What are some of the difference between objectivists and austro-anarcho libertarians?
Well; objectivists deny the concept of a synthetic a priori - imo: based on a misunderstanding of it. As someone who's into methodology, this is the biggest difference. :p
I would say that an objectivist can be an austro-anarcho libertarian, but not all austrian-anarco libertarians are objectivists. (Nor are all objectivists austrian-anarcho libertarian, for that matter.)
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Objectivist belong to a cult lead by Objectivst Queen Ayn Rand who's a X° level capitalist.
Objectivists are for or do not mind central government with a monopoly on the use of violent force. Property rights believers are against violence in general and explicitly against agencies with monopolies on the use of violent force. Ayn Rand referred to Libertarians something to the effect of capitalist hippies.
Bogart:Ayn Rand referred to Libertarians something to the effect of capitalist hippies.
Because I think many of them were indeed hippies or at least acted like them. Rothbard spent a good amount of time trying to appeal to the left which Rand abhorred.
I have no doubt that Rand would be impressed by both Democracy the God that Failed and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Politically, not much, aside from the fact that Objectivists uphold the necessity of government for the functions of police, courts, and armed forces. Essentially the only function of government in Objectivism is to protect individual rights, meaning provide a criminal justice system, a system of civil courts to arbitrate property disputes under an absolute objective system of law (once this law is defined and established, it is the only moral law applying to men, therefore they see no one having a right to compete with it, thus rejecting anarchism) and a military to defend the country from external aggression (Rand herself supporting the "America First" foreign policy of the classical liberals.)
Contrary to what the other guy said, they don't support a centralized government, necessarily. It is more of a matter of limited or unlimited, and the question of centralized or decentralized is irrelevant because the point is to limit the apparatus of government to the aforementioned functions.
Rand was very favorable on Mises, and he is cited and quote thoroughly in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, along with Bohm-Bawerk and Menger, whose works are all recommended and listed in the bibliography.
Her differences with Mises were that he was a utilitarian (she formulated her rational ethics which supported her concept of individual rights) and in the realm of epistemology, as she rejected the rationalism vs empiricism dichotomy including the analytic/synthetic distinction, which, as the other guy mentioned, left no room for Kant's synthetic a priori. She essentially saw reason as identifying and integrating the material provided by the senses in accordance with the rules of logic, using inductive and deductive reasoning in their own ways. Nonetheless, her publication "The Objectivist" reviewed Mises' works Human Action, Planning for Freedom, Bureaucracy, Omnipotent Government, and Socialism, and spoke highly of his "rigorous and relentless logic" or something like that. She sold all those books at her lectures and conferences.
The bulk of the difference between Objectivism and libertarianism is that libertarianism generally accepts the non-aggression axiom (to her, not an axiom, but a principle which must be grounded and integrated within ethics) and a wide range of paths to this axiom are welcomed, from religion to Rothbard's Aristotelian/Lockean natural rights, to utilitarians, to Kantian a priorists, etc. Objectivism is a philosophy that includes its own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics, so these libertarians, to the Objectivist, are wrong, which is why they are generally unwelcoming of libertarians and vice versa.
She did have a personal falling out with Rothbard unfortunately, and often called libertarians hippies, emotionalists, general left-leaning amoral scum, etc. You can read the essay “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty” in her book The Voice of Reason which outlines a lot of the differences with libertarians.
The Objectivist conception of individual rights stems from the role of and functioning of reason in man's life. Essentially, the validation of capitalism is that it is the only system which allows man's mind to function unrestricted, allowing him to pursue his values free from force. Property rights are integral, and without them no rights are possible and no independent action is possible, but they are a corollary of the right to life, self-ownership isn't a primary, the right to life is the source. In this, they differ from Rothbardians.
I definitely agree Rand would have approved of a lot of Hoppe, if not the conclusions of anarchy and his epistemology, but definitely his devastating logic and "send the commies to the fucking moon" attitude.
As far as Austrian economics goes, aside from the methodological disagreements stemming from their epistemology, Objectivism has no specific “economics,” all Objectivist authors essentially cite Mises and the Austrians. George Reisman is an Objectivist who was a student of both Mises and Rand, author of Capitalism.
mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf
Anyway, hope that helps.
