Thanks. I thought so too.
Personal and Economic Freedom for Individuals
- Thread starter Catatonic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- libertarian
wkmac
Well-Known Member
To some extent what Ricky is saying has some manner of truth to it. For starters, when I speak of libertarianism, I speak of the lower case form as opposed to the upper case Libertarianism that is a political movement to take power within a political state. For my own purposes I would say that a libertarian first is an advocate of the Non Aggression Axiom or Principle sometimes called NAP. The non aggression principle just means you can't use force or forms of coercion against another person, in effect, you first grant libertarianism or belief in liberty to the other person with the idea that reciprocity will occur and the other principle at play in libertarianism, all associations and interactions between people are voluntary. There it is, that's all it is. For me, libertarianism is No force and all human actions voluntary.
But at the same time and this speaks to the efforts of creating a "so-called" Libertarian Central State, to force someone using the State and its compulsory means to Libertarian ends is itself a very un-libertarian act and thus violates the very concepts of libertarianism. Thus, libertarianism by its nature is anti-State because it opposes the compulsory nature of the State. To even have a "Libertarian" party seems to violate libertarian principle.
The word libertarianism just means "one who believes in liberty" as "liber" in the ancient Roman was a god of freedom and his festival Liberalia (March 17th) was a festival dedicated to a time of free speech and expression of other rights. In the latin, liber means both freedom, hence our word liberty but also knowledge as in our word library. The bark of trees was called liber and such was used to write books upon thus liber could also refer to books as in knowledge and thus knowledge gives freedom. Our word liberal also comes from the word liber. The suffix arian and ism refer to belief or belief in.
In our modern sense, the word libertarian, the word liberal and even the word conservative are terms that have been turned on their heads and are quite different from what they were just 100 years ago.
Now to Ricky's point about American libertarianism verses what he called traditional libertarianism which I would call European libertarianism. The word libertarian goes back about 150 years ago when European anarchists first used the term in reference to themselves. In other words, libertarian and anarchist were the same thing. Thus there is truth to the old saying that an anarchist is a libertarian who took libertarianism to its conclusion.
The late anarcho communist Murray Bookchin in his book, The Ecology of Freedom, noted that "libertarian was a term created by nineteenth century European anarchists, not by contemporary right wing propriertarians." The first use of the term libertarian in written form came actually from NY City in the anarchist journal La Libertaire, Journal de Mouvment Social, publish by French communist anarchist Joseph Dejacque between 1858 and 1861. The French regional anarchist Congress at La Havre November 1880' used the term libertarian and later published a manifest entitled "Libertarian or Anarchist Communism." As a result of the 20th century failures of State communism, we fail often to realize that prior to the 20th century, there was a healthy movement of anti-state socialists and communists that would shame many of the so-called right libertarians who hold what they think are anti-state viewpoints. One can read the communist Mikhail Bakunin's work to get a healthy dose of real radical left wing anti-statism. I consider Bakunin a hero and yes he was a communist, a communist that told Marx to his face he was wrong to advocate for the use of the State to achieve communist ends. He said it would end in disaster and he was right. Marx had Bakunin kicked out of the First International because of this too.
But even in this undercurrent were emerging ideas of individualism that married into the strands of libertarianism which is nothing but anarchism by another name. In America we had our own 19th century radicals such as the individualist, anarchist Lysander Spooner whose "Constitution of No Authority" and his work of Jury Nullification IMO are must reads. In the late 1800's and early 1900's we had the anarchist and self described socialist Benjamin Tucker who not only argued for the rights of the individual but also for a true free market. And no, I do not conflate capitalism with free market because in the sense of crony or interventionist capitalism, I'm anti capitalist. Tucker also embraced what many call mutualism (a form of voluntary association I find very appealing) that is based off the works of Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Josiah Warren would be another American anarchist.
Leo Tolstoy had a form of anarchism based in the teaching of Jesus that many refer to Tolstoy as a christian anarchist. Some refer to Henry David Thoreau as an anarchist but I think of Thoreau with some anarchistic thinking and not as much an anarchist in whole cloth.
