Or maybe I missed it, but I doubt it. I'd think that if

Objectivism formally disassociated itself from LP, that groups

with 'libertarian' in their title would be even more earnest in such

a task.



--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Diana M Hsieh <diana@d...>

wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:

>

> > Frankly I always thought Cato was, if not exclusively an LP think

> > tank, at least not condemning of the Party.

>

> Cato abhors the LP.  I know; I interned there for 6 months while in

> college.  Ed Crane, in fact, founded Cato because he was

completely fed up

> with the LP.  Generally speaking, the LP was (and surely is still)

> regarded an embarassment by Catons.

>

> I don't know about IHS in particular, but I know that they long

described

> themselves as "classical liberal" rather than libertarian in order

to

> distinguish themselves from the LP kooks.  (When I was at

Cato, "market

> liberal" was the preferred term for similar reasons.)  But now the

term

> "libertarian" isn't so associated with the LP, so I believe that

both

> organizations are using it.

>

> The fact that some major donors might support both the LP and

libertarian

> think tanks like Cato and IHS doesn't show that the think tanks

themselves

> support the LP.  Your conjectures, as reasonable as they might be

in the

> absence of information, are inconsistent with the facts.

>

> diana.

>

> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

> |          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@d...      |

> |               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

> |               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

Hash, though I can't (and wouldn't dare presume) to speak for the classical

liberal think tanks, I would suspect that they don't "disassociate

themselves" from the LP because they aren't officially associated with it to

begin with.  The nature, under tax laws, of a think tank are that they

cannot be partisan and keep their tax exempt status.



Yes, Heritage is basically Republican in its agreement with that party's

stances on issues, but they will scream if you start saying they are a

"Republican" organization. Cato would do the same thing if they were tied to

the LP.

   -----Original Message-----

   From: Free Capitalist [mailto:hash113@...]

   Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:24 AM

   To: nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com

   Subject: [nathaniel_branden] Re: Response to NB's Essay





   Diana, thanks for information. Why is it that none of the classical

   liberal/libertarian think tanks officially disassociate themselves

   with LP? Or maybe I missed it, but I doubt it. I'd think that if

   Objectivism formally disassociated itself from LP, that groups

   with 'libertarian' in their title would be even more earnest in such

   a task.



   --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Diana M Hsieh <diana@d...>

   wrote:

   > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:

   >

   > > Frankly I always thought Cato was, if not exclusively an LP think

   > > tank, at least not condemning of the Party.

   >

   > Cato abhors the LP.  I know; I interned there for 6 months while in

   > college.  Ed Crane, in fact, founded Cato because he was

   completely fed up

   > with the LP.  Generally speaking, the LP was (and surely is still)

   > regarded an embarassment by Catons.

   >

   > I don't know about IHS in particular, but I know that they long

   described

   > themselves as "classical liberal" rather than libertarian in order

   to

   > distinguish themselves from the LP kooks.  (When I was at

   Cato, "market

   > liberal" was the preferred term for similar reasons.)  But now the

   term

   > "libertarian" isn't so associated with the LP, so I believe that

   both

   > organizations are using it.

   >

   > The fact that some major donors might support both the LP and

   libertarian

   > think tanks like Cato and IHS doesn't show that the think tanks

   themselves

   > support the LP.  Your conjectures, as reasonable as they might be

   in the

   > absence of information, are inconsistent with the facts.

   >

   > diana.

   >

   > *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

   > |          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@d...      |

   > |               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

   > |               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

   > *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*





         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

               ADVERTISEMENT









   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

   nathaniel_branden-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:

   http://www.nathanielbranden.com/





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Free Capitalist [mailto:hash113@...]

>

> safe to say that there's a "libertarian front" out there, a foggy

> conglomeration that consists of LP, Cato, IHS, and many more. It

> seems that TOC endorses and is friends with this front, and makes

> the same mistake that Cato and IHS make - not distinguishing the

> small l from big L.