Well said. As some that comes more from the Objectivist viewpoint, I think you gave a good review of our similarities and our differences.
It is a shame that there is such a divide between the Objectivists and the Libertarians... regardless of our understanding of the very serious roots of those differences. The truth is that if the national political debate were between our two positions, either of us may still have something to struggle for but on the whole all of us would be a hell of a lot better off!
Cheers,
Steve
Objectivists typically have highly authoritarian opinions about "intellectual property".
A minor point,
George Reisman is an Objectivist who was a student of both Mises and Rand, author of Capitalism.
I don't think he is; in regards to metaphysics, Reisman explains in the introduction that the only major thesis of Rand that he agrees with is the objective ownership of one's self. He doesn't really explain his relationship with Ayn Rand after reading Atlas Shrugged, but he comments that he met Rand through Rothbard and after attending some of her discussion circles decided not to go again (until after reading Atlas Shrugged).
Objectivism is sort of a minarchist "we're better then libertarians" Ayn Rand cult. They are also very closed minded. That being said, you can still learn quite a bit from reading Ayn Rand. It has specific beliefs, for example, while some libertarians here may dislike altruism, or be atheists, objectivism opposes altruism and religion as an ideology.
Plus they are strangely like neocons. Very jingoistic. Just look into their views on war, they support Israel, war with Iran and the war in Iraq:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5171
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=5207
Overall, they are like our beloved Liberte, if Liberte was inconsistent, cultish and war mongering.
I wonder if she'll come back. As self consumed or egotistic as she was, she was a good poster.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
On IP:
Good point, I neglected to mention it. In Objectivism, the concept of property rights applies to ideas as well as physical property. So they uphold IP, whereas recent libertarians and Austrians such as Stephan Kinsella have argued there are no property rights in ideas. It is a bit misleading to say they are authoritarians on this idea however, (I am just responding to the OP's request to identify the differences) as they would hold that Kinsella's ideas are collectivist, seeking to abolish property rights that are legitimate and grounded in the Objectivist ethics. In other words, when the government protects your copyright or patent properly (they would certainly hold that a lot of IP laws today are arbitrary, much like the position of Mises and Rothbard themselves) the Objectivist would view that as legitimate defensive force against an aggressor. Libertarians of the anti-IP type would hold that it is aggression to enforce property rights in ideas because they are not legitimate. It is simply a matter of disagreement over the source of property rights leading to different conclusions.
Another difference I thought of, but only afterward, is the way many Austrians view self-interest. Mises, I believe, holds the view that whatever action a person takes, it demonstrates he has a preference for that end. Objectivists would agree there, of course upholding marginal utility and inverse value in economics, but the Austrians, and moreso on Hoppe I think, would go further to say that all individuals always act in their self-interest, that whatever values they choose, at least in their minds, they believe to be in their self-interest. Self-interest then is narrowly defined as “to prefer more over less.” So anyone is selfish, including say a robber who simply prefers more over less.
This doctrine is challenged in The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 5 entitled “Isn't Everyone Selfish?” In the Objectivist ethics, not all actions are automatically self-interested, as the standard is man's life qua man, it is objectively possible to act against one's own self-interest. The robber or mugger is not truly selfish, because it is never in your self-interest to initiate force.
http://marsexxx.com/ycnex/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf
@Johnathan
My interpretation of this Introduction to Capitalism is a bit different. First, he does not say that the only thesis of Rand's he agrees with is self ownership (I don't know where you're getting “objective self-ownership” as this doesn't appear anywhere in the book I know of.) He actually said he was arguing for anarcho-capitalism in their discussion groups, until he was forced to abandon the idea after debates with Rand. Second, he mentions that the Mises discussion group met with Rand's group after she wrote The Fountainhead, after which they decided not to meet again due to disagreements between her and Rothbard (see Rothbard's own fan letter to Rand for details.)
Then after she came out with Atlas Shrugged, the Mises group (technically though I suppose it was the Rothbard group since Mises was not present) met again with Rand again, now on good terms, and continued debates and discussion, during which she managed to convince some of them to her points (e.g. abandoning utilitarianism in favor of a rational ethics), and vice versa, but eventually split with Rothbard over the issue of anarchy.
