rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (06/12/85)
[] I disagree with Dave Hudson's assessment of Peter Schwartz's article "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty." He says: >1) It was replete with smears. Dave, the article was filled with quotes of people who are identified with the Libertarian movement--from LP candidates to Libertarian intellectuals. Which of those quoted does not renounce the initiation of force? Or do you have another criterion you are using to say they are not representative of Libertarianism? > 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. >2) It used what amounted to an argument from intimidation. > "`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. >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." > 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? > 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.] >4) It was tactically self-defeating. I disagree. >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. 2. The success of a political movement is measured by its popularity-- its ability to get its members'representatives in office. 3. The basic philosophy on which liberty depends is not popular. 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. (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.) Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh