trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (09/02/83)
Response to Larry Cipriani, on Objectivism and Rand: You are correct, I am not 100% in agreement with Rand, and perhaps I should make this clearer, out of respect for her views. However, it is usually the case that the things that people object to the most are exactly those points on which I agree with Rand. I do recall specifically pointing out that one of my views (probably on govt) differed from that of Ayn Rand. And in fact, the points that I disagree with Rand are not major facets of her philosophy. I do consider myself to be an Objectivist, philosophically. I would be interested in knowing what points Mr. McKiernan disagrees with Rand upon, and thinks that her "apostles" are failing to see. And in fact, I dont know any objectivist that would not be open-minded enough to listen to such points and accept that Ayn Rand could make an error, if the evidence were convincing. I hope that Mr. McKiernan is not making the mistake of accusing others with differing views of being closed-minded simply because he is unable to convince them. It is possible that Objectivists are somewhat defensive, due to the fact that they are essentially attacked from all sides. This might lead to an attitude that might be interpreted as closed-mindedness, but is actually an automatic reflex expectation that any attack is likely to be flawed. This relex might arise from the simple fact that the most common attacks upon Rand's philosophy *are* flawed. The Objectivist gets tired of hearing the same arguments over and over! I am sorry if you think my notes are too long - I really do try to limit their length. I am usually responding to either a long note, or one packed with questions. Also I often have to repeat things, in different ways, because the first version just did not "sink in", or the respondent shifts the direction of attack. I am afraid that this is just a consequence of the controversiality of Objectivism. However, you will be glad to know that I am going to be very busy soon, and so will have to cut way back on the notes I post. (OK, cut the cheering, everyone.) As for a discussion of the difference between Objectivism and Libertarians, I think that there is a real difference, though Rand may have made it seem larger (relative to other political groups she discussed) simply because they *do* seem to agree on so many points. Rand's main objection to Libertarianism is that it is not firmly grounded upon an explicitly rational basis, but takes such things as rights as axiomatic. This is not to say that all Libertarians do, just the movement as a whole. Her view was apparently that such political group would do more harm, in the long run, than good, not that their espoused principles were all wrong. I have to mainly agree with her - making one's philosophy explicit is very important, personally and in practical matters of interacting with others. Libertarianism provides no strong rational basis for convincing anyone of the rightness of its views - and so arouses controversy without being able to consistently provide answers to their detractors' questions. They make themselves out to be "radicals", without being able to defend that radicalism as being correct, and so tend to invalidate the radical but correct ideas they hold. Rand also disliked their anarchist view that government is something of no real value. Her view was that men have the ability to be rational, but no biolgical requirement be so, and hence some means is needed to stabilize society against irrational people, without interfering with rational people's lives. I agree with this point, but disagree with the implementation of that means. I believe that the territorial nature of government innately holds the seeds of an expansion of the state power. Tom Craver houca!trc