Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.


Contents

[edit] Objectivists are not libertarians

To quote below: "Libertarianism simply holds that the NAP is true, without regard to why." Therefore, Objectivist simply are not Libertarians. It is package dealing to claim Objectivists are Libertarians. An essential part of Libertarianism is not regarding the why and an essential part of Objectivism is to regard the why. The two are mutually exclusive. Accidental agreement on any one or several concretes is just that. Karbinski 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Humans are mammals, but there is a distinction betweens "humans" and "mammals". Objectivists are libertarians, but there is a distinction! In fact, this issue reminds me of objections to evolution based on a revulsion to the concept that humans are animals. "I'm no animal! I'm civilized!" Could it be that Objectivists are the "civilized" libertarians? Ha, ha!

In particular, Objectivism is derived from an ethical basis holding that the NAP is moral. So are some forms of libertarianism, but not all. Libertarianism simply holds that the NAP is true, without regard to why.

As to how to put this into the article, let me think about it. But I think it has to point out the "common denominator" between the two: the NAP. --Serge 29 June 2005 01:17 (UTC)

The latest version is very good:

"Both philosophies have similar political goals and are united by what libertarians call the non-aggression principle: both philosophies oppose the initiation of force, though sometimes for different reasons. While orthodox Objectivists believe in a sharp distinction between the two philosophies, others like Nathaniel Branden argue that Objectivism is a form of libertarianism and that distinctions between the two rely on a misunderstanding of libertarianism."

Thinking our loud here... I believe it would be helpful to also convey the notion that libertarianism is more inclusive than Objectivism. That is, there are many doors into libertarianism, allegiance to the NAP being but one of them. Being an anarchist is another, which does not necessarily require allegiance to the NAP. Conversely, Objectivism also has many doors, but its doors are aligned in a series: you have to go through all of them to be an Objectivist. In other words, by accepting the NAP, you have met one of the requirements for being an Objectivist, but you have also automatically become a libertarian, because by doing so you have fulfilled one of the avenues to libertarianism. Not sure what the best way would be to say this... --Serge 29 June 2005 17:00 (UTC)

"Being an anarchist is another, which does not necessarily require allegiance to the NAP." Don't forget non-NAP minarchists like classical liberals, et al.70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer


Some more food for thought, from an Objectivist page on this topic:

"Libertarianism is the political position that all human relationships should be voluntary, i.e. not subject to the initiation of force by another person. Inasmuch as this is also part of the Objectivist politics, Objectivism is a libertarian philosophy. Not all libertarian thinking is compatible with Objectivism, and some libertarians promote philosophical ideas that would destroy liberty if put into practice, such as skepticism, ethical subjectivism, and anarchism. But the libertarian movement in general is a positive force for political change, one to which Objectivists have valuable moral and epistemological knowledge to contribute and one from which Objectivists can learn about the politics, economics, and history of freedom.
...
The principle of non-initiation of force was popularized by Ayn Rand, and it certainly is a key aspect of the Objectivism. To this extent, the Objectivist politics is libertarian." (emphasis added)

I recommend reading the whole thing. It's a good article.

On libertarian: Kindly observe that Rand herself created the conceptual framework adopted under the banner of "libertarian" on April 17, 1947. (I trust this quote is fair use...) "...agree that no men or number of men have the right to *initiate* the use of force against any human being... that would achieve a perfect Utopia on earth, that would include all the moral code we need." (Letters... p. 364) translator 09:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." –H. Spencer, fifty years earlier. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by zenohockey (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
Besides, how could a letter, presumably sent to a private individual, be adopted by a whole political movement? --zenohockey 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone might want to look up John Locke, he started the whole shebang.70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer

