A recent, short article by W. James Antle, III in the American Spectator would lead us to believe that Libertarianism has only two faces, the comic and the tragic. I have met some of them who do have a Pollyanna view of the future, and some who are gloom and doom types. I think this simplifies the picture a bit.
There are pro-self-defense Libertarians and there are anti-war, pacifist Libertarians.
There are pro-individual rights Libertarians (the majority, but inconsistent), and there are pro-society-rights Libertarians, who want to kill or curtail patent and copyright protections.
There are Left-Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion Libertarians.
There are minimal government Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians, Libertarians in favor of private schools, but also Libertarians who favor public schools. Some only favor vouchers, which unfortunately leads to government control of even private schools.
There are the gun nuts, the gold nuts, the secessionists and some outright libertines who would hold that literally anything you do in private cannot be interfered with by others.
There are religious Libertarians and atheist Libertarians. I suspect that religion is the "moral foundations" for most Libertarians, which means their political philosophy depends on subjective interpretations of revelations from another world and that the core orientation is not toward a better way of living in this world.
How many more faces might Libertarianism have?
Of course, some would hail this as the true diversity, the really Big Tent.
So many faces. Not just two. Not Janus, but rather Hydra of Lerna, and if you try to cut one of the heads off, two heads grow back.
Could the problem be that the movement has no foundation? Yes, there is no unified philosophical basis for the movement called Libertarianism. At the end of the day, for an organization aiming at a correct and rational way of ordering society, the (multiple) Libertarian ways will spell DOOM. Compromises will be made with other political interests on financing government, the will try to appease enemies just when deadly force of war is not only permitted but morally required, they will fight among themselves when issues like abortion come to the forefront.
They will squabble, they will change their positions over time, and they will have trouble defending their cause. It will become more and more distorted. Prospective members will be drawn by the message of one Libertarian, only to be repelled by that of another. They will migrate from the minimal state view to anarchism, and perhaps reverse. They will join with non-libertarians to support individual issues, only to be confused by the public as agreeing in all things with the non-libertarians. As a political party, they will have more and more trouble agreeing on a platform, trimming away piece-by-piece many essential planks until only generalities remain.
The only halfway sensible-sounding defense of Libertarianism on this that I have found is that of Randy Barnett, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, in his "The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism." Barnett is my favorite expositor of objective law, with his books Restoring the Lost Constitution and The Structure of Liberty. His failings become clear in the paper on the Moral Foundations. He acknowledges that Libertarianism has the choice of building on a sound philosophy of individual rights or on consequentialism.
That paper reveals, however, the lack of real foundations. Of the two options offered, the consequentialist is best supported through various historical sources and logical argument. The individual rights side, under the label of "natural rights" appears to be backed up only by rather ancient sources such as John Locke, whose thinking almost amounts to asserting such rights to be self-evident (echoed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence), or axiomatic. The problem with this is that the rights usually denoted by such language, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or property, are hardly axiomatic. It is totally possible to talk about rights without assuming these.
The credibility of this movement will be determined by the public based on the unified image, philosophy, reasoning and common conclusions drawn by the participants. This means they have to stop being a movement of big-tent conglomerations of Hippies, ready to accept everything and anything that offends Democrats and Republicans. This means the movement must build a proper philosophy as a foundation and hold consistently to all of the consequences, a replete, full platform, with relentless defense of all of the details.
The Solution
Individual rights need to have soundly established, yes even proven foundations! The most interesting faction I find in the movement: Libertarians who support Objectivism and the Ayn Rand Institute. I do not mean any organization that advocates revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with the dishonest pseudo-advocates of Objectivism (most notably David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra.
Here you will find not only the right political philosophy, but also the proper moral foundations.
It means adopting Objectivism.
Making the non-aggression principle (NAP) out to be an axiom and the only foundation of a cultural and political movement is a huge mistake. It has clearly led to a multitude of versions of the main thoughts and derivative conclusions, a disparate and conflicting set of principles.