They had still continued to associate though, despite the philosophical disagreement. It was during the lecture series with Nathaniel Branden that Rothbard was asked to present a paper on environmentalism I believe, and they had a personal issue over some alleged plagiarism. That is when Rothbard split, dissatisfied with the cult of personality that existed over Rand, taking some with him, but some sided with Rand including Robert Hessen and Reisman himself, and some such as Ralph Raico staying friendly with both sides. So he is saying in the context of him disagreeing with Rand, that was after The Fountainhead but before Atlas Shrugged.
Reisman's ideas themselves are highly influenced by Rand, so it seems to be consistent with Objectivism to me, a sort of melding of Objectivism with Austrian and classical economics. Reisman and his wife were board members of the Ayn Rand Institute for a long time, until he quit over a disagreement with Leonard Peikoff on how to run the thing. Anyway, that is my understanding of the issue. Been a while since I read that part, but people can look at it themselves.
@Libertyandlife
Of course they are close minded. They would argue, they are close minded to certain things they believe to be wrong, and open minded to other things. They aren't neoconservatives, as one can read their views on the neocons, which is pretty much that they are “the worst of both the left and the right.” There is a book written by Objectivists C Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook called Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, which deals with them. There is also Rand's own essay in Capitalism: The Unknown Idea called “Conservatism: An Obituary” in which she pretty much tears the New Right a new one.
http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservatism-Obituary-C-Bradley-Thompson/dp/1594518319
http://arc-tv.com/conservatism-an-obituary/
There is no room in Objectivism, however, for pacifism, and they are not anti-war, nor pro-war necessarily, but they do not share Rothbard's views on war. The charge that they support the Iraq or Afghanistan wars is false, although they do support, and did support from the beginning, war with Iran and that essay you linked to “End States That Sponsor Terrorism” explains why.
Rand herself was opposed to every war, including WW2, and was a total isolationist. You can read her views in “The Roots of War” in Capitalism: The Unknown Idea. However, she upheld essentially in foreign policy the same principles of ethics: self-interest. There's a monograph published by ARI called “The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest” which applies some of these ideas to modern situations. There is actually much a Rothbardian and certainly a Hoppean could agree with (end all foreign aid, bring all the troops home, dismantle all overseas bases, stop taxing, stop spending, get out of the UN and kick them out, stop interfering with other countries' affairs unless it involves us, stop sacrificing the lives of American soldiers for “democracy” and other altruistic nonsense, free-trade with all, etc.), but it is not all flowers and peace signs. They pretty much uphold “If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. If you fuck with us, we'll blow you up.” For whatever it's worth, but that's pretty much what they believe.
http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Self-Interest-Moral-America/dp/0962533661
They aren't so much jingoistic as simply not multi-culturalists, and tolerance of what they view as anti-civilizational forces isn't a virtue. In this, they are probably closer to Austrians such as Hoppe than others. They uphold Western civilization as superior to what they view as "barbarism," theocracy, State Islam and so forth, so they don't think the Palestinians have a right to establish a state and support Israel. The cry is always “but Israel violates rights,” but again, they don't much care about what Israel does, so long as they aren't doing it to America, they support them against the Muslims. (To them, America's job is to protect the rights of Americans, not Israelis or Palestinians, so they don't care about the settlements and so forth, they just think Israel as a culture is morally superior to the Arabs, as the Arabs are against Western civilization, the Israelis aren't, therefore one should morally support Israel. Again, just stating their view.)
As far as Rand being “egoistic and self-absorbed,” well of course. She called her ethics “egoism” for a reason. Her ethics are essentially that man is a thinker who depends on reason for his survival, he should therefore pursue his values rationally, and not sacrifice to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. She believed an ethic of rational egoism was absolutely necessary for capitalism, and if one accepted that, then supporting laissez-faire must follow. She would essentially disagree with any libertarian who rejected egoism.
Initiate,
Where does Reisman write that he was arguing with Rand about anarcho-capitalism? On p. xiv he writes,
At both meetings, most of the time was taken up with my arguing with Ayn Rand about whether values were subjective or objective...
