tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (06/07/85)
*The Intellectual Activist* is so little of either that it may justifiably be called neither. I subscribed to it, off and on, for about two years -- until now. It has for the most part been useless, boring, and generally mediocre, but I kept hoping, since it was the only Objectivist publication of its kind (apart from the floundering *Ergo*, which has been a good student newsletter), that I would find it worth my while. It barely was. I was duped by the presence of Beckmann's, Hazlitt's and Peikoff's names on the editorial board. I am very sorry for the length of this posting, but the mere posturing of Schwartz as a consistent advocate of reason could not rightly have been exposed without offering reasons and documentation. In the most recent issue, Peter Schwartz, the editor and publisher, wrote the first of a series "analysing" Libertarianism. It suffered from several kinds of errors: 1) It was replete with smears. There were numerous examples of quotes from that chancre on the face of libertarianism, the obstreperous minority Radical Caucus, including one of its former members, Murray Rothbard, and from "Smash the Onion" Richman, together with statements about how "the Libertarian" believes them. It was impossible, seeing the range of quotes, to believe that the smears were ignorance and not malice. One example (of many) followed in the article by some quotes from Rothbard: "Any legitimate proponent of liberty realizes that a show of force by the state should be morally evaluated according to whether it is being used for aggression or for self-defense. But not the Libertarian." 2) It used what amounted to an argument from intimidation. It quoted Emil Franzi (who is a lively and engaging man, and who at the last LP convention was distributing "Nuke the Freeze" buttons) as an example of mindlessness and irrationality, without *anywhere* explaining why this was so. It was simply "drooling". The paragraph: "`I believe that there are genuine, radical issues that will appeal to a segment of the American population known, for want of a better name, as rednecks,' writes Emil Franzi, an Executive Committee member of the Libertarian Party. What types of acts do `rednecks' most want legalized? `Dueling, prostitution, the use of laetrile and cyclamates, plural marriage and whatever else our fertile brains can discover,' along with the ownership of `bazookas, field artillery, cane-swords, flame-throwers, anything,' says the drooling Franzi." 3) It either malinterpreted the positions of some of those quoted or implicitly proclaimed what has been mostly an error of absence in Objectivism. In quoting Steve Trinward, saying that greater emphasis should be placed on the ways that people relate to others than on whether or not they agree with libertarian tenets, he claimed that Steve was showing "an unwillingness to challenge the basic *philosophy* behind statism". (location of period intentional, for syntax pedants) In quoting Jorge Amador of SIL, "the only convincing argument for Libertarianism is: `People have values. Liberty -- the absence of obstacles to action -- is the condition that will enable them best to pursue their values.' ... This is simply an adaptation of the view expressed earlier by Rothbard that liberty is compatible with all philosophies and is a prerequisite for all values." What does Schwartz think ethics is for, if not the obtainment/retention of people's values? Rand was too vague in defining "man's life", or the life of man per se. But what she meant by it was never fully explained. So is Schwartz being clumsy or is he treating ethics as if its justification were some magic incantation, and as if its content and basis excluded an analysis of the action and interaction of humans? 4) It was tactically self-defeating. See the two examples above. Does Schwartz expect people to be struck by a bolt of lightning and see the light? (The cliches seem perfectly appropriate for describing one of Rand's lesser epigones.) How does he expect to motivate people to think about what they are doing??? 5) It proposed no political alternative to the LP. (It would be nice if there were a better one.) Admittedly, a continuation of the article would permit this, but no hint was given that the tenor, let alone competence, of the article would change.
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (06/14/85)
> From: rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) >> From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) >> 1) It was replete with smears. >> One example (of many) followed in the article by some >> quotes from Rothbard: "Any legitimate proponent of >> liberty realizes that a show of force by the state should >> be morally evaluated according to whether it is being >> used for aggression or for self-defense. But not the >> Libertarian." > To call the quote above a smear you should show that Schwartz's examples > are inconsistent with Libertarianism. Schwartz is not here referring to Libertarianism, nor to "the Libertarian" as an ideal type, but rather to Libertarians as individual "proponent"s. Schwartz is easily as crass as Rothbard. His statement is a smear. It deserves no excuse. It is not characteristic of intellectuality. And it was not an exception. >> "`I believe that there are genuine, radical issues that >> will appeal to a segment of the American population >> known, for want of a better name, as rednecks,' writes >> Emil Franzi, an Executive Committee member of the >> Libertarian Party. What types of acts do `rednecks' most >> want legalized? `Dueling, prostitution, the use of >> laetrile and cyclamates, plural marriage and whatever >> else our fertile brains can discover,' along with the >> ownership of `bazookas, field artillery, cane-swords, >> flame-throwers, anything,' says the drooling Franzi." > Schwartz used the above example to illustrate the extent to which > Libertarianism will compromise with anyone who opposes some particular > government action to broaden their base of support. I find his use > of "drooling" very descriptive. I can imagine the saliva forming as a > Libertarian strategist thinks of everyone who has ever complained of > the government as a potential ally. As you hopefully saw, my point was precisely that Schwartz failed to demonstrate in any way why the quoted statements were in any way a compromise with irrationality. As far as your imagination is concerned, it seems pretty good. How do you go about identifying people you can reach? (And don't give me drooling amounting to telling me to reach people who don't need reaching.) >> 3) It either malinterpreted the positions of some of those >> quoted or implicitly proclaimed what has been mostly an >> error of absence in Objectivism. > I can't parse the phrase following "or." (I too had to relearn grammar after I grew up. Euphonics sometimes demands using the remaining flexibility in English for ordering words within a sentence. Clarity