The concept of no one having the right to initiate coercion against another is a laudable political principle, hower, it is not an axiom. By itself it will not stand against arguments that "Might is Right" and "Individuals must sacrifice for the common good." The NAP must have a solid philosophical foundation, a basis in the facts or reality judged by logic.
The need for freedom is based on the need to reason. Force and the threat of it, and the threat of fraud throttles reason. Reason is the uniquely human means of dealing with reality in order to flourish, yea, in order to survive. If reason is shut down by fear of force, man is rendered almost helpless, he has no choices. Chaos could then ensue.
Why is the threat of force and the use of force itself so harmful? It reduces one's choices to nothing. Retaliation is required, but is not always possible. Sometimes one must wait until an appropriate authority can intervene.
The ethics of Objectivism is the only proper foundation for an individual rights political movement. In turn, that ethic needs to be founded on the solid ground of Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology.
Libertarian does not have such a foundation. You, who call yourselves Libertarians, must find such a foundation. You must return to your Objectivist roots.
©2009 Peter Namtvedt, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Last modified: Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Peter Namtvedt only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Peter Namtvedt is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Peter Namtvedt of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Peter Namtvedt |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-04 14:52:42
For me, libertarian philosophy derives from one principle: the non-aggression principle. People often differ on derivatives from that principle, and some libertarians reject it altogether, but for me it is the principle by which I judge all political philosophy. Contrary to your claim, using the NAP is not a mistake. It is a choice, and it is a good choice. Just because people don't always agree on how to interpret the NAP doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that people of like mind can disagree.
What you see as division and failure, I see as diversity and healthy growth. This doesn't mean that I don't apply NAP when I disagree with a fellow libertarian...to the contrary, I often do! The difference is that unlike you, I don't despair if someone disagrees with me on specifics while generally agreeing on the broad brush.
I also think it's important to note that Objectivism, as defined by Rand, rejects the non-aggression principle. Even though she first expressed the principle, she later rejected it when it was pointed out to her that the NAP opposes first-strike initiatives against the Sovient Union. Rand's politics definitely leaned toward interventionism against communist/socialist states, an anti-NAP interpretation.
By the way, I am neither pro-war nor anti-war. I am pro-peace. Those who are anti-war focus on war. I prefer to focus on peace. You get what you think about the most.
Posted By: W. James Antle III
Date: 2009-03-04 15:26:35
I was actually just blogging about an article by someone else and pointing out some areas I disagreed.
Posted By: Ayn R. Key
Date: 2009-03-04 16:50:04
The pro-self-defense libertarians are also the anti-war libertarians. What you are lamenting is that there are libertarians who are more pure and there are those who are more moderate. Some lean further to the center, some to the left, some to the right.
How do other ideologies that have purists and moderates succeed?
Posted By: Becky Chandler
Date: 2009-03-04 18:26:48
What defeats libertarians and is disastrous for libertarianism is this very type of discussion. Libertarianism often, at best, degenerates into a dormitory room all night bullshit session, or at worse, an agonzing excruciating self and collective examination--which often leads to total despair or a fantasy life out in the bunker.
One thing that is commonly discussed for hours on end is exactly what programs will be first eliminated once libertarians take control of the world--that is a real pressing problem.
People inclined toward libertarianism need to think less and become a whole lot less self-absorbed. There are some pretty basic things and concepts that can be agreed on, and a few (such as abortion) that there will always be internal disagreements over--so what.
All this anarcho-capitalist, objectivsm, etc. crap--for some people that kind of thing is a fun mental exercise or somehting--but it is most worthless BS.
I am beginning to think the problem is mostly about the type of characters drawn to libertarianism.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-03-04 20:47:38
Peter,
Interesting piece. I'd write a rejoinder to it, but I already did some years ago.
The Ayn Rand Institute isn't Objectivist, it's quasi-Randite. Its principals' standard of what constitutes "Objectivism" is whatever Rand said or whatever words Peikoff et al. are able to shove into her mouth posthumously to arrive at the conclusions they want to arrive at.