Given Reisman's ignorance of anarcho-capitalism, as shown by his criticism of anarchism (which he maybe right in general, but does not address Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism) and his criticism of Rothbard of being "an anarchist", I have a hard time believing that Reisman was ever an anarchist, or ever supported anarchism.
Regarding his decision to stop seeing Rand until after reading Atlas Shrugged, Reisman writes,
Because of such unpleasantness, I did not desire to see her again until after I read Atlas Shrugged.
This is written after he details his experience with her, where she says that one of his positions, "was worse than anything a communist could have said."
In regards to the idea of objective self or self-ownership, Reisman first alludes to it in n. 12 of the preface (unfortunately, I cannot find the reference I am thinking of),
This us a conclusion that I now consider to be mistaken, because it attaches no objective meaning to the concept of self.
It's clear that Reisman was heavily influenced by Rand, and Reisman does admit that he abandoned Mises's believe in subjective values for Rand's theory on objective values and ethics, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim that Reisman was an objectivist (just like it would be unjust to claim that he was a complete subjectivist). He, like (I believe) Rothbard and Hoppe, deviated from Mises's beliefs on subjective ethics — perhaps more so than those two named —, but I don't see him as an objectivist in the same ilk as Rand or Peikoff. He would, at least, not agree with all of their conclusions.
Objectivism is sort of a minarchist "we're better then libertarians" Ayn Rand cult. They are also very closed minded. That being said, you can still learn quite a bit from reading Ayn Rand. It has specific beliefs, for example, while some libertarians here may dislike altruism, or be atheists, objectivism opposes altruism and religion as an ideology. Plus they are strangely like neocons. Very jingoistic. Just look into their views on war, they support Israel, war with Iran and the war in Iraq: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5171 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=5207
I don't have to write a book to say that "you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, it won't turn out well."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
@ Johnathan
The section I am referring to where Reisman debated Ayn Rand about anarchy is on p. xlvi of the Preface. He is talking about the tensions between Rothbard and Rand when he says:
Shortly after that break, I took Rothbard's place in making a presentation in Ayn Rand's living room of the case for "competing governments," i.e. the purchase and sale even of such government services as police, courts, and military in a free market. As a result of Ayn Rand's criticisms, I came to the conclusion that the case was untenable...
Then he goes on to describe why.
I didn't mean to suggest that he would agree with all of anyone's conclusions necessarily, just the philosophy itself.
I take back some of my comments on Objectivism. Frankly I don't know too much about them to strongly criticize them. But I still think their cult of personality, support of Israel and war with Iran is creepy.
Libertyandlife: I take back some of my comments on Objectivism. Frankly I don't know too much about them to strongly criticize them. But I still think their cult of personality, support of Israel and war with Iran is creepy.
I know plenty about it being an Ex-randroid of 5 years and quite well read in it.
Israel,War and Islam are their major talking points these days.I knew an Objectivist who blogged most about Islam and had a "we have to get them first" attitude.They hold this whole war of civilizations view.Like someone said they seemed to have absorbed a lot of Neo-con views.
I think objectivism is ignorant of history,philosophy,science,art,politics etc.
I think Ayn rand's best ideas were borrowed from other places- ironic when you look at howshe claimed libertarianism stole her ideas.I think her original ideas e.g. her aesthetics were absurd.I think Rand's arguments are often weak ,superficial,emotive and contradictory.I dont think her contributions in epistemology and metaphysics were great either .
summing up her whole philosophy: it has a some good borrowed aspects which amounts to most of her ideas but these were not well thought through by her and are removed from their legacy and argued for with ignorance of history.Her original ideas ae shallow and strange.
These days I tend to think of the idea of a single person or idea providing an all encompassing rational valid and true philosophy as weird,cultish and pretty damn unlikely.
she was reasonably ok on this except her atheist arguments are weak and her anti-religiosity is rabid and irrational.Metaphysical Realism- well that existed in Aristotle and Aquinas' time.her proof for God's non existence was weak.Her hatred of religion was extreme- she ignores that the foundation of western culture is christianity for better or worse.Rothbard does better at proving free will exists as do others
she was pretty good except on a priori truths (she denies a priori truths exist) and she never explained a philosophy of science.Rothbard's epistemology via Mises,Aristotle,Aqunias and realism is superior.
