tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/29/86)
> 1. I am not a Libertarian. I care too much for the > precision of language to want anyone to identify me as such. I could say, "I am not a Republican. I care too much for the precision of language to want anyone to identify me as such." I could, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't because it would be crass, not to mention unjustifiably supercilious and transparently ludicrous. > [Libertarianism is anti-philosophical. In terms of > fundamentals, Libertarianism has much more in common with > socialism than it does with my political views -- > capitalism. Why this is so would be yet another "elaborate > opus." I refer anyone who cannot wait until I get around to > giving my explanation to "Libertarianism: The Perversion of > Liberty," by Peter Schwartz, now available as a 64-page > pamphlet for $4.95 from The Intellectual Activist, 131 Fifth > Avenue, Suite 101, New York, NY 10003.] Last year I posted a huge list of gross distortions appearing in the first part of the article that led to the pamphlet. If the pamphlet did nothing to correct that stupidity, then Stubblefield lacks probity and his claim to cherish linguistic precision is insincere. In any case, it betrays a shallow exposure to "libertarianism" for Stubblefield to identify it as a philosophy, and willful blindness to continue to do so. (He is not merely relating political movements because of his contrasting them with a particular political philosophy and comparing different types of contrast.) > 3. Someone who associates Ayn Rand with Libertarians is > either trying to smear her or has little understanding of > either. That is an accurate statement, if taken as associating Rand with all libertarians. In fact, she once said that libertarians were a "random collection of emotional hippies-of-the-right who seek to play at politics without philosophy". "Random collection" is fair; there is great diversity among libertarians. "Emotional", when compared with the characteristics of the rest of the population, does not differentiate libertarians, except in a contrary sense. I never knew any "hippies', but the dictionary definition of that slang term does not fit libertarians even when modified by "-of-the-right", which is only partly true. As to the charge of "without philosophy", we are generally willing to acknowledge agreement on specific points, without requiring of our association that our agreement be complete, without forgetting that we have differences, and without yielding any individual philosophical integrity. Which is a lot like living in society. But for only $4.95 (Only $4.95?) you, too, can have a fetish. David Hudson