[edit] Objectivists are libertarians, by definition

There is nothing to debate about this point. At its essence, libertarianism is based on the principle that no one has the right to initiate the use of coercive force against others. This is fundamental to the definition of libertarianism. Whether one's basis for believing in this principle is moral or utilitarian, is immaterial to libertarianism. Technically, anyone who believes in the libertarian principle, for whatever reason, is a libertarian, and anyone who does not, is not. Since anyone who believes that uninitiated coercive force may be justified cannot be an Objectivist, it follows logically that all Objectivists are libertarians. This is a matter of definition, not debate, and I believe it should be stated clearly in this article. Serge 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People who are obsessed with "correct definitions" are usually not worth debating, by definition. I don't have to cite sources because I'm just right. Rhobite 19:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I agree people who are obsessed with "correct definitions" are usually not worth debating. That's not what this is about, unless you're saying that libertarianism is NOT in essence based on the NAP. I'm just going by the definition stated in the Wiki page for libertarianism. Based on that definition, I'm simply saying that Objectivists are libertarians, whether they like it or not. --Serge 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serge: While we both know that libertarianism and Objectivism have a lot in common, and while I find Nathaniel Branden's arguments on the subject convincing, the fact is that hard-core Objectivists refuse to be called "libertarians." Your focus on the definition is far less interesting than what's already in the article, which discusses the views of people other than you and me. Dave (talk) 22:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Some people might not like being called people, but they're still people. And hard-core Objectivists can "refuse" to be called "libertarians" all they want (which puts their objectivity in question, by the way), but based on the Wiki definition, and pure reason and logic, an Objectivist is a libertarian (though likely not a Libertarian). What the definition of libertarian is might be a matter of opinion. But if we take the current Wiki definition, a philosophy based on the NAP, as a given, then it follows logically that Objectivists are libertarians is a fact, not a matter of opinion. I'm pretty new to this, but I thought being factual, rather than capitulating to a particular biased POV, was fairly important here. --Serge 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fact: Rand and Peikoff say Objectivism is not a form of libertarianism. Opinion: They're wrong. We provide evidence for that opinion, but the article gains nothing (certainly not neutrality) by promoting it explicitly.
If your sort of argument became broadly accepted, then people could post "facts" that fetuses have rights or that they have no rights, that God exists or does not exist, that the Iraq war was absoloutely legal or illegal, or that Apple computers are objectively better than PCs or vice-versa. Clearly, those sorts of "facts" are not as useful or neutral as stating the arguments for both sides would be.
There is no "wiki definition." The first few sentences of the libertarianism article are a summary, not a syllogism. This article gains nothing by taking a stand one way or the other, and if it does, then its objectivity is called into question. There's enough information here for the reader to conclude that Objectivists have more in common with libertarians than they care to admit. And if libertarianism is defined as orthodox Objectivists choose to define it, then there are clear differences. I don't see why you're more qualified than the experts that disagree about this or why the article needs to take a stand on this pissing match, when the quotes from Branden essentially settle it. Dave (talk) 03:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about it for a few days. With all due respect, it does not appear to be logical to me. Of course, I agree it is a fact that "Rand and Peikoff say Objectivism is not a form of libertarianism." But I also think that it can be shown by syllogism that all Objectivists are libertarians. I'll give two very similar examples.

  1. Anyone who does not believe that God exists is an atheist (by definition).
  2. All Objectivists do not believe that God exists.
  3. Therefore, all Objectivists are atheists.

No argument with that, right? Now, consider:

  1. Anyone who believes in the NAP is a libertarian (by definition).
  2. All Objectivists believe in the NAP.
  3. Therefore, all Objectivists are libertarians.

Note that this does not mean that all libertarians believe in the NAP, or that all libertarians who do believe in the NAP believe it for the moral reasons which Objectivists do (many libertarians believe in the NAP for utilitarian reasons) which is one of the issues Objectivists have with libertarianism, however irrelevant that fact may be to the validity of this syllogism.

You know, just because all Objectivists are atheists does not mean it's accurate or meaningful to say that Objectivism is a form of atheism. Similarly, my point is that while all Objectivists (whether they like it or not) are libertarians, that does not necessarily mean Objectivism is a form of libertarianism. What do you think? -- Serge 28 June 2005 17:39 (UTC)

