Objectivism -vs- Libertarianism

[PatriotMusic]

I sure don't think you are hijacking this thread at all. You ARE an intellectual, you just apologize for it! :-)

No really, your point is at the essence of the "trouble with libertarianism". I've gotten the impression that so much libertarian debate over principle (which varies between libertarians) gets in the way of an inclusive attitude that figures details out later, once some political damage control has been done. But then, ultimately, THAT is what FSP is all about, isn't it?

I can't express how deeply I care about these issues (except in my music), but even I have a hard time explaining in a couple of seconds what libertarianism/Libertarianism is (hence the thread). As a marketer, I feel frustrated that there is no sound bite or tag line! It takes intellect, reading, discussion, and sorry to say... lots of friggin "isms". I have a degree in philosophy (and that and a buck will get me a cup of coffee) and I CAN'T say the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists from the small and big "L" libertarians.

PatriotMusic (www.PatriotMusic.com)

[Objectivist]

And alot of Objectivists seem to support the GOP

Only confused ones.

- Objectivist

[Objectivist]

Objectivists strongly oppose anarchy, and they oppose the libertarian principles because they believe they would lead to anarchy.

True.

... Objectivists believe it is morally right for the government to initiate force (tax people) to fund property-rights protection, and they believe it is morally right to carpet-bomb nations that consist of "savages". They also believe in intellectual property.

Have you read much of Rand? "Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand, interview, 1979 (?)

She also wrote an entire essay on how to finance a government which would operate on voluntary taxation. Initiation of force is evil for whatever reason, even taxation. That is one of the biggest themes in Atlas Shrugged.

Carpet bombing one's enemies is a very good thing, not just savages, either, unless we can include Nazis as savages. But we should not, as Jefferson said, "go hunting around the world for monsters to fight." When THEY initiate the use of force, or threaten our interests by threatening the use of force, then its on (or should be).

- Objectivist

[AlanM]

"Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand

Government, and its laws, are force. How can you have a Government without force? Check your premises. 

[maineiac]

libertarian- peaceful soul willing to accept responsibility for his own governance

Libertarian- politician

[FrankChodorov]

"Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand

Government, and its laws, are force. How can you have a Government without force? Check your premises. 

easy...when the force is used justly to protect the right of self-ownership.

including making sure the excluded are not forced to pay economic rent which is nothing other than a tax in kind but not in name that landowners impose on those they exclude - monthly to those they lease to and at the time of title transfer to those they sell to.

[AlanM]

"Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand

Government, and its laws, are force. How can you have a Government without force? Check your premises. 

easy...when the force is used justly to protect the right of self-ownership.

Read what you wrote, Frank. I asked if you can have a Gov without force. You reply that if the force is used justly. Force is force, Frank.

[Objectivist]

"Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand

Government, and its laws, are force. How can you have a Government without force? Check your premises. 

INITIATES = starts

[FrankChodorov]

"Any government which initiates the use of force is a monster. Today, all governments certainly do." -Ayn Rand

Government, and its laws, are force. How can you have a Government without force? Check your premises. 

easy...when the force is used justly to protect the right of self-ownership.

Read what you wrote, Frank. I asked if you can have a Gov without force. You reply that if the force is used justly. Force is force, Frank.

force itself is amoral not immoral.

it depends on what ends it serves...

it is just to use force to protect the right of self-ownership from physical OR economic coercion from another.

[Jason Rand]

I am persuaded by Roy Childs and George Smith : Objectivism is compatible with market anarchism.

[Objectivist]

I am persuaded by Roy Childs and George Smith : Objectivism is compatible with market anarchism.

Whatever!

- Objectivist

[Jason Rand]

Objectivist, have you read and considered either of those essays?

Now, back to the original question.  I find this really challenging to answer, but here's a first go-round.

Objectivism is a broad philosophy, developed by Ayn Rand, which integrates knowledge in several branches of philosophy.  In short:

metaphysics: reality
epistemology: reason
ethics: rational egoism
politics: capitalism

Libertarianism, by contrast, is a political philosophy.  In my view, Rand's capitalism fits within the broader libertarian tradition.   I believe Objectivism provides a good philosophical foundation for libertarianism, but since not all libertarians are Objectivists (or even know what it is), not all libertarians would agree.  To further complicate matters, not all Objectivists agree upon who is and who is not an Objectivist, and how this philosophy is defined.  David Kelley presents his case for Objectivism as an 'open system' in his aptly named book "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand".   Others would define Objectivism as simply the philosophy of Ayn Rand, suggesting that if you don't agree with her on everything, you aren't an Objectivist.  I consider myself an Objectivist in the sense of accepting the fundamentals of Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, although in the sphere of politics I lean towards market anarchism.

Somehow I don't think this explanation is quite the catchy tagline you were looking for.

[PatriotMusic]

Thank you for the clarification. From my reading, it seems the requirements for being a "true" Objectivist are pretty stringent. As brilliant and as helpful to liberty as Ayn Rand was, I find some things lacking as well (particularly her total glossing over of metaphysics, for me).

I wonder though, how do small "L" and big "L" libertarians fit into the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates... specifically the Bill of Rights? And would you agree that both major political parties today are Federalists?

PatriotMusic