On ethics she was pretty good. Rand avocated a weak survivialist type of Natural law.Natural law has been around since the Stoics,Aristotle,Plato,Aquinas The Scholastics and the school of thought called Thomism .however her huge mistake was the altruism/egoism divide,which is a false dichtomy.She ignores the christian origins of her natural law ethic.Her version of natural law is weak.It's not new .I advocate a variant form of it that differs only slightly from Rothbard's brief explaination of it.I also like virtue ethics.As said above her contrast of Altruism and Selfishness is weird.I see no difference between helping others and helping yourself.They are both interrelated.I think most people are naturally inclined to do both
possibly her weakest area.she goes along with the standard minarchist position in a vague way.Her positions on war and IP are strange.She offered superficial criticisms of other political systems.Her minarchist is weak in light of Rothbards ideas.Rand was far too pro war. her modern followers support Iraq and she supported wars of aggression to spread freedom ,reason and western value in this she and other objectivists have the same motives as Neo-conservatives.She attacked libertarianism.Smeared anarcho-capitalism by misunderstanding and created a straw man of it.She ignored the history of libertarian thought and ignored revisionist history and so much of the very tradition of the ideas she held.Rothbard and others politics is superior.
Then there's this:
Yaron brook gives mistaken view that Islamists hate the west because of it's wealth etc.
in Just war theory vs American self defense Yaron brook argues for attacking civilians in war
"As Churchill and General Sherman understood, civilians play a crucial role in sustaining the military aggression of an enemy country, and directly targeting them can save the lives of one's own soldiers and civilians".He also argues " Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil."
Yaron Brook defends the dropping of the A-bomb in Hiroshima
here are some quotes from the piece "Despite paroxysms of America-bashing by our professional intellectuals on the sixtieth anniversary of the bombings, America should be proud to have dropped the Bomb."
Objectivist Quotes ilustrating their mentality(of course it doesn't speak for all objectivists.Taken from actual Objectivist I once befriended.) :-
"Not really surprised that this group is full of blame-America-first idiots and America-haters... Some even claim America has more terrorist records than Iran."(On Ron Paul group)
"Who in the world flies with their cell phone packed.....er taped....inside the luggage packed in the belly of the plane? Next time, it will be real explosives and I hope liberals and libertarians, including Obama and his wife, were on board..."
"Libertarian Ron Paul is the worst cheerleader of terrorism"
"I don't believe in the invalid concepts of "interventionism" and "non-interventionism." The most rational state policy is the policy of self-interest. That is, a state has the duty to defend itself against invasion or any kind of external threat. To wage war against a provocateur does mean "interventionism," if this term has any objective meaning at all."
"The refusal to "intervene" by embracing a policy of appeasement is an act of cowardice, and such a policy puts the safety and security of a whole nation at the mercy of a hostile enemy waiting for every opportunity to strike..."
"People at Mises.org are politically correct idiots"
"Libertarianism is a floating abstraction"
"I support Israel because it's a civilized country. Israel produced most of the technological wonders of the modern era in just a few years after its foundation. The Jews never go around murdering people in the name of their religion. The Muslims do. You have to choose sides. If you choose to support Muslim, then you condemn Jews and infidels to death".
"It's either-or. It's either you want a Muslim world or a semi-free world that we have today."
"Those who defend Islam also defend Shariah law."
"We only have to guarantee and secure the complete, total, absolute separation of state and church. This also means that churches and religious establishments should not be exempt from taxation. Since taxation has been deeply ingrained in our culture and in our way of thinking, taxation must be imposed on everybody uniformly."
Ayn Rand Quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
These highlight her inconsistences and bad statements.
"The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. "
"It was the agrarian, feudal South that maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped it out"
"it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, "
Rand contradicts herself in these two paragraphs claiming
"a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny"
yet at the same time says "although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism,"
and elsewhere stating "The clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the major errors in the Constitution. That clause, more than any other, was the crack in the Constitution’s foundation"
"The infamous times you call the Dark Ages were an era of intelligence on strike, "
"The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshipping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; "
"Throughout history the state had been regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as the ruler of the individual—as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion"
PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .RAND: Certainly.
PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?
RAND: Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
"The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, "
"The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose"
The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action.
"It is true that nuclear weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate. But it makes no difference to a man whether he is killed by a nuclear bomb or a dynamite bomb or an old-fashioned club.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
^Wow, I take back my previous statement on taking back what I originally said about objectivism.
I consider myself, to emphasize some disagreements with Objectivisism, Objectivistic. I will provide my interpretations of her views, and if you believe my interpretations are incorrect, show me where I am wrong
Ayn Rand on the problem of not being able to disprove God as reason for believing in its/his existence:
"You can't disprove a negative. That is a law of logic."
This is my favorite rebuke of the most common misuse of logic to justify a belief in a deity. The very identify of a negative, being something with no proof, compels anyone looking to disprove it to end in failure. Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence. I don't see how this is rabid irrationality. And I agree that she possessed a hatred of religion. This hatred was grounded in the belief that religion asks man to deny selif-interest, believe in the imperceptible, and regard himself as inherently evil (Original Sin.) Christianity is dependent upon a book that contradicts science, and nature.
You can find that quote on youtube
Epistomology:
By a priori, you mean the idea that we can gain knowledge without experience? Or that knowledge is independent from experience? I apologize I should know these terms. I am just beginning to gain more interest in philosophy and the epistomology of it.
Ethics:
The difference between selfishness and altruism is the difference between yourself as your conscious highest value, and others as your highest value. I think that everyone thinks and acts as processes leading up to deciding what is in your interest. What she was protesting was the morality of others being of higher value to you, as this is a contradiction of our self-interest. You will not regard a stranger as more important than a friend. Altruism is impossible.
Politics:
I agree with a minarchist position, simply because of the power of the government is not held in legality, it is not held at all. If courts are private, they are no longer courts, because they are not backed by legality. If this anarcho-capitalist vision was realized, you would have multiple courts will multiple sizes. You would have an abundance of armies, companies with armies, multiple militaries with opposing causes.
"A society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare."
Logic As Law 1227:I agree with a minarchist position, simply because of the power of the government is not held in legality, it is not held at all. If courts are private, they are no longer courts, because they are not backed by legality. If this anarcho-capitalist vision was realized, you would have multiple courts will multiple sizes.
So you're for one world government?
Give this a read. Law comes from the market, not from the state.
My initial response is to say no since agreement between everyone is impossible, but I can say that to refute any federal government.
But if the market of ideas is the source of all action, is not the institution of government, law, and state a product of the market?
I would have assumed that the participants of the market realize the fallibility of those participating, and have thus developed a government a security deposit on the posterity of mankind.
In shorter terms than I would think you would want to use, what is your most significant disagreement with minarchism?
Logic As Law 1227:My initial response is to say no since agreement between everyone is impossible, but I can say that to refute any federal government.
Logic As Law 1227:But if the market of ideas is the source of all action, is not the institution of government, law, and state a product of the market?
Obviously, not everything which emerges from the market is good. The point I was making is that law comes before the state just as money and trade and society emerge before the state. The state doesn't create these things out of the aether.
Logic As Law 1227:I would have assumed that the participants of the market realize the fallibility of those participating, and have thus developed a government a security deposit on the posterity of mankind.
Assumptions are an issue.
Logic As Law 1227:In shorter terms than I would think you would want to use, what is your most significant disagreement with minarchism?
The simplest argument I can make is that a government with a territorial monopoly on law and defense is by design incapable of protecting individual liberty. The nightwatchman state is, in my opinion, a farce.
liberty student:The simplest argument I can make is that a government with a territorial monopoly on law and defense is by design incapable of protecting individual liberty. The nightwatchman state is, in my opinion, a farce.
And why would liberterian governments be able to protect individual liberty? And what is individual liberty as to your interpretation?
What a blunder.
Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.
Fallacious appeal to ignorance unless further qualified.
"What a blunder."