Our modern version of libertarianism associated with right wing politics emerged in the 1970's as a syncretism of sorts of classical liberalism, right wing anti-communism and opposition to FDR type public policy influenced by FDR's New Deal. It also was the efforts of Murray Rothbard to merge the Old Right with the New Left where Rothbard, former Goldwater speech writer turned anarchist Karl Hess and former SDS founder Carl Olgesby attempted this feat. I have a personal interest in this as Carl Olgesby and I are distant cousins. No we never knew one another personally and I consider that my lost, my great grandfather and Carl's father were cousins. But the results of Rothbard's efforts would help result in the Libertarian political party and the original Cato Institute was created to promote Rothbard's writings and theories before he had a falling out with Charles Koch of the Kochtopus fame. This form of Libertarianism (note the use of upper case as opposed to lower case "L") is what is often referred to today as rightwing libertarianism that later made a devil's deal with the republican party. A deal quite frankly the GOP had no intentions of ever honoring. (see Ron Paul)
There were libertarians such as Sam E. Konkin III, often referred to as SEK3 who tried to steer libertarians away from this devil's deal and he even wrote a manifesto called the New Libertarian Manifesto and coined the term and ideal Agorism as a method to fight it. SEK3 is also the man who coined the term Kochtopus as a pejorative in reference to the Koch brothers and their empire. A heart attack took him down before he was able to complete his vision but a vibrant left libertarianism still exists none the less.
As to the 2nd part of Ricky's comments in regards to Corp. power, some of that may be true but the larger and growing trend among the hardcore radical libertarians is that Corp. status is a state privilege and not just an illegit privilege but a market intervention by the state which the market radicals oppose. Corporations with their privilege of limited liability for example is not a natural operation of a true free market but is a state creation and thus perverts the market place with unequal actors. It also hijacks local customs and ways in the name of centralized power and creates an imbalance in true competition.
Ricky and others seems to refuse to actually read libertarian writings on the matter or even acknowledge this when pointed out because it mostly contradicts their talking points and thus kills the popular political narrative they postulate.
Seems to me before any discussion of what libertarianism actually is, knowing the history of your subject might be the first order of the day. But then that results in not so much discrediting libertarianism but rather calling out that which calls itself libertarian as not being libertarian in the first place. But for political purposes, maintaining the straw man is more effective when your goal is to just force others to what you think is right. Thus in the end they are no better than the Libertarians they so adamantly criticize.
Another POV on libertarianism, or left libertarianism can be found here. One can also hear the author who has a good radio voice read his essay here. This may also explain why I see no real difference in someone who voted for Trump and/or voted for Hillary. Or even Gary Johnson or even Ron Paul for that matter. Now pretend I was never here and just carry on as you were as in the end that is what you'll end up doing anyway!
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I actually read this!To some extent what Ricky is saying has some manner of truth to it. For starters, when I speak of libertarianism, I speak of the lower case form as opposed to the upper case Libertarianism that is a political movement to take power within a political state. For my own purposes I would say that a libertarian first is an advocate of the Non Aggression Axiom or Principle sometimes called NAP. The non aggression principle just means you can't use force or forms of coercion against another person, in effect, you first grant libertarianism or belief in liberty to the other person with the idea that reciprocity will occur and the other principle at play in libertarianism, all associations and interactions between people are voluntary. There it is, that's all it is. For me, libertarianism is No force and all human actions voluntary.
But at the same time and this speaks to the efforts of creating a "so-called" Libertarian Central State, to force someone using the State and its compulsory means to Libertarian ends is itself a very un-libertarian act and thus violates the very concepts of libertarianism. Thus, libertarianism by its nature is anti-State because it opposes the compulsory nature of the State. To even have a "Libertarian" party seems to violate libertarian principle.
The word libertarianism just means "one who believes in liberty" as "liber" in the ancient Roman was a god of freedom and his festival Liberalia (March 17th) was a festival dedicated to a time of free speech and expression of other rights. In the latin, liber means both freedom, hence our word liberty but also knowledge as in our word library. The bark of trees was called liber and such was used to write books upon thus liber could also refer to books as in knowledge and thus knowledge gives freedom. Our word liberal also comes from the word liber. The suffix arian and ism refer to belief or belief in.
In our modern sense, the word libertarian, the word liberal and even the word conservative are terms that have been turned on their heads and are quite different from what they were just 100 years ago.
Now to Ricky's point about American libertarianism verses what he called traditional libertarianism which I would call European libertarianism. The word libertarian goes back about 150 years ago when European anarchists first used the term in reference to themselves. In other words, libertarian and anarchist were the same thing. Thus there is truth to the old saying that an anarchist is a libertarian who took libertarianism to its conclusion.
The late anarcho communist Murray Bookchin in his book, The Ecology of Freedom, noted that "libertarian was a term created by nineteenth century European anarchists, not by contemporary right wing propriertarians." The first use of the term libertarian in written form came actually from NY City in the anarchist journal La Libertaire, Journal de Mouvment Social, publish by French communist anarchist Joseph Dejacque between 1858 and 1861. The French regional anarchist Congress at La Havre November 1880' used the term libertarian and later published a manifest entitled "Libertarian or Anarchist Communism." As a result of the 20th century failures of State communism, we fail often to realize that prior to the 20th century, there was a healthy movement of anti-state socialists and communists that would shame many of the so-called right libertarians who hold what they think are anti-state viewpoints. One can read the communist Mikhail Bakunin's work to get a healthy dose of real radical left wing anti-statism. I consider Bakunin a hero and yes he was a communist, a communist that told Marx to his face he was wrong to advocate for the use of the State to achieve communist ends. He said it would end in disaster and he was right. Marx had Bakunin kicked out of the First International because of this too.
