Libertarianism compared with Objectivism

Subject: Libertarianism compared with Objectivism Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:45 am

Just something I have on file that I read somewhere... which cleared up some things for me...

"I used to think that Objectivism's beef with Libertarianism amounted to a distinction without a difference. However, the thing I was missing is that, first and foremost, objectivism is a philosophy, not a political movement, and not a political party. It is a philosophy that says nothing is supernatural, that reason is the ONLY way to obtain knowledge, and that "good" means "good for the life and happiness of a man living on this earth in this life" (as opposed to "good for his after-life" or "good for his neighbour").

"The non-aggression principle was the logical result of that philosophy.

"The founders of libertarianism (e.g., Rothbard, who was part of Rand's inner circle for a short while), figured they could cobble together a political movement if they just could get everyone to agree to ONE of the logical implications of Rand's philosophy: the idea that nobody should initiate coercive physical force.

"When you shear that principle from the thing it is DESIGNED to protect - rationality - the non-aggression "axiom" (that's what the libertarians tend to call it, wrongly) it becomes inherently ambiguous. It ceases to be a thing that can be interpreted in a single way, which is why you see Libertarians bashing each other over things like whether pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, or whether the only good government is no government at all.

"The fathers of libertarianism were little different than the fathers of any religion. Figuring that most people lacked either the will or the ability to understand issues about the nature of reality; about how knowledge is obtained; about how good and evil can be objectively defined; they basically took out a stone tablet and did what every religion does: turn a principle into a commandment.

"Libertarianism, in other words, is the bureaucratization of philosophy. It's a Freedom for Dummies handbook, full of what, absent why. "But WHY shouldn't I initiate force?". Answer: "Shut up. Cause I said so, that's why. It's obvious, that's why."

"Libertarianism has no single answer for (a) what liberty is, (b) what coercion is, or (c) of what initiation consists. But that is NOT the primary reason it is rejected by Objectivists. It is rejected because it is UTTERLY UNCONCERNED with the only thing that changes the world: beliefs about the nature of the universe (e.g., whether or not their's a Santa God, and a guy with a pointy red tail), about how we know anything (e.g., divine revelation vs having to think), and about what is the standard of good and evil (another person's life, or ones own). So long as libertarians go around advocating "liberty" in the name of "God-given rights", we're all fucked...it's from those fantastical beliefs that people conclude rights to be nonsense upon stilts."

WYT?
_________________

Aquarchy Rules. Liquidate the Reds

ANCAPS Forum, Ancapolis, Aqua-Terra Atlantis Division.

Subject: Re: Libertarianism compared with Objectivism Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:00 am

There's so much shit in it all, that I'd need a month of Sundays to address it all...

Suffice it to say, the above objectivist bitch is whining about the fact that "libertarianism" isn't an all encompassing philosophy, like say objectivism... so he feels short changed...

But libertarianism never held itself out to be an all encompassing philosophy to begin with, but rather a political movement. It would be the same as if libertarianism started whining about how objectivism isn't just a political movement and how therefore, it is invalid. Technically he's using incommensurable characteristics, in order to pour shit on the libertarians as a whole... and which of course is an invalid procedure to begin with...

Ha-ha, he criticizes the different sub-groups in libertarianism and how they argue amongst themselves over issues, as if the frigging objectivists are immune to this... think Peikoff VS Kelly...

It's absurd to refer to libertarianism as a religion, when Randroids are the real cultists, through thought and deed, as decade after decade attests to... but hey, don't take my word for it, talk to their own, long time insiders, (especially the excommunicated ones) read their books, etc... better yet, go to their forums and start asking uncomfortable questions... you'll soon see their statist, intrinsic conservatism mushroom, as you're shipped out the door real fast...

Finally, if you want to gauge the success VS failure of the two groups... just check out their overall numbers... not only that, but the mass exodus is flowing, not from the libertarians to the objectivists, but the other way around... that also tells you something about their respective "value!"

Finally, speak to many from both groups and then determine, which one is happier, which one has more fun and which one offers more liberty and joy... I think you'll be amazed by the differences...
_________________
"Taking money without permission is stealing unless you work for the IRS then it's taxation. Killing people en masse is homicidal mania unless you work for the Army then it's National Defense. Spying on your neighbors is invasion of privacy unless you work for the FBI then it's National Security. Running a whorehouse makes you a pimp & poisoning people makes you a murderer unless you work for the CIA then it's counter intelligence." R. Wilson. ANCAPS Forum Headquarters, Ancapolis

Subject: Re: Libertarianism compared with Objectivism Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:25 am