Great, substaintiated, and cohesive argument.
"Fallacious appeal to ignorance unless further qualified."
Actually, structured appeal to fact based knowledge
I said what a blunder because you can see how blatantly obvious it is. I'm embarassed for Ayn Rand.
Disproving a negative? That's proving a positive. We do this all the time. There's nothing special or magical about it. If I needed to substantiate this further, we'd all be in big, big trouble.
How about proving a negative? I think that's what you were trying to say, anyhow. We do this all the time, too.
It's called the law of non-contradiction. Also, modus tollens anybody?
Ouch.
Let E stand for evidence.
No E that X. Therefore, E that not X.
This is fallacious, sorry. It can be rescued, but it has to actually be substantiated. You can't just say: 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence.'
@ Logic as Law
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"- Carl Sagan.
And Carl Sagan obviously held no religious beliefs.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Or she would say they stole and/or bastardized her ideas and came up with nothing on their own.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Perhaps I can help clear this debate up somewhat. The phrase “you can't prove a negative” does not mean “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” which is clearly false. What it is, however, is a statement of the burden of proof principle. The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. That is what is meant, that belief and non-belief are not the same.
Atheism is not the belief in a non-God, it's is the principled refusal to credit an arbitrary idea that has no rational basis and makes no sense.
Would you accept the principle that you need a reason to justify not believing in things? If so, what disproof do you have of Zeus, Odin, Thor, Ra, or invisible non-corporeal unicorns that give no heat signature and only exist in this dimension when you're not thinking about them?
Rand's point here is that theism and atheism are in different epistemological categories. It would be absurd to commit to every idea in the universe, any and every wild claim, until it has been disproved. Instead, reason demands committal to those ideas only with rational support. Belief in an idea cannot be the default position, until canceled by disproof. Belief has to be justified. That's what it means that you aren't called upon to “prove a negative.”
Austro-libertarians mainly are only concerned with economics. I don't know if ALs really care about consistency beyond that; though most might believe in the non-aggression axiom or 'deductive logic'. But sadly I think most of them think these things are axiomatic and not necessary to justify. Mainly they are about consistency around economics and ...ethics as it has to do with people versus the government. Beyond that it is maybe possible to believe any possible thing and also be an AL. I even got into an argument here a few years ago about how 'vulgar' I was for criticizing Paul Krugman.
I think that is what Rand means calling the libertarians hippies: many believe that they are right, but don't want to explain it. They have a philosophy of negatives... "i hate this, I hate that"... but no consistent philosophy. And a big emphasis on big tents for big tent sake.
ALs also seem to deal with hypothetical situations and talk about things they can't really control: fed, the state, political candidates, etc.
Objectivism is a philosophy. It attempts to be a whole system for and about living life now. Objectivists are only as 'dogmatic' as ALs must seem to mainstream economists and political theorists*. I don't believe in or understand all aspects of Objectivism, but I think there is a lot interesting stuff to apply to everyday life. Even if it makes people uncomfortable to talk about stuff other than just politics. Particularly I like Nathaniel Branden -- who I know moved away from 'the circle' -- but nonetheless holds beliefs that I think personally very useful and intelligent. I'm not very knowledgeable about Peikoff or the types of people who call themselves Objectivists to be honest.
* One of my favorite things Ayn Rand said was when she defended Barry Goldwater against the rest of the Republicans (of the Rockefeller 'liberal' variety) calling him 'an extremist'. She said something to effect of the word 'extremist' was only just then invented as a means of slander. Not as a meaningful word. It's basically a slander without having to refute the principles behind someone's actions or beliefs. Hence, Goldwater's famous rewording of Cicero (written by the great anarchist writer Karl Hess) "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Logic As Law 1227:And why would liberterian governments be able to protect individual liberty?
Because they would not be monopolies.
Logic As Law 1227:And what is individual liberty as to your interpretation?
Non-aggression.
John Ess:Austro-libertarians mainly are only concerned with economics.
John, you have been here for much too long to post this rubbish. Please.
