kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (08/18/86)
From: Eyal mozes <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Libertarians take as a basic assumption that government
intervention is evil. They can't (and don't want to) use reason
and morality to support this assumption, since that would require
advocating absolute truth and absolute values, and that's anathema
to libertarianism; ...
I strongly disagree. Libertarians do use reason and morality.
Heck, our magazine is called _Reason_. Who says there are no absolute
values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil. Those are
absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that they are
sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I just want no
part of the system founded on the notion that slavery, etc, are ok.
The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't
regard your position as moral".
I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do
several other contributors to this list.
... if you read, for example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely
regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism,
Not by me.
you can see that most of the views he holds on concrete issues -
such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic evaluation of
soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the world's
"main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible with
genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with the
views of most socialists.
I've never heard of the guy. These are not my positions, and I
doubt they are the positions of any other libertarian on this list.
Ayn Rand was the only one to fully and consistently take such an
approach, and, as a result, she gave the only full, consistent
rational and moral defense of individual rights;
I was going to suggest that you read her works, except you seem to
be already familiar with them.
her writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue of
Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only
antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism,
Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a
libertarian.
and are a must read for anyone seriously interested in political
theory.
I agree with you there!
...Keith
-------eyal@wisdom.BITNET (08/21/86)
To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu >Who says there are no absolute >values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil. Those are >absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that they are >sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I just want >no part of the system founded on the notion that slavery, etc, are >ok. That's just my point. Libertarians make a basic assumption about politics - "initiation of force is evil" - and have no argument to defend it; this is the exact opposite of the proper approach to political theory. 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; that's what I meant by absolute truth and absolute values, and that's what libertarians wouldn't accept. > The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't > regard your position as moral". > > I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do >several other contributors to this list. 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, and some repetition of the libertarian "axiom" about the evil of initiating force, but no moral or rational defense of your basic position. I know that some genuine advocates of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism make the mistake of calling themselves libertarians. Maybe, if I'd read the list for a longer time, I'd find that you, or some other contributors, belong to this category; but in that case you'd better realize that the cause of individual rights has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from association with libertarianism. > you can see that most of the views he holds on concrete issues - > such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic evaluation of > soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the world's > "main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible > with genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with > the views of most socialists. > > I've never heard of the guy. These are not my positions, and I >doubt they are the positions of any other libertarian on this list. That's probably correct; but the conclusions a view leads to are not determined by majority vote. Rothbard's views are a logical result of the essence of libertarianism - of taking "initiation of force is evil" as an out-of-context basic assumption with no concern for its justification. > her writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue of > Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only > antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, > > Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a >libertarian. Her 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. And while she never uses the word in the three books mentioned above, she does use it in several other places; for example: "groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals (e.g., ... the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism)" ("Philosophy: Who Needs It", paperback edition, pp. 202-203). Libertarians are guilty of gross dishonesty in their attempt to associate themselves with Ayn Rand, thus gaining the following and the intellectual respectability that they could never earn on their own merits. I strongly recommend, to anyone interested in defending individual rights, the pamphlet "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz. Peter Schwartz is editor and publisher of the pro-laissez-faire political newsletter The Intellectual Activist, and chairman of the board of advisors of the Ayn Rand Institute, an educational institution devoted to spreading Ayn Rand's philosophy. This 64-page pamphlet is a thorough, well-documented and devastating analysis of libertarianism, which conclusively shatters the myth that libertarianism is an ally in fighting for individual rights. [For more information, please contact Eyal directly. - CWM] Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal -------
eyal@wisdom.BITNET (08/22/86)
