Objectivism -vs- Libertarianism

[PatriotMusic]

How would you differentiate Objectivism from Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism)?

Thanks,

PatriotMusic

[KBCraig]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, but Objectivism is a life philosophy.

O'ism can be (and often is) completely divorced from politics or any other voluntary participation in government.

Kevin

[Atlas]

And alot of Objectivists seem to support the GOP

[FrankChodorov]

modern libertarianism isn't classical liberalism...it is only a derivative of classical liberalism because it is a proponent of neo-classical liberalism.

within neo-classicalism it is probably most closely aligned with the Austrian school.

Rothbardian is probably the closest you are going to get to defining Libertarianism as it relates to economics and he is a "4th generation Austrian schooler & scholar"

Rothbard created the modern libertarian movement specifically because he refined and fused together:

* natural law theory, using a basic Aristotelian or Randian approach;
* the radical civil libertarianism of 19th century individualist-anarchists, especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker;
* the free market philosophy of Austrian economists, in particular Ludwig von Mises, into which he incorporated sweeping economic histories; and,
* the foreign policy of the American Old Right ? that is, isolationism.

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/thought.htm

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/rockwell/mcelroy000706.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_N._Rothbard

he had a public falling out with Rand's brand of objectivism calling it a "religious cult"...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

[FrankChodorov]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, but Objectivism is a life philosophy.

O'ism can be (and often is) completely divorced from politics or any other voluntary participation in government.

if you are talking little "l" libertarianism you are probably talking a lifestyle philosophy too guided by the zero aggression principle.

[burnthebeautiful]

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

[PatriotMusic]

I believe I understand Objectivism fairly well. What I'm not clear on is the difference between Libertarians and libertarians. Maybe the best way would be for me to ask specific questions.

Do Libertarians believe that pre-emptive strikes can never be justified, even on an individual level?

Do Libertarians disagree with the notion of the 10th Amendment, where say one State would be entirely Objectivists and it's neighbors Libertarians?

Do Libertarians disagree entirely with the principle of eminent domain as was practiced in our early history?

Thanks!

PatriotMusic

[FrankChodorov]

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

what little "l" libertarian principles are you referring to?

the fundamental principle of libertarianism is the absolute right of self-ownership which includes the non-agression principle.

the only form of "taxation" that complies is the direct and equal sharing of economic rent that is the result of private enclosure of what originally starts out owned in common as an individual equal access right.

the reason why it complies is because the landowner does not labor to produce the economic rent as it is "unimproved land value" and there would be no purchase price to land...

[PatriotMusic]

By the way, FrankChodorov, those are some excellent links.

Thanks!

PatriotMusic

[Quantrill]

all the "isms" have to go.  Who cares?  I want smaller government, more privacy and fewer taxes.  I don't give a rats about Classical Liberalism, Ayn Randyism, Jeffersonianism, Cronyism, egocentrism, egalitarianism ET AL.

Move to NH, vote against tax increases and hold your elected representatives and law-enforcement officials accountable...

[FrankChodorov]

all the "isms" have to go.  Who cares?  I want smaller government, more privacy and fewer taxes.  I don't give a rats about Classical Liberalism, Ayn Randyism, Jeffersonianism, Cronyism, egocentrism, egalitarianism ET AL.

Move to NH, vote against tax increases and hold your elected representatives and law-enforcement officials accountable...

it won't work unless you specify exactly what are root causes and thus how exactly you would accomplish smaller government.

because the state breaks legs and then gives people crutches we have to get the state to stop breaking legs first before we start taking away crutches.

if you just start taking away crutches it will not work...

[Jason Rand]

all the "isms" have to go.  Who cares?  I want smaller government, more privacy and fewer taxes.  I don't give a rats about Classical Liberalism, Ayn Randyism, Jeffersonianism, Cronyism, egocentrism, egalitarianism ET AL.

Can we also get rid of anti-intellectualism?

[PatriotMusic]

I got a call a week ago from a (web design) customer of mine who lives in N.H.. He knows about my new album and what I'm doing. He asked me if I knew anything about the FSP. I told him I knew some things and went to the Porcfest in 2005. I also told him (no ass kissing intended here) that the Porcfest was the largest collection of political intellect I had ever seen in one place. I didn't know how much he wanted to get into it so I said something very much like what you said, Quantrill "smaller government, more privacy and fewer taxes". He said, "I thought they were all into legalizing prostitution, getting N.H. to suceed from the U.S. and then getting rid of all borders". I told him that libertarians have different views on the perfect world, but generally agree on the starting points (knowing that he's a State's right's conservative). I told him he should check you guys out and that he would be very pleasently surprised at the views of many of FSP's members, and that there is no manifesto other than to embrace the principles this country was based on.

So.... though I understand the pragmatic approach, Quantrill, my motive for wanting clarification has intentions beyond some fascination with 'isms'. As I do more interviews nationally with this new CD's launch, I need to know more about the philosophy behind the positions. Thanks.

PatriotMusic

[Quantrill]

PatriotMusic,

From one musician to the other, I'd love to hear some Liberty-oriented music.  You have CDs for sale?

As far as my brief rant earlier:  I think PM understands, we need to start with the basics.  People are used to security over freedom, and we need to wean them from this Statist mantra just like Big Brother wants to wean us off our freedoms. 

Can we also get rid of anti-intellectualism?

Ok, THAT'S funny! 

it won't work unless you specify exactly what are root causes and thus how exactly you would accomplish smaller government.

Uh, no.  It will work.  Start by voting against tax increases.  Slowly decrease the state's income and they, like I, will be forced to adjust.  You don't need to argue about whether they have any 'legal' or 'moral' right to tax property (intellectual or otherwise).  Put our people in office, hold our officials accountable.  Who cares why?  (objectivism or anarchism)  If and when we actually keep a stranglehold on taxes, privacy etc...   THEN we can argue about the 'best' course of action. 

But wouldn't everyone be happy if gov't was simply smaller and less intrusive?   If we still had public schools, but had the ability to opt out of paying taxes for them if you homeschool - still had cops on patrol but they didn't pull you over unless you actually commit a crime - still had the IRS but they only go after companies/individuals that hide their money offshore - etc...

Pardon my cynicism, but I don't see any utopian future.  Nor would I expect one in my lifetime.  My line of thinking is "let's work with what we have.  WAY too much freaking government."  We can reasonable expect to diminish the size and scope of the government.  Good place to start!  Sorry for hijacking this thread.  I am curious as to other peoples' opinions on this.

[FrankChodorov]

But wouldn't everyone be happy if gov't was simply smaller and less intrusive?

not if you just took away crutches without addressing the leg breaking...

the backlash would be swift and certain.

did you read Jason's Cannae tactic speech at Porcfest?

http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/cannae_tactic

excerpt:
When it comes to policy reforms, political scientists have found that a frontal assault almost never works, especially in a system like ours in which power is diffused through three branches of government. Instead, you need something like the Cannae Tactic. Rule Number One for any reformist leader is: You can never destroy an adversarial interest group, you can only hope to co-opt them. For us libertarians, potentially adversarial interest groups might include labor unions, certain government employees, big businesses that get corporate welfare, the more extreme environmentalist organizations, and those elements of law enforcement who are more concerned about the size of their payrolls than true reductions in crime. These interest groups will never go away, and they will always effectively pursue their interests.