John Ess:I think that is what Rand means calling the libertarians hippies: many believe that they are right, but don't want to explain it. They have a philosophy of negatives... "i hate this, I hate that"... but no consistent philosophy. And a big emphasis on big tents for big tent sake. ALs also seem to deal with hypothetical situations and talk about things they can't really control: fed, the state, political candidates, etc.
More of the same.
JackCuyler:I have no doubt that Rand would be impressed by both Democracy the God that Failed and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Or she would say they stole and/or bastardized her ideas and came up with nothing on their own.
Good point. I so much want to like her for introducing me to rational egoism, but she was so narcissitic and inconsistent at times.
I am convinced that my use of the term "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" was frivolous. And my coupling it with the idea of disproving a negative deserves the same adjective.
Logic As Law 1227:I am convinced that my use of the term "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" was frivolous. And my coupling it with the idea of disproving a negative deserves the same adjective.
It takes a big man to admit a mistake, particularly around here where no one is ever wrong.
You're ok with me.
liberty student:It takes a big man to admit a mistake, particularly around here where no one is ever wrong. You're ok with me.
Appreciated.
And yeah, the posters on this board are so confident, ardent and adamant in their beliefs, that debates never conclude. I just started to explore these forums, and I am intrigued by the ideas. But debates don't seem like they lead to alterations in beliefs, which I suppose can be an indication of their strength, or of their oppression of facts and impartiality.
I try to manage the idea of holding a conviction and allowing knowledge to persevere. I think that management is vital and extremely difficult.
^It's not necessarily a bad thing, most libertarians just do not like compromising their beliefs, though some just mistake not compromising with arrogance. Either way we're not like republicans who will say yes to the free market, then hold anti-trade views (or straight up support candidates who create more regulations, George Bush for example).
Don't get discouraged. :) For every poster in a thread, there are at least 5-10 other people reading it. It's usually those who are confident who speak. Those who are unsure, on the fence, or willing to have their minds changed are usually quiet observers.
"John, you have been here for much too long to post this rubbish."
When I look at the books for sale/download here, it is mainly economics. Most of the articles deal with economics.
If you look at the ARI, they have all kinds of topics as a matter of course. There is a different intention.
All people are interested in more than just economics. But the moniker 'austro-libertarian' mainly has to do with a similarity in economic opinions. Whereas Objectivism is more encompassing; you can predict the main attitudes toward a wider number of things.
Logic as Law:And yeah, the posters on this board are so confident, ardent and adamant in their beliefs, that debates never conclude.
There are folk here who I would normally even agree with, but because of the behavior you describe, I feel they stunt their own intillectual growth. It may be arrogance of me to say that however. Still I feel that many people here are more concerned with being right, then discovering any type of truth. I know I myself have been guilty of this in the past(Even LS has caught me a few times), so I just constantly have to proceed in a positive manner, and remind myself why I am really here. :)
Thanks for the bright spirits!
Giant_Joe:Don't get discouraged. :) For every poster in a thread, there are at least 5-10 other people reading it. It's usually those who are confident who speak. Those who are unsure, on the fence, or willing to have their minds changed are usually quiet observers.
I certainly agree, and I did not intend to convey the impression of discouragement. I just see a pattern based on observing the threads that indicates neither person usually bends in any facet of their argument.
Libertyandlife:^It's not necessarily a bad thing, most libertarians just do not like compromising their beliefs, though some just mistake not compromising with arrogance. Either way we're not like republicans who will say yes to the free market, then hold anti-trade views (or straight up support candidates who create more regulations, George Bush for example).
I concur; I believe the holding of conviction is one of the most honorable, to use the word almost redundantly, conviction, that man can have. But I agree that your desire to believe in your argument can lead to ignoring facts or reason to confirm your belief.
filc:There are folk here who I would normally even agree with, but because of the behavior you describe, I feel they stunt their own intillectual growth. It may be arrogance of me to say that however. Still I feel that many people here are more concerned with being right, then discovering any type of truth. I know I myself have been guilty of this in the past(Even LS has caught me a few times), so I just constantly have to proceed in a positive manner, and remind myself why I am really here. :) Thanks for the bright spirits!
I appreciate the input!
Ideologues have a susceptibility to fact evading as a means of maintaining conviction. And I do not use the term ideologues disparagingly.