What's the mistake here, and what's wrong with a "foggy conglomeration"? All

the groups you mention do more good than harm, and share a fundamental

respect for human freedom and the right to be left alone. It really does

make the Objectivists look nutty when they anathematize those closest to

them in sympathy and ideology. Reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's

Life of Brian where the People's Front of Judea is condemning all the other

Jewish liberation groups: "The only people we hate more than the Romans are

the Popular Front. Splitters!"



(And, yes, I am making a lot of Monty Python references lately--my daughter

sent me the entire MP record collection. I don't know if Leonard Peikoff's

head would explode if he were forced to repeatedly listen to the Trondheim

Hammer Dance, but it's worth a try.)



-Mike

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Free Capitalist"

<hash113@y...> wrote:

> --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, n6666b@c... wrote:

> >.

>

> Dr. Branden, I don't believe Schwartz was attacking libertarianism

> with small l, just like he wouldn't attack liberalism..."



      In fact, Peter Schwartz was indeed attacking LibertarianISM, not

just the L.P. His essay was titled "LibertarianISM: The Perversion of

Liberty". He makes not distinction between the L.P. as a party, and

small "L" libertarianism.

      In my detailed rebuttal of Schwartz, that he failed to make such

a distinction, really jumped out at me.

      Thanks!

      Steven Barger

Nathaniel,



I appreciate your response.  Because the origin of the term is unclear, I'm

still not comfortable calling myself a "libertarian", even with a small "l"

but I do understand and appreciate more where you're coming from on this and

your clarification on the distinction you've made between the Libertarian

Party, and the word "libertarianism".



Monica Pignotti



----- Original Message -----

From: <n6666b@...>

To: <nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:19 AM

Subject: Re: [nathaniel_branden] Re: Response to NB's Essay





> Monica,

>

> That many people are confused about Objectivism and about libertarianism

> hardly needs to be argued.   That is why, in my own books, I define

precisely

> what I mean by libertarianism.   My experience is obviously different from

> yours, in that I can hardly think of a single person I've talked to who

> thinks libertarianism means anarchism (taken literally).  Given the amount

of

> confusion about these terms today, whatever position we take we will need

to

> do some explaining and also we will need to define our terms.  So that's

not

> a shortcoming peculiar to libertarianism.

>

> AR was not willing to surrender "selfishness" because of people's

confusion

> as to the meaning of the term.   I am not willing to surrender

> "libertarianism" to the likes of M. Rothbard and P. Schwartz.   One could

cut

> through this whole be describing oneself as a "limited government

> libertarian."  Or, for some of us, an "Objectivist libertarian.

>

> Life is good.

>

> Nathaniel Branden

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> nathaniel_branden-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

> Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:

> http://www.nathanielbranden.com/

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>

>

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Monica Pignotti wrote:



> I appreciate your response.  Because the origin of the term is

> unclear, I'm still not comfortable calling myself a "libertarian",

> even with a small "l" but I do understand and appreciate more where

> you're coming from on this and your clarification on the distinction

> you've made between the Libertarian Party, and the word

> "libertarianism".



Hi Monica,



Shouldn't the common understanding of the term today matter more than its

origin?  (Most people, after all, have no idea of its origin.  And plenty

of decent words have terrible beginnings!)



I did find this on lewrockwell.com (ick!):



***



What is the origin of the term "libertarianism"?



Charles Spading wrote a book published in 1913 called _Liberty and the

Great Libertarians_. The word wasn't common then, but, at the same time,

it is not exactly a new term. It has generally been used to describe the

hard-core intellectual opponents of all forms of slavery and socialism.



***



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/slovakia.html



I do wonder who started its more modern usage though.  diana.



*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

|          diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@...      |

|               web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com          |

|               blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org         |

*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Monica Pignotti [mailto:pignotti@...]

>

> As much as I respect NB's work in the field of psychology, I

> couldn't disagree more with him on this point.

> "Libertarianism" is commonly understood by many people

> outside the "movement", in my own experience, when it has

> come up in conversation, as anarchy.