But even in this undercurrent were emerging ideas of individualism that married into the strands of libertarianism which is nothing but anarchism by another name. In America we had our own 19th century radicals such as the individualist, anarchist Lysander Spooner whose "Constitution of No Authority" and his work of Jury Nullification IMO are must reads. In the late 1800's and early 1900's we had the anarchist and self described socialist Benjamin Tucker who not only argued for the rights of the individual but also for a true free market. And no, I do not conflate capitalism with free market because in the sense of crony or interventionist capitalism, I'm anti capitalist. Tucker also embraced what many call mutualism (a form of voluntary association I find very appealing) that is based off the works of Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Josiah Warren would be another American anarchist.
Leo Tolstoy had a form of anarchism based in the teaching of Jesus that many refer to Tolstoy as a christian anarchist. Some refer to Henry David Thoreau as an anarchist but I think of Thoreau with some anarchistic thinking and not as much an anarchist in whole cloth.
Our modern version of libertarianism associated with right wing politics emerged in the 1970's as a syncretism of sorts of classical liberalism, right wing anti-communism and opposition to FDR type public policy influenced by FDR's New Deal. It also was the efforts of Murray Rothbard to merge the Old Right with the New Left where Rothbard, former Goldwater speech writer turned anarchist Karl Hess and former SDS founder Carl Olgesby attempted this feat. I have a personal interest in this as Carl Olgesby and I are distant cousins. No we never knew one another personally and I consider that my lost, my great grandfather and Carl's father were cousins. But the results of Rothbard's efforts would help result in the Libertarian political party and the original Cato Institute was created to promote Rothbard's writings and theories before he had a falling out with Charles Koch of the Kochtopus fame. This form of Libertarianism (note the use of upper case as opposed to lower case "L") is what is often referred to today as rightwing libertarianism that later made a devil's deal with the republican party. A deal quite frankly the GOP had no intentions of ever honoring. (see Ron Paul)
There were libertarians such as Sam E. Konkin III, often referred to as SEK3 who tried to steer libertarians away from this devil's deal and he even wrote a manifesto called the New Libertarian Manifesto and coined the term and ideal Agorism as a method to fight it. SEK3 is also the man who coined the term Kochtopus as a pejorative in reference to the Koch brothers and their empire. A heart attack took him down before he was able to complete his vision but a vibrant left libertarianism still exists none the less.
As to the 2nd part of Ricky's comments in regards to Corp. power, some of that may be true but the larger and growing trend among the hardcore radical libertarians is that Corp. status is a state privilege and not just an illegit privilege but a market intervention by the state which the market radicals oppose. Corporations with their privilege of limited liability for example is not a natural operation of a true free market but is a state creation and thus perverts the market place with unequal actors. It also hijacks local customs and ways in the name of centralized power and creates an imbalance in true competition.
Ricky and others seems to refuse to actually read libertarian writings on the matter or even acknowledge this when pointed out because it mostly contradicts their talking points and thus kills the popular political narrative they postulate.
Seems to me before any discussion of what libertarianism actually is, knowing the history of your subject might be the first order of the day. But then that results in not so much discrediting libertarianism but rather calling out that which calls itself libertarian as not being libertarian in the first place. But for political purposes, maintaining the straw man is more effective when your goal is to just force others to what you think is right. Thus in the end they are no better than the Libertarians they so adamantly criticize.
Another POV on libertarianism, or left libertarianism can be found here. One can also hear the author who has a good radio voice read his essay here. This may also explain why I see no real difference in someone who voted for Trump and/or voted for Hillary. Or even Gary Johnson or even Ron Paul for that matter. Now pretend I was never here and just carry on as you were as in the end that is what you'll end up doing anyway!
It's a good read.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Pelosi's signs of dementia have been showing and everyone seems to ignore them.
moreluck
golden ticket member
No, you fixed it for Pelosi. She said it .
TearsInRain
IE boogeyman
what this thread needs now to spice things up is someone to unironically drop some ayn rand quotes
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I was going to bust on you for making up words but was shocked when I looked it up on Google only to find that it is a real word.
newfie
Well-Known Member
participation trophy and good conduct medal
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You can thank @rickyb and his comment, otherwise I had no intention of responding at all to this thread. People tend to define libertarianism or in the case of this thread Libertarianism to their own definitions, not that this is what people typically do anyway, so the point of any real discussion on the issue seemed impossible to result in any consensus from the start. And to be honest, some of the fault lay with people who call themselves Libertarian in the first place.
