eyal@wisdom.BITNET (08/24/86)
>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. This exactly illustrates the profound difference between the Objectivist and the libertarian approach to politics. It is definitely not true that some things in politics are axioms. You can't choose axioms arbitrarily. A philosophical axiom must be SELF-EVIDENT - it must be a fundamental principle known by direct sense-perception; only basic principles in metaphysics and epistemology can have such a status. 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. What is true is that both these activities, when they involve consenting adults, should not be interfered with by the government; you have taken correct POLITICAL principles and arbitrarily transferred them to the field of ethics. This sort of mistake is really inevitable if you start creating "axioms" for ethics or politics, and it undercuts the strength of any otherwise valid argument you may present. The proper principles of political theory must be supported by more fundamental principles in ethics and epistemology - the supremacy of reason, and the ethics of rational self-interest; without such support, they become arbitrary, out-of-context assertions, and you are left with no standard for justifying them, for deciding whether they are "useful", or for applying them in practice. >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? I use the word in exactly the same way it's used by the candidates of the Libertarian party, the editors of "Reason", etc.; libertarianism is the movement that unites in a "common cause" anyone who says that initiation of force is evil, regardless of how or whether he justifies it or how he applies it in practice. >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. Whether you've heard of Murray Rothbard or not, it is still true that he is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism. And the same views are expressed by many other libertarians, in "Inquiry", "Reason" and several other publications, and are also accepted by one major wing of the Libertarian party (the "Radical Caucus"). Why do I say these views are a logical result of libertarianism? Because, if you take "initiation of force is evil" as an axiom, rather than as a principle supported by reason, then you have no objective standards for practically applying it. Is the PLO initiating force, or is Israel initiating force against the Palestinians, with the PLO using force only in retaliation? If the main villain is STATE coercion, doesn't the second view seem plausible? Is soviet expansionism initiation of force, or is it retaliation against initiation of force by the USA? Once you abandon reason as your base, there's no objective way to answer these questions. And also, as Peter Schwartz demonstrates, a demand for "freedom" not based on reason is, at root, a call for nihilism, and will therefore naturally lead to looking on any genuine, rational proponents of freedom - and both the USA and Israel, with all their inconsistencies, are paragons of reason and freedom compared to most of today's world - as the real enemy. >[Ayn Rand wrote against libertarians] in 1972, and it is not clear >that the wor same thing then as now. In 1972 there was no >Libertarian party. Well, the Libertarian party was created at a time when Ayn Rand has already stopped writing; but she did strongly oppose the Libertarian party, and spoke against it in several public speeches and lectures. > 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. I did see that message, after I sent my last posting. Anyway, I'm certainly aware that libertarians are divided on the issue of anarchism; the fact that people, who don't even agree on whether the institution of government should exist at all, can belong to the same political movement, is a clear example of the anti-intellectual approach which characterizes libertarianism. > Even if libertarians and objectivists do have their differences, >don't you think we should band together for the common cause? No, because I see no common cause. As I already said, I know that some genuine advocates of liberty call themselves libertarians; but by making a "common cause" with anyone who would say he agrees about "the evil of initiating force" - including anarchists, PLO sympathizers, supporters of the New Left, "pro-life libertarians", and many other groups incompatible with genuine liberty (as well as with each other) - such people are damaging the cause of liberty, depriving the concept of its rational meaning. > 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. And for a very good reason. First of all, Objectivism is a philosophy, not a political movement; and from the political aspect, Objectivists realize that the way to fight for freedom is by education, not by running for office. A political campaign is, by its nature, not a forum for a serious, fundamental discussion of issues; it can be effective only AFTER the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire are widely accepted. The purpose of those who support individual rights should be to persuade people - to win minds, not votes. And for this, it is essential to have a clear rational and moral base for your ideas; that's why libertarianism can do only damage. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal -------