Libertarian to Objectivist

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Libertarian to Objectivist

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:41 am

From there.
Tyralak wrote:You seem to have a very odd definition of what constitutes an appeal to authority. Libertarians generally have quite a bit of respect for the law, and most of the issues I debate are domestic in nature. So, when dealing with a domestic issue involving laws and regulations being passed, consideration of what the Constitution permits and doesn't permit is extremely important. Since you're in Germany, discussion of our constitution is not applicable. (hence why I said "not applicable here")

Also, one thing many people (especially those from SDN for some odd reason) seem to have trouble separating is Libertarianism vs. Objectivism. The two are NOT the same. They're ideological cousins, but they have a lot of differences. I like to think of Libertarianism as a more "human" form of minarchist thought, as opposed to the cold, selfish, completely social darwinism driven Objectivism. Ayn Rand had some very good ideas, but I find her world view too harsh and unyielding. Objectivism also REQUIRES atheism as a major part of it's philosophy. This means a huge portion of humanity is excluded. I feel government has it's place. Government is a tool that should be used wisely and sparingly. It should be targeted toward the things it does very well, and the things that it does inefficiently should be left to those who can handle them better. That way people are not overburdened with excessive taxation, and have less chance of the government becoming tyrannical and abusing it's people. I agree completely with General Washington when he said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Objectivism almost sounds to me like a contradiction, which can only be saved by how you define individual rights, and how you may want to relate this to human rights. Notably its application into a society seems to be a true mess.
The shoved Capitalism 5000 and the focus on identification at the basis of reality also is at odds with libertarianism, imho.
And if the universe exists without consciousness, clearly it won't mesh well with certain views that the creator of the universe knows everything and has full control over it.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarian to Objectivist

Post by 2046 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:34 am

The two reach similar points only because Libertarians are of the "screw off and quit interfering in their/our lives" school of thought, and the Objectivists are in the "The rights of the individual are paramount" camp. There is natural overlap.

Given Tyralak's point about SDNers frequently confusing the two, I would posit the notion that any nuanced position involving human rights or anti-statism is just a blur to them. Past a certain line (one left of center, mind you), it's all Evil Rush Republitardism And Go Cry Glenn And We Hope Palin's a Skank-Ho ('Cause We Want Some Too).

In any case, I do not see the contradiction you claim. What are you talking about?

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Libertarian to Objectivist

Post by Cocytus » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Objectivism appears internally consistent, but its application to the real world would find people on both sides of the political divide dissatisfied, which is par for the course for any consistently applied philosophy. Rand held that the rationality of men in capitalistic exchange precluded the use of force in human relationships, and thus precluded the use of war ("say what?" go the conservatives) as well as any kind of protectionist measures. At the same time, she posited that pure unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral system ("come again?" go the progressives.) She accomplishes this by simply defining morality in terms of solipsistic self-improvement. It is difficult for anyone who knows anything about labor conditions in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, prior to Al Smith's labor reforms and the New Deal patterned on them, or who simply feels any sort of human emotion at the suffering of the poor, to describe capitalism as moral. To me, the proscription of war has a certain appeal, even if it is too idealistic for humanity at its present stage. At the same time, the proscription of the expectation or giving of the unearned i.e. of any welfare or charity, is wholly inconsistent with a moral or ethical society. Now, Libertarians may attack welfare policies all they want, and they're welcome, so long as their views on government intervention are consistent, (read: social conservatism and libertarianism don't mix) but there is nothing in libertarianism precluding voluntary charity, and indeed, such charity is demanded of the followers of virtually every major religion on the planet.

Genuine libertarianism is an attractive philosophy in many ways. Objectivism has elements that are attractive, but the narrowness of its morality, while not internally contradictory, is nevertheless difficult to reconcile with something most people are taught since they are children, that selfishness is vice.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarian to Objectivist

Post by 2046 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:57 pm

Cocytus wrote:Objectivism appears internally consistent, but its application to the real world would find people on both sides of the political divide dissatisfied, which is par for the course for any consistently applied philosophy. Rand held that the rationality of men in capitalistic exchange precluded the use of force in human relationships, and thus precluded the use of war ("say what?" go the conservatives) as well as any kind of protectionist measures.
It is commonly said that democracies don't fight one another (though how true this is sort of depends on where you draw the line of democracy versus "people who vote but are oppressed") . . . that is sort of an analog of the thought that true moral capitalists would similarly not find themselves in that position.

However, even surrounded by democracies full of capitalists, it would not make sense to not have an army.

The basic position of Rand is that violence is not a tool as some would use it . . . that is, one must not employ it or threat of it as a means of short-circuiting the reason of another party. But when one party employs it, all bets are off and the ass-kicking may commence.
At the same time, she posited that pure unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral system ("come again?" go the progressives.) She accomplishes this by simply defining morality in terms of solipsistic self-improvement.
Solipsistic? Hardly. Objectivist epistemology is based on the assumption that reality as perceived by the minds and tools of men is what exists. A single person can be wrong . . . reality is the final arbiter by which that is determined. Thinking is the only virtue . . . refusal to think the only vice. The morality is thus based on the fact that given the constraints of reality plus some basic values (e.g. life), there are certain things that must follow.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceed from these. To live man must hold three things as supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—purpose—self-esteem. Reason as his only tool for knowledge—purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—self esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think…These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his needs: Rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride....."

The body requires food . . . food requires eating . . . eating requires effort and thought and planning. Therefore, what leads to eating might be good. But of course, many things can lead to eating in society . . . theft, the pretense of helplessness to invoke the charity of others, and so on. Other acts of eating might also be anti-life, such as consuming one's own winter reserves at the first sign of cold and thereby causing oneself to starve quickly.

These violate honesty, with oneself or others (she makes little real distinction between them, since dishonesty to others is the subversion of reality just as surely as self-deception would be).
It is difficult for anyone who knows anything about labor conditions in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, prior to Al Smith's labor reforms and the New Deal patterned on them, or who simply feels any sort of human emotion at the suffering of the poor, to describe capitalism as moral.
Sweatshop labor conditions are not capitalist. That is a form of theft and advantage-taking just as surely as excessive taxation and the use of force to recover it.

Capitalism on paper and communism on paper can both be twisted in reality. The problem is that communism on paper starts out evil, whereas capitalism is only twisted into it.
At the same time, the proscription of the expectation or giving of the unearned i.e. of any welfare or charity, is wholly inconsistent with a moral or ethical society.
Rand does not say you cannot give charity . . . just that charity cannot exist as a demand or at the point of a gun. That's basically what the modern American Tea Party is saying.

"As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man's demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property - and loathsome as such a claim might be, there's something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No - if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty you owe him. Yes - if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim - is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values."

Certain aspects of Objectivist thought are considered cold-hearted when they really aren't . . . but all too often I see the easy assumption of cold-heartedness or selfishness (defined as an evil, as opposed to defined in Rand's way of individual rights and reason) as being the Objectivist position when that is not at all true. The term "Randroids" is cute and all, but the bleeding-heart moralities so often called good today are far more cold-hearted to all mankind, and often much more selfish in regards to the person feigning altruism.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Libertarian to Objectivist

Post by Cocytus » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:41 pm

2046 wrote:Solipsistic? Hardly. Objectivist epistemology is based on the assumption that reality as perceived by the minds and tools of men is what exists. A single person can be wrong . . . reality is the final arbiter by which that is determined. Thinking is the only virtue . . . refusal to think the only vice. The morality is thus based on the fact that given the constraints of reality plus some basic values (e.g. life), there are certain things that must follow.
My point was that the governing force of people's lives under Objectivist thought is rational self-interest. Therefore no thought can be paid to any concept of "greater good" or "public interest." Indeed, such concepts are anathema since they fall under the collectivist "super organism" schools of thought Rand rejected. Hence, that society as a whole would benefit from men's focus on their own rational self-interest is not intended, merely consequential, hence why I said solipsistic.
2046 wrote:Sweatshop labor conditions are not capitalist. That is a form of theft and advantage-taking just as surely as excessive taxation and the use of force to recover it.
Sweatshops are not an intention of capitalism on paper, I agree. They were, unfortunately, a result of capitalism in practice. Rand's definition of selfishness, or more accurately, rational selfishness, would be "supporting one's life through one's own efforts and sacrificing neither himself nor others." Problem is, irrationally selfish people, i.e. "murderous brutes who trample over piles of corpses to achieve their own ends," abound in the real world.
2046 wrote:Rand does not say you cannot give charity . . . just that charity cannot exist as a demand or at the point of a gun. That's basically what the modern American Tea Party is saying.
Libertarians have made that point since well before the Tea Party came into being. But the problem we have here is one of definition. You can dismiss this as semantics if you want, but it is significant in light of religion. Rand's view of charity holds that it cannot be given in repsonse to a need, or involve self-sacrifice (since self-sacrifice involves considering the lives of others to be more valuable than your own, which is contrary to self-esteem), and should not be a moral duty. Prevailing definitions of charity inculcated into people and societies for thousands of years have demanded charity involve self-sacrifice, be given in response to need, and be considered a moral duty.
2046 wrote:Certain aspects of Objectivist thought are considered cold-hearted when they really aren't . . . but all too often I see the easy assumption of cold-heartedness or selfishness (defined as an evil, as opposed to defined in Rand's way of individual rights and reason) as being the Objectivist position when that is not at all true. The term "Randroids" is cute and all, but the bleeding-heart moralities so often called good today are far more cold-hearted to all mankind, and often much more selfish in regards to the person feigning altruism.
Do you have a specific ideology or individual you'd like to name? I agree feigning benevolence to reap social adulation is offensive, but there are many people who have chosen to put the lives of others before their own, and accept risk to themselves far beyond the reward they reap. They violate their self-esteem in doing so, according to Rand, since: "only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger." I don't see how self-sacrifice, real self-sacrifice as opposed to sacrifice for the purpose of hypocritical self-aggrandizement, is any more cold-hearted or damaging to mankind than Rand's philosophy.

Also, there still appears to be a contradiction involved in Objectivist philosophy with regards to military service. The military is necessary, of course, because people cannot be trusted to behave rationally even in advanced capitalist countries, as we have seen. Rand was a staunch critic of the draft, opposing it as a collectivist, statist measure that expected self-sacrifice on the part of young men. She advocated a volunteer army, which we now have, but the problem still remains that, even if one volunteers for it, one is still surrendering one's rights to a hierarchical collective command structure, and accepting the very real possibility of death to aid total strangers. It would seem to be a violation of one's self-esteem. So would, for that matter, joining the police or the fire department, since both of those still involve the risk of death to aid total strangers.

Maybe there's something in Rand's writings that resolves this seeming conundrum. I'm still looking.

Post Reply