sometimes demands unconventional ordering. I barely strayed from the pedantic form. Does moving "mostly" after "error" help? I thought it was very clear, for a first draft or otherwise, in structure if not content.) >> In quoting Steve Trinward, saying that greater emphasis >> should be placed on the ways that people relate to others >> than on whether or not they agree with libertarian >> tenets, he claimed that Steve was showing "an >> unwillingness to challenge the basic *philosophy* behind >> statism". > What is the basic philosophy behind statism? Where is the evidence that > Steve Trinward challenges it? What do you think getting people to focus on their own values is, implicitly? Rhetorical bluster is no substitute for thinking about how to reach people. >> In quoting Jorge Amador of SIL, "the only convincing >> argument for Libertarianism is: `People have values. >> Liberty -- the absence of obstacles to action -- is the >> condition that will enable them best to pursue their >> values.' ... This is simply an adaptation of the view >> expressed earlier by Rothbard that liberty is compatible >> with all philosophies and is a prerequisite for all >> values." >> What does Schwartz think ethics is for, if not the >> obtainment/retention of people's values? Rand was too >> vague in defining "man's life", or the life of man per >> se. But what she meant by it was never fully explained. >> So is Schwartz being clumsy or is he treating ethics as >> if its justification were some magic incantation, and as >> if its content and basis excluded an analysis of the >> action and interaction of humans? > I see only a tangential relation between your paragraph and the > quote from Schwartz's article. Amador's quote is explicit: all > you need for a logical defense of liberty is to note that people > have values and can best pursue them without obstacles to action. > But is liberty the right conclusion if the values people have > are dependence and sacrifice? > [Ayn Rand has rarely been accused of being vague. Her view on > man's life can be found in "The Objectivist Ethics," in *The Virtue > of Selfishness*, $2.25 from Palo Alto Book Service, 200 California > Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306.] The adults I know do not have tabulas rasas. (I know I declined it.) (There may, I admit, be some exceptions.) Their difficulty is most often not so much that their values are dependence and sacrifice, as that they have acquired those values, which are in conflict with other values that they have, and/or they have chosen inappropriate means to their values. For them, liberty is one of many right conclusions. A rational defense of liberty does not deal with merely hypothetical people. In other words, there are many ways of expressing a body of ethical ideas. My point was therefore central. Schwartz erred. Rand skipped a step in her justification of ethics, with the consequence of not offering a perfectly clear ethical standard. (She also erred outright, in her declaration that value could be measured in terms of time.) >> 4) It was tactically self-defeating. > I disagree. I trust that what follows includes your reasoning, with regard to sending letters instead. >> 5) It proposed no political alternative to the LP. (It >> would be nice if there were a better one.) > Schwartz's whole article to this point has been illustrating the theoretical > argument that in the context of today's culture a political MOVEMENT to > promote liberty is doomed. The theoretical argument is as follows: > 1. To defend the value of liberty, you must defend the basic philosophical > ideas on which it depends--to name a few: in politics, individual rights; > in ethics, selfishness; in epistemology, reason; in metaphysics, reality. You must also defend the societal conditions making it possible for ideas to spread. And furthermore, in expressing those ideas to others, you must be aware of and clarify wording that means something different to them than you intend. Since there was no conceivable purpose in regurgitating the above to those already familiar with it, why did you not do so with the word "selfishness" above? Rand did. > 2. The success of a political movement is measured by its popularity-- > its ability to get its members'representatives in office. There are other measures of success. The political process provides publicity for ideas and an environment where tweedledum politicians have to once in a while address them. It also provides some of the social interaction upon which the spreading of ideas must depend, and a means of addressing popular issues that not only provides that interaction, but also potentially corrects a part of the whole problem. (I agree that the anti-nuke collaboration is futile, though; its participants are far too irrational.) > 3. The basic philosophy on which liberty depends is not popular. It is, in fragments. Why was the scene in *Raiders of the Lost Arc* in which Indiana Jones simply shoots a confronting swordsman so popular? I doubt its popularity was racist. > 4. To the extent that a political movement for liberty becomes popular > before the basic philosophical ideas on which it is based are popular, > it must hide its basic ideas from its members or it must collaborate with > those who hold other basic philosophical ideas--i.e., ideas more consistent > with slavery than with freedom--ideas such as collectivism, sacrifice, and > irrationality. Movements can't collaborate; they are merely collaborations. People with their particular organizations do, but the LP as an organization has generally avoided collaboration. The truth will ultimately triumph, even if in the meantime considering supporting the LP or its activities requires great care. > (This argument against a political movement is not an argument for political > passivity. The political actions Schwartz has recommended in the > past are actions for or against specific issues in the form of intellectual > arguments to be used in letters to editors or congressmen.) I had a little success with letters to the editor. I don't care to deal with a moron who edits out the wrong half of a letter deliberately, though. I am preparing other means. Letters to congressmen are next to useless. Unless they see a groundswell of letters on an issue, they are more prone to use letters to their rhetorical advantage than to learn from them. In short, TIA is essentially inactive. The Ayn Rand Institute will have a far greater impact than TIA. I don't care for ARI's proponents' claim that Libertarianism implies either anarchism or nihilism, but it is adopting a social, organizational approach. The truth cannot remain hidden from those who are honestly striving to think. (Having seen some Objectivist fallout in the past, I can corroborate that, too.) Your reasoning is flawed, and danger is not doom. But Schwartz's lies don't help. Assuming that his aim was product differentiation, he could have done a good job. He just screwed up. David Hudson