My experience differs greatly, especially when discussing the subject with

people who have more than minimal knowledge of politics. When people say

that libertarians advocate anarchy, it's usually in the same context as when

people say conservatives advocate fascism or liberals advocate communism--an

argumentative device.



> > So I'd like to know what the position of the objectivists

> on this list

> > is. Either they agree with Peikoff and think that

> libertarians are the

> > archenemy of objectivism,

>

> Yes, that is my position.   I support Leonard Peikoff and

> Peter Schwartz on

> this issue, 100%.



Arch enemy? I mean, come on. Most Objectivists could happily live next door

to most Libertarians, and agree 95% of the time on how to resolve actual

disputes and how to vote on political issues. The biggest fights would

probably come from stereo wars between the Grateful Dead and Rachmaninoff.



-Mike

I confess I took for granted that everyone on this list knew that

"Libertarianism" and "libertarianism" are two totally different animals.



NB





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well said, Chris.



nb





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Chris"?



--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, n6666b@c... wrote:

> Well said, Chris.

>

> nb

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Moeller <moeller_log@...> wrote:



[I've snipped many very excellent points he very eloquently made, to get to

this one very important conclusion where he writes which I think needs

emphasizing:]



>The fact that

> one must distinguish between libertarianism and

> Libertarianism is itself proof of the convoluted

> nature of this concept.



Yes, that really hits the nail on the head and you have expressed here,

exactly what I was trying to convey.  My experiencing in examining a broad

range of "L(l)ibertarian" views has been much the same as yours.  If I

employ Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, which means observing a number of

concretes, and then omitting the measurements, the only one essential

characteristic and forming an inductive generalization, the one essential

characteristic I would come up with that all L(l)ibertarians have in common

is "freedom" as a primary.  It is not relevant that ~some~ or even the

majority of

L(l)ibertarians are advocates for limited government, when so many other

points of view have been allowed into the party and into important

L(l)ibertarian journals and writings.  The common denominator and essence is

"freedom", nothing more and nothing less.  This could mean a freedom with

regards to legitimate rights, like free speech, but it could also mean a

"freedom" to run a fraudulent business, have sex with minors, make

slanderous statements against someone, or any number of "freedoms" that

would be permissible when one drops the philosophical context of reason and

reality.  Regardless of how many arguments people wish to pull us into about

the word means, when the concept is formed inductively using a wide range of

concretes (not just one state), there can be no other conclusion drawn.



Monica Pignotti

It might help people understand the difference between oppsing the

Libertarian PARTY, vs. opposing (small 'l') libertarianISM, to think

of it this way:

      I can hypothetically be a "small 'd'" democrat, believing in

democracy; but still criticize the "Capital 'D'" Democratic PARTY.

      The fact is, there is indeed a difference between a political

party, and a philosophical/political position.

      Just as I can say, "I am a democrat, but I reject the Democratic

Party", so one can say, "I'm a libertarian, but I reject the

Libertarian Party".

      In Schwartz' essay, he insists that it is libertarianISM, not

JUST the L.P., that is "a perversion of liberty". Of course, to reach

that conclusion, he had to come up with a skewed definition of

(small 'l') libertarianism, that is in fact not identifying the

essentials of "small 'l'" libertarianism.

      Small 'l' libertarianism, is merely classical liberalism:

Nothing more, and nothing less.

      Rand was a small 'l' libertarian.

      Thanks!

      Steven Barger



  --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Monica Pignotti"

<pignotti@w...> wrote:

> Michael Moeller <moeller_log@y...> wrote:



>

> >The fact that

> > one must distinguish between libertarianism and

> > Libertarianism is itself proof of the convoluted

> > nature of this concept.

> 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



Since the question was asked, I'd like to affirm this postion, as well. I've

been a Libertarian since 1977, and believe it's worth defending. I even ran

for state office once, and got 11% of the vote. If it weren't for Ayn Rand,

I would not be a Libertarian.



Sincerely,



Craig Haynie (Houston)