I think that your last paragraph is a very good point. I'm not sure that the NAP is all there is to libertarianism, though; pacifists, for example, would not ever initiate force, but are not necessarily libertarians, since they may not support property etc.
I've found that it's good to be wary of syllogisms, because there are a lot of ways they can go wrong. For example, see Syllogistic fallacy for a short list.
Given your current thoughts on the issue, would you still like to see the article changed? Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 20:50 (UTC)
Believing in the NAP implies support for using coercion in response to initiated coercion (typically as in self-defense, or in order to imprison an individual found guilty of violating the NAP). Pacifists do not support use of coercion in response to initiated coercion. Therefore, pacifists do not believe in the NAP.
There is more to libertarianism than the NAP, of course. But it is the core principle. To illustrate, on its membership form the LP requires all members to sign the following pledge testifying their allegiance to the NAP: I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. It is the one and only requirement for proving one is a (small-l) libertarian in order to join the (big-l) Libertarian Party.
I'm aware of the possibility of committing a logical fallacy when using syllogisms carelessly. Of course, this possibility does not preclude a syllogism from being logically valid. Are you contending that the "all Objectivists are libertarians" syllogism (above) contains a syllogistic fallacy? If so, what do you think it is?
Yes, I think it's important to point out that, from a NPOV, Objectivists are in fact libertarians, regardless of any non-objective (isn't that ironic?) protests to the contrary, not only in this wiki, but also in the relevant section in the libertarian wiki that references this one. -- Serge 28 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)


Serge... I guess it is years later, but I just cam upon this thread by you. It is amazing. I recently visited a BBS for Rand adherents. I asked if anyone could give me some examples of positions and/or stands that Rand adherents would take that would differ from libertarian positions. Well, i learned the hard way that Rand adherents like to play word games, and I was quite harshly attacked and ridiculed for even asking such a question. So it is interesting to see this back forth by you and others where you have encountered the same strident argument that Rand adherents are not libertarians. Well, in any event, for others that come across this thread... BEWARE & BE WARNED! I found Rand adherents very angry people. That like to argue. Seems best to just avoid them. The good news is they are an amazingly small percentage of the population. Webulite 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridicule is not a proper form of argumentation. I like to argue, I'm very audacious but I always try to maintain a certain level of respect. After all, 1) people are human and deserve to be treated with decency and 2) I want to be able to argue with them some more. Objectivists call themselves rationalists but they refuse to debate their views.70.172.198.145 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer

[edit] Distinguishing Big-L vs. Small-L libertarianism

I think it's important to distinguish between big-L and small-L libertarianism. This article as currently written seems to interchange the two as if they are one and the same. Small-l libertarianism is simply the belief in the libertarian principle, for whatever reason. Big-L Libertarianism is a reference to the organization, the political Libertarian party, its platform, and the members that constitute it. Very different. While all Objectivists and Libertarians are libertarians (by definition - see above), many libertarians are neither Objectivists nor even Libertarians. I believe Rand's issues were not with the small-L libertarianism but with the stated beliefs of the particular adherents of big-L Libertarianism at the time. If you interpret her arguments in that context (except the ones objecting to the term itself for aesthetic reasons), they make more sense. Serge 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the Big-L versus Small-L distinction. Objectivists choose to differentiate themselves from libertarians (or from "non-Objectivist libertarians," if you prefer), so the article (which is largely about that distinction) needs to use it. If there are any examples where the capitalization is messed up, I'd be happy to fix them, but I don't think that's the issue.

Rand's issues with libertarians extended beyond the aesthetic issue of what to call it. She believed that small-l libertarians were anarchists and opposed them for that reason. She believed that small-l libertarians were amoral and opposed them for that reason. Including quotes from Branden on the subject is a far more convincing way of writing than compiling assertions by anonymous Wikipedia editors. Dave (talk) 22:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

What Rand believed about small-l libertarians, and the fact that she personally did not want to be labeled a libertarian, has nothing to do with the question of whether she and other Objectivists are in fact libertarians per the currently accepted Wiki definition. Those points are completely and totally irrelevant from the NPOV perspective that we are supposed to be representing when we write and review Wiki articles. No? --Serge 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

"However, the movement continues to regard its non-aggression "axiom" as the linchpin of libertarianism."

Newsflash for the LP propagandist who wrote this, the NAP is not accepted by all libertarians, only by the dogmatists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to give my name70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer

[edit] Info box obscures part of text

The box on the right hand side that begins, "Part of the series on Libertarianism" blocks part of the text on its left. In my case it blocks one word (realize) of the paragraph on Nathaniel Branden. I have no idea how to fix it. Koro Neil (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged some of the boxes and images to fix the problem. I hope this helped. --D. Monack | talk 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)