As to your OP and your own definition if you will, in a very general sense, that is a fair observation but like so many things in life, it is also far more nuanced too. The irony in this issue is that Ayn Rand who is often used as whip to beat on Libertarians and not that Libertarians don't fan those flames too, Rand actually understood Libertarians especially libertarians (the use of upper and lower case intentional) and the issue of the philosophy and as a result she detested it and noted this in her writings. The irony!
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I studied Objectivism too but I don't agree with many of it's beliefs but many I do.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Since you asked:
Ayn Rand Vol 10, Sept. 1971, from The Objectivist:
"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
Ayn Rand Vol 1, #7 The Ayn Rand Letter 1972:
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)"
Going further still. Rand would often give talks or lectures and then conclude but taking audience questions. Here of several of her Q&A questions later published in a volume entitled: Ayn Rand Answers, The Best of Her Q&A
1) Q What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.
2) Q What do you think of the Libertarian Party?
AR I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
3) Q What is your position on the Libertarian Party?
AR I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral.
4) Q Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?
AR Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.
This next and last question is very enlightening as Rand herself explains the infamous Galt's Gulch from Atlas Shrugged.
5) Q Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?
AR Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt’s Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn’t need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.
But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.
No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them.
Hope these quotes from Rand prove insightful and to illustrate Rand's hostility towards libertarianism but seems to me much of her hostility mirrors the hostility towards libertarians I often see here at BC. Odd those libertarian critics, justified or not, never considered themselves the actual Randians at the end of the day.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I don't believe in a historical Jesus as per the gospels exclusive but many of the philosophical moral statements attributed to him are excellent. That said, one can also appreciate some things offered by Rand without always accepting all her conclusions. Even Marx criticism of capitalism was not all wrong!
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Guilty as charged I guess.Since you asked:
Ayn Rand Vol 10, Sept. 1971, from The Objectivist:
"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
Ayn Rand Vol 1, #7 The Ayn Rand Letter 1972:
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)"
Going further still. Rand would often give talks or lectures and then conclude but taking audience questions. Here of several of her Q&A questions later published in a volume entitled: Ayn Rand Answers, The Best of Her Q&A
1) Q What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.
2) Q What do you think of the Libertarian Party?
AR I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
3) Q What is your position on the Libertarian Party?
AR I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral.
4) Q Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?
AR Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.
This next and last question is very enlightening as Rand herself explains the infamous Galt's Gulch from Atlas Shrugged.
5) Q Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?
AR Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt’s Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn’t need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.
But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.
No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them.
Hope these quotes from Rand prove insightful and to illustrate Rand's hostility towards libertarianism but seems to me much of her hostility mirrors the hostility towards libertarians I often see here at BC. Odd those libertarian critics, justified or not, never considered themselves the actual Randians at the end of the day.
One objection (pun intended) is I want a more moral system than Objectivism.
I think I have read everything Ayn Rand published that I came across.
Anthem is my favorite and it is a short novella.
Atlas Shrugged is a bit of a bore ... almost a philosophy book.
Fountainhead was a good book that started my exploration of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
I was an admirer of Ayn Rand while I was in High School (which is when I read most of her books and essays) on through college but then I began my acceptance of Libertarianism as more "American" than Objectivism.
Last edited:
Catatonic
Nine Lives
That sounds like Thomas Jefferson.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Among others, yes!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Many people who discover liberty so to speak typically have a Rand moment in their lives and most tend to move on at some point. Objectivism is not without some merit of consideration but I personally would not want to make it a life's philosophy. After reading Shrugged and getting the full picture of Galt's Gulch, to me it smacked of some kind of elitist cult and quite frankly I like more diversity in my life than that.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
A Perfect Statist of Mind.Now pretend I was never here and just carry on as you were as in the end that is what you'll end up doing anyway!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
A very "dominating" thought indeed!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Back to Ayn Rand, I've always got a good snicker out of this comparison of Emma Goldman to Ayn Rand by Karl Hess. If Rand could hear this, she would be fuming and quite honestly, had Goldman known Rand, I suspect she would be fuming as well.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having."
RIP Emma
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having."
RIP Emma
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I'd start with the private, corporal, sergeant and lieutenant Libertarians first and then move up the ranks and see what you get.
Seriously, so many people now call themselves Libertarians these days, like democrats and republicans, not sure how general agreement you will get. Thus the nature of politics.
Similar threads