Kelley's "open system" amounts to nothing more or less than the obviously truthful statement that Objectivism subsists in actually applying and extending its own known principles rather than in referring to "scripture" (e.g. irrational assertions made by Rand or Peikoff but unsupported by those principles). Kelley, the Brandens and Sciabarra have each, in their own way, contributed to the preservation and extension of Objectivism. ARI occasionally does good work, but on balance they've been a corrupting influence on Objectivism.
Regards,Tom Knapp
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-05 04:37:43
At the risk of "piling on" Tom Knapp's comment, let me also point out that Objectivism as it is defined by Objectivists is not truly objective. For instance, the non-aggression principle clearly qualifies as an objective principle, yet because Objectivists sometimes find that the NAP is inconvenient to the truths they want to espouse, they reject it.
Question: What kind of objectivist rejects an objective principle?
Answer: Only a self-described objectivist who is actually engaging in subjectivism rejects an objective principle.
Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2009-03-05 13:48:38
Randy Barnett isn't even libertarian. The first article you cited from him proved that.
Posted By: Ayn R. Key
Date: 2009-03-05 16:45:49
The question is "Is Objectivism a finished work"? Is there a closed cannon of Objectivism and everything else is only commentary on it, or is there an open cannon and those who aren't part of the officially sanctioned orthodoxy able to contribute to Objectivism?
If the latter, than Branden et al are objectivists.
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-05 17:18:12
Walt Thiessen said:"I also think it's important to note that Objectivism, as defined by Rand, rejects the non-aggression principle. Even though she first expressed the principle, she later rejected it when it was pointed out to her that the NAP opposes first-strike initiatives against the Sovient Union. Rand's politics definitely leaned toward interventionism against communist/socialist states, an anti-NAP interpretation."By my reading, the radical capitalist politics of Objectivism is wrapped around this principle:No person shall initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by any other person.How does the Libertarian NAP differ from this principle? Do you happen to have a citation of the text in which she rejected the Libertarian NAP?Since Rand's politics does not allow for taxation to wage war (or for any other purpose), a first strike against another government would have to have the overwhelming support of the populace to pull it off. The threat to the nation would have to be both grave and obvious. Intervention in that context would be rare indeed - not really sufficient to qualify for an -ism on the end of it. And by such intervention, whose rights would be trampled?
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-05 17:40:10
Ayn R. Key asked:
"Is there a closed cannon of Objectivism and everything else is only commentary on it, or is there an open cannon and those who aren't part of the officially sanctioned orthodoxy able to contribute to Objectivism?"
Ask this question about Aristotle or any other philosophy. Every philosopher's philosophy like every author's oeuvre is closed at their death. One may comment, interpret, apply, agree with, adhere to, and adopt the ideas of any philosopher's product. But no one may ever add to it.
Therefore, the word Objectivist is contextual. In the context of the philosopher who compiled it, it refers to Ayn Rand alone. In the context of an adherent, it refers to one who agrees with some or all of her ideas, and integrates them into their own personal philosophy that will close upon their death.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-03-05 18:57:08
"Every philosopher's philosophy like every author's oeuvre is closed at their death. One may comment, interpret, apply, agree with, adhere to, and adopt the ideas of any philosopher's product. But no one may ever add to it."
In a word, bullshit.
An oeuvre ("the total output of a writer or artist") is by definition specific to an author or authors.
A philosophy ("a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school") is not.
In particular, a philosophy built on sound axioms and rigorous logic -- as Objectivism claims to be -- is extensible insofar as those axioms and that logic can be applied to establish new methodologies or improve old ones, identify new corollaries, etc. A claim to have frozen an idea or set of ideas and to have forbidden it or them to imply anything new and discoverable about itself or themselves is absurd on its face. A is A -- and all that A implies -- whether one admits it or not.
Objectivism did not end with Ayn Rand nor is it controlled by ARI, any more than Aristotelian philosophy ended with Aristotle or is controlled by his estate (as a matter of fact, in her less tetchy moments, Rand admitted to having built on Aristotle, although she tried to hide the fact that she'd also drawn from Nietszche).
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-05 22:49:06
" A claim to have frozen an idea or set of ideas and to have forbidden it or them to imply anything new and discoverable about itself or themselves is absurd on its face".