To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu >Who says there are no absolute >values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil. Those are >absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that they are >sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I just want >no part of the system founded on the notion that slavery, etc, are >ok. That's just my point. Libertarians make a basic assumption about politics - "initiation of force is evil" - and have no argument to defend it; this is the exact opposite of the proper approach to political theory. 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; that's what I meant by absolute truth and absolute values, and that's what libertarians wouldn't accept. > The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't > regard your position as moral". > > I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do >several other contributors to this list. 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, and some repetition of the libertarian "axiom" about the evil of initiating force, but no moral or rational defense of your basic position. I know that some genuine advocates of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism make the mistake of calling themselves libertarians. Maybe, if I'd read the list for a longer time, I'd find that you, or some other contributors, belong to this category; but in that case you'd better realize that the cause of individual rights has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from association with libertarianism. > you can see that most of the views he holds on concrete issues - > such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic evaluation of > soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the world's > "main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible > with genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with > the views of most socialists. > > I've never heard of the guy. These are not my positions, and I >doubt they are the positions of any other libertarian on this list. That's probably correct; but the conclusions a view leads to are not determined by majority vote. Rothbard's views are a logical result of the essence of libertarianism - of taking "initiation of force is evil" as an out-of-context basic assumption with no concern for its justification. > her writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue of > Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only > antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, > > Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a >libertarian. Her 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. And while she never uses the word in the three books mentioned above, she does use it in several other places; for example: "groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals (e.g., ... the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism)" ("Philosophy: Who Needs It", paperback edition, pp. 202-203). Libertarians are guilty of gross dishonesty in their attempt to associate themselves with Ayn Rand, thus gaining the following and the intellectual respectability that they could never earn on their own merits. I strongly recommend, to anyone interested in defending individual rights, the pamphlet "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz. Peter Schwartz is editor and publisher of the pro-laissez-faire political newsletter The Intellectual Activist, and chairman of the board of advisors of the Ayn Rand Institute, an educational institution devoted to spreading Ayn Rand's philosophy. This 64-page pamphlet is a thorough, well-documented and devastating analysis of libertarianism, which conclusively shatters the myth that libertarianism is an ally in fighting for individual rights. [For more information, please contact Eyal directly. - CWM] Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal ------- -------
mxc@teddy.UUCP (08/25/86)
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith F. Lynch) writes: > From: Eyal mozes <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> > > Libertarians take as a basic assumption that government > intervention is evil. They can't (and don't want to) use reason > and morality to support this assumption, since that would require > advocating absolute truth and absolute values, and that's > anathema to libertarianism; ... > > I strongly disagree. Libertarians do use reason and morality. >Heck, our magazine is called _Reason_. Who says there are no >absolute values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil. >Those are absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that >they are sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I >just want no part of the system founded on the notion that slavery, >etc, are ok. Eyal is taking the hard-line Objectivist stance on Libertarianism. A prominent Objectivist writer, Peter Schwartz, wrote an article on "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" that is well worth reading because it brilliantly rips to shreds the supposed "liberty" oriented stand of the Libertarian Party and many so-called "libertarians". And while _Reason_ tends to have good ideas, it lacks any moral justification for them. But I don't think such condemnation is deserved for those who just believe in a truly libertarian (small, not capital L) political system. They have the right idea. However, Objectivism is a complete philosophical system that offers a system of morality that justifies a libertarian political system. After all, to be complete and consistent, there must be some reason *why* slavery, robbery, and torture are wrong. > The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't > regard your position as moral". > > I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do >several other contributors to this list. Yes, but they're probably based on some idea of absolute individual rights, right? Many Libertarians would not have such an explicit moral basis. Some, lacking a consistent morality, go on to make the mistake that *all* government is bad. > ... if you read, for example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely > regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism, > > Not by me. I've never heard of the guy. These are not my >positions, and I doubt they are the positions of any other >libertarian on this list. Obviously, then, Keith is not a Libertarian, but a libertarian. Are there any "card-carrying" members of the Libertarian party on the list? > [Ayn Rand's] writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue > of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only > antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, > > Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a >libertarian. Ayn Rand despised libertarians, thinking that they had "perverted" her ideas of political liberty into a political system without morality. I think she made an error in lumping all of them together. Not only does libertarianism have a basis in the works of other writers, such as von Mises, but Libertarian Party people shouldn't be confused with people who want liberty but lack a consistent moral basis. -- Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617) 369-4400 x2336 -------