KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/22/86)
From: Eyal mozes <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
That's just my point. Libertarians make a basic assumption about
politics - "initiation of force is evil" - and have no argument to
defend it;
Not at all. My point was that in politics (or philosophy if you
prefer) some things are axioms. There is no proof for them, any more
than there is proof for Euclid's axioms of Geometry.
I would take the axioms as being:
1) Minding one's own business is never evil.
2) Non-coercively interacting with another person is never evil.
There are not derivable from simpler axioms, and, as with geometry,
one can use the negation of these axioms as axioms, and come up with a
different and equally self-consistent system. However, just as non-
Euclidian geometry is not useful to architects, the resulting
political system, in which slavery and torture and murder are
considered good, is not useful to people who prefer happiness and
productivity to pain and starvation.
There is no way from first principles to justify mankind's continued
existence. If someone says that mankind's existence is evil and
should be terminated, I have no way to argue with him. I just don't
want anything to do with such a person or his political system.
To defend a political principle by reason and morality - as Ayn
Rand did - you have to accept that politics is not a primary, that
it requires a base in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics;
I think we are just arguing semantics here. At some level
everything is philosophy. I consider anything which applies to how
people should live together to be politics, whether it be
philisophical, pragmatic, taken on faith, based on someone's charisma,
or whatever.
that's what I meant by absolute truth and absolute values, an
that's what libertarians wouldn't accept.
I think we do accept those.
Please keep in mind that I only speak for myself. I was not
recruited by the Libertarian party, nor have I ever even had any
contact with them. I simply discovered that members of that party and
others who call themselves libertarians had political viewpoints
similar to mine. I also discovered that Ayn Rand did also.
I haven't been reading this list for very long; but the few
messages by you that I saw contained some economic and historical
arguments,
Not everyone is convinced by my arguing on principles, so I use
historic and economic examples to show that liberty and capitalism are
not just more moral but also result in greater wealth and happiness
for everyone.
and some repetition of the libertarian "axiom" about the evil of
initiating force, but no moral or rational defense of your basic
position.
I try to make it clear that the main reason I support the policies
that I do is because of morality. That slavery, for instance, is just
plain wrong whether or not people are better off on the average with
or without it. But if I was arguing with supporters of slavery, I
would use both arguments.
Robbery is a good example. Robbery is defined as the use of force
or threat of force to coerce wealth from someone. I am sure everyone
on this list opposes robbery. I oppose it primarily because it is
wrong to initiate force and because it is wrong to steal. It seems
that many members of this list oppose robbery for what I consider to
be peripheral reasons, for instance the unfairness of one person being
robbed for everything he owns while his neighbor isn't robbed at all,
that the victim is quite likely to be killed in a robbery whether he
cooperates or not, that the robber often uses the money for illegal
drugs rather than to pay for his children's food, etc.
Taxation is clearly robbery, by definition. It shares the important
faults of street robbery, in that it initiates force and in that it
steals other people's wealth. It (usually) does not share the peri-
pheral problems that street crime has. For instance no taxpayers are
shot to death by the IRS on April 15th.
Since many people on this list do not oppose taxation, it seems they
only oppose robbery for the peripheral reasons, not for what I
consider to be the main reasons.
I argue against taxation on the grounds that it is robbery, as well
as describing the bad consequences of taxation. I am not sure what
further justification you would have me give for my viewpoint. I have
certainly suggested reading Ayn Rand enough times.
I know that some genuine advocates of individual rights and
laissez-faire capitalism make the mistake of calling themselves
libertarians.
Please explain why this is a mistake. It is clear that you and I
are using the word libertarian in a very different way. Can you
provide some justification for your unusual use of the word? Can you
explain why you feel that libertarianism and (Rand's) objectivism are
opposed?
Maybe, if I'd read the list for a longer time, I'd find
that you, or some other contributors, belong to this category;
The archives are available online.
I am certainly not alone in this. A year or two ago,
JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU was a major contributor to this list, and he
eloquently propounded the cause of individual liberties in the name
of libertarianism.
... you'd better realize that the cause of individual rights has
nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from association with
libertarianism.
Please justify this. You seem to be using the word differently than
everyone else.
You quote some guy I never heard of as saying that libertarians
support PLO terrorism and Soviet foreign policy. This is utterly
opposite to libertarianism as I understand it. You then say that his
views are a logical result of taking "initiation of force is evil" as
an axiom. This makes no sense at all. PLO terrorism and Soviet
foriegn policy are excellent examples of initiating the use of force,
not of refraining from doing so. Please clarify.
[Ayn Rand's] principled rational and moral defense of capitalism,
and her insistence that this is the only proper way to defend it,
make it very clear that she is profoundly opposed to
libertarianism.
You keep trying to drive home the notion that there is an enormous
distinction between objectivism and libertarianism. But you never
explain what it is.
[Ayn Rand mentions] the 'libertarian' hippies ... who subordinate
reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism ...
Right. The quotes were hers. It seems that she is using the quotes
to say that the hippies are not really libertarians. Also, she wrote
that in 1972, and it is not clear that the word libertarian meant the
same thing then as now. In 1972 there was no Libertarian party.
I don't know many libertarians who are literally anarchists. I sent
a message very recently opposing anarchism - perhaps it hadn't yet
reached the list at the time you sent this message.
There are libertarians who expouse freely competing governments in
the same territory, which is something Rand does strongly oppose. I
am not aware of any other differences in opinions between libertarians
and objectivists.
Even if libertarians and objectivists do have their differences,
don't you think we should band together for the common cause? Once
again I emphasize that I see so little difference between the two that
I've never really said that I am one rather than the other, and I am
equally likely to call myself either.
There have been Libertarian candidates in the last three
presidential elections, and in 1980 Clarke came out well ahead of
Anderson and only just behind Carter in some states. But I have never
heard of an Objectivist candidate. So who should we vote for?
...Keith
-------lippard@his-phoenix-multics.arpa (09/03/86)
> From: Eyal mozes <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 17:15:29 -0200 > Your two "axioms" are not just not self-evident; they're completely > false. Suicide, for example, involves "minding one's own business"; > but, if you're familiar with Ayn Rand's writings, you can > demonstrate objectively that it IS evil. Selling and using drugs > involves "non-coercively interacting with another person", but, > again, you can demonstrate objectively that it is evil. I don't believe that it can be "objectively demonstrated" that suicide and drug use are evil. Could you provide such a demonstration, or give me a pointer to the place in Randroid writings that does so? Jim (Lippard at MULTICS.MIT.EDU) -------