I did not make such a claim. I am saying that the study of Aristotle's philosophy is a different subject from the study of the ideas of subsequent Aristotelians and was unaltered by their extensions, applications, and additions.
Note that to deny my claim that Aristotle's philosophy was closed on his death you had to swap out "Aristotle" for "Aristotelian", thereby denying something I had not said.
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-05 23:07:11
Walt Thiessen said:
"... Objectivism as it is defined by Objectivists is not truly objective. For instance, the non-aggression principle clearly qualifies as an objective principle, yet because Objectivists sometimes find that the NAP is inconvenient to the truths they want to espouse, they reject it."
Politics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the extension of ethics in the context of the individual human being into the context of the individual human being's life interacting over the long range of life in a society of human beings. Consequently, political principles can only be validated by reference to valid individual ethical principles.
The political sanction against the use of physical force in value exchanges among men is premised on the necessity for individual autonomy in the application of reason to one's actions given that all men are equally fallible. Thus it is man's basic abilities that enable him to survive and thrive (reason and action) as well as his limitation (fallibility) i.e. man's fundamental (and universal) nature that gives rise to his fundamental need of capitalism.
That capitalism "works" is simply a logical consequence of that moral foundation. It is not a justification of NAP independent of ethics. By eschewing its ethical base, Libertarians are upholding an objectifiable principle arbitrarily.
Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2009-03-06 05:48:47
I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is. It seems to be nothing more than some propaganda for the people at ARI.
The author calls Chris Matthew Sciabarra "dishonest," yet provides no evidence for this slander. I have known him for 13 years and consider him to be one of the few trustworthy Objectivists around. He is actually capable of making well-reasoned, rational, persuasive arguments.
I won't comment on the other people mentioned.
I think Objectivism could very well provide a base for libertarianism.
Posted By: Becky Chandler
Date: 2009-03-06 09:49:37
It looks like the comments here support my original remark.
Do any of you realize your philosophical musing about objectivism and counting the number of natural rights dancing on the head of a pin matters to no one?
It is really questionable whether libertarianism can really claim to be a political party. Just a bunch of overeducated dudes talking to death nothing of import.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-03-06 11:52:24
MichaelM,
You write:
"Note that to deny my claim that Aristotle's philosophy was closed on his death you had to swap out 'Aristotle' for 'Aristotelian', thereby denying something I had not said."
Here's what you said:
"Every philosopher's philosophy like every author's oeuvre is closed at their death."
I agree that Rand's oeuvre was necessarily closed at her death (although ARI apparently doesn't, having chosen over the years since her death to add to that oeuvre with collections of the "ThingsFound Written on Scraps of Paper in Ayn Rand's Old Purses" variety).
Objectivism, however, is not part of Rand's oeuvre; rather parts of Rand's oeuvre are part of Objectivism.
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-06 17:11:13
Thomas L. Knapp, you said:
"Objectivism, however, is not part of Rand's oeuvre; rather parts of Rand's oeuvre are part of Objectivism."
You are better at refuting you than I am.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-03-06 23:07:16
MichaelM,
I probably am. Matter of fact, I'm probably better at just about everything than you are. Your point?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-10 07:17:13
MichaelM: You asked for a reference on Rand backing away from the non-aggression principle. I don't have one readily at hand, although I do recall that she backed off at roughly same time that she pilloried the creation of the Libertarian Party.
However, perhaps this might help instead. I recall that she felt that it was okay (and in some instances required) to invade a country headed by a dictator (I believe she used Nazi Germany, the Soviety Union, and Cuba as examples) because those dictators had (in her view) given up their rights by being dictators. Thus, for example, she would have had no ethical problem with the U.S. invading Saddaam Hussein's Iraq regardless of whether they possessed weapons of mass destruction.
To my mind, the non-aggression principle prohibits such an invasion, because the people of a country do not necessarily deserve to die or be otherwise harmed simply because their dictator-leader has violated human rights in general. It's an important point about WMDs because it was the cornerstone of Bush's defense of his invasion. Lacking WMDs, he knew that popular support for such an invasion would be lacking, and rightly so.
If Iraq had attacked the U.S., that would have been a much different scenario, because it would be evidence of initiated force. Lacking such a direct violation, proper application of NAP prohibits the invasion of Iraq.
Also, you wrote, "That capitalism 'works' is simply a logical consequence of that moral foundation." Well, yes and no. More accurately, capitalism is not the same as free market economics. Rather it is the accumulation of capital as the basis of an economic system, whereas free market economics is a system whereby market participants are free to interact without regulatory interference from the government. Capitalism doesn't necessarily "work" as a good. Our current economy could justly be described as capitalistic, yet we couldn't characterize it as a free market. The term "crony capitalism" comes to mind...capitalism for the politically and financially well-connected is not my idea of an ethical system. It's more like an ethical nightmare.
Posted By: MichaelM
Date: 2009-03-11 20:28:15
Walt Thiessen: I do understand the situation of having a slightly diluted memory of such things. I recall quite a number of things Rand said and wrote from 40 years back that would be hard to document. I hope you will understand that there is nothing I can say to this issue with only your hazy memory, which may or may not have been heard, read, or interpreted correctly.The question itself of when and if a first strike is valid however, and I will stand by my explanation of the difference between justifying a preemptive strike and actually mounting one. I agree that she would regard an attack by any country on Iraq to replace the government with a capitalist government as morally justifiable, WMD's or not. It is a fallacy to believe that a dictator can hold a whole nation hostage. No dictator can come to power over a people without receiving what Rand calls "the sanction of the victim (who are often also victimizers themselves). The only innocents in a nation run by a tyrant are the children below the age of reason. If innocents die in such an event, the blame does not fall on the attacker. It belongs entirely to the tyrant who made the attack necessary. That is why the carpet bombing of Germany and the Atom bombs on Japan were morally justified.I is interesting that when Bush invaded Iraq, Peikoff and Co. immediately opined that it was the wrong target, preferring to liberate Iran. But you should not read a whole lot into the heavily qualified reasoning one gets into when living in the present half-free half-slave context. It is also not terribly productive to speculate on the circumstances under which an Objectivist government would feel compelled to strike first. The possibility is distant enough that the entire context and available technology is all but impossible to imagine.Your separation of capitalism from free market economics is no more than two views of the same thing from different aspects. When I say capitalism or radical capitalism, I am referring to a socio-economic system in which the accumulation of capital is an activity of individuals who create it and exchange it freely and voluntarily among each other independent of the governing institution. Free-market economics is the science that studies the mechanics of those interactions. Capitalism is ultimately a philosophical concept (a politics) in that it is the result of extending ethics in the context of individual human beings into the context of a society. Politics and ethics are joined at the hip. A valid politics can rest only on a valid ethics. The function of a politics is to preserve in a society the same control one would have absent the society over one's own thoughts and actions in compliance with one's ethics. The politics known as capitalism is the only politics that can enable human beings to maximize their lives, because it is the only one that is consistent with the ethics that is consistent with the fundamental nature of human beings.Our current government is not a capitalist government, and never was. It has always been a mixture of the freedoms enjoyed under capitalism and the tyrannies endured under statism. The term "crony capitalism" is a euphemism for "fascism". I fully agree that our current government is an ethical nightmare. And the worst part of it lies before us in our immediate future.As you work your way through the jungle of our present day systems to make sense of it all, remember that in the realm of politics, there is only one single, fundamental, ethical alternative: freedom or force.
Posted By: Peter Namtvedt
Date: 2009-03-12 11:14:09
Michael M.
An updated version of this article has been posted at ReasonToFreedom.com/libertarianism_needs_foundation.html, and I wish I had delayed that updating until I had digested your last comments, above. I no doubt would have improved the article even more. I agree with your position.
Thank you for your comments.
The others among my readers who feel Objectivists have abandoned the non-agression principle should re-think their position. If you see someone about to murder or physically harm your neighbor or his property, would you really feel that stopping that person would be immoral? The problem: this is not rational self-interest, for that burglar or murderer might next feel motivated to target you or your property.