Objectivism Discussions on IRC
Pankaj Saxena
This is a recurring posting about the IRC channel #GeekSpeak, on the
Undernet system of IRC servers, and on Hypermall (irc.hypermall.com).
[See the section entitled "How to join #GeekSpeak" at the end of this
message for more details on these servers.]
Our opinions are our own - we do not speak for Objectivism.
The purpose of #GeekSpeak is to provide a forum for the discussion of
issues related to Objectivism. Our intended audience includes
intermediate to advanced students of Objectivism, who already have some
degree of familiarity with Objectivism. This is so that discussions
don't get bogged down with questions like "Who is Ayn Rand?", or "Isn't
Objectivism a religion?". That doesn't mean that we always turn away
newbie questions - just that we don't allow them to interfere with any
serious discussions that may be taking place at the time.
IRC is a real-time, interactive medium, with certain advantages and
disadvantages. Do not expect fairly long, relatively well-thought-out
answers as you'd see in an email-based discussion list. On the other
hand, since the discussions proceed at a faster pace, it has some of the
benefits of regular conversations, namely, a greater degree of
interactivity, a more rapid flow of ideas, and a more social setting,
which allows you to get to know the people you are conversing with
better than you would through a mailing list.
We have certain channel rules that participants are expected to follow:
1. Since we are interested primarily in ideas, and not discussion for
discussion's sake, we expect people to be as clear and explicit in
what they say as possible. This means that participants in the
discussions should be willing to define their terms, expect to be
questioned when they make assertions, and be willing to explain -why-
they believe what they do. Some practical advice here: unless you're
absolutely sure of your reasoning, it's better to phrase your
statement as a question. Questions invite comments, which may lead to
a rewarding discussion. Remember, we're interested in your reasons,
not your opinions.
2. We expect participants to be polite to others. IRC offers a certain
degree of anonymity, which some people use as an excuse for name-
calling and other forms of verbal abuse. That will not be tolerated
on #GeekSpeak. The channel ops have the responsibility of ensuring
that a courteous and reasonable atmosphere prevails. Please pay
attention to their requests.
Channel Events
--------------
We have regular scheduled discussions on Friday nights at 11:00pm
EST. Transcripts of some of our past discussions can be found at the URL
below. The discussions are held in "keyword protected mode", meaning
that you need a password to join the channel during the discussion. At
other times, the channel is open, and anyone can join. The keyword
protected mode is enforced only on #GeekSpeak on the Undernet and Dalnet
servers. You may join #GeekSpeak on irc.hypermall.com without the
keyword. [See the section entitled "How to join #GeekSpeak" at the end
of this message for more details on these servers.]
In addition to scheduled discussions, we often have improptu
discussions. Please remember that a discussion depends on what you bring
to it. If you want an interesting, rewarding, discussion - start
one. People who come to the channel expecting to sit back and be
entertained are usually disappointed.
#GeekSpeak Mailing List
-----------------------
There is a #GeekSpeak Mailing List to complement events on the
channel. The purpose of this list is:
1. To inform channel participants about forthcoming scheduled
discussions, including topics, dates and times, and keywords.
2. To continue discussions that originated on the channel, if you have
something to add that is better said through email than in real-time
chat. You may also post comments on the transcripts of the scheduled
discussions if you were not on channel during the discussion and look
at the logs later.
3. Articles, movie reviews, letters to the editor, and such things that
you may have written that have some philosophical bearing.
4. Informative postings and pointers to resources that may be of
interest to Objectivists and those interested in Objectivism.
5. Occasionally, we also post ads that we think may be of interest to
Objectivists. We do not charge for posting ads to the list, and such
ads are clearly marked in the Subject: lines.
6. Personal announcements, such as changes of email address, etc. from
members of the list.
This is a moderated list. The list is divided into subtopics as described
above. You may choose to only subscribe to certain subtopics. To find out
more about what subtopics are and how to subscribe to particular
subtopics, please check our web page at:
http://www.hypermall.com/geekspk/
and follow the link to the #GeekSpeak Mailing List.
We do not divulge list membership to anyone, including the subscribers. To
join the list, send email to:
Please mention your real name and your preferred email address. In order
to cancel your membership, send email to the same address. You can no
longer delete yourself from the list because people unfamiliar with
ListServ have had problems doing that in the past. So let us know if you
want to quit, and we'll promptly cancel your subscription. We prefer that
you check out our web pages to get some idea of what you're getting into
before you subscribe.
A brief history of #GeekSpeak
-----------------------------
#GeekSpeak has existed on the Undernet for over a year. It was initially
formed in April-May, 1995, by Tom Wright and Pankaj Saxena. It became an
official, registered Undernet channel in September, 1995. The channel's
web pages are at the URL:
http://www.hypermall.com/geekspk/
These pages provide more information about the channel. We started
formal, scheduled discussions on Objectivism in October, 1995. Logs for
previous channel discussions are also at the #GeekSpeak web page, or
point your web browser directly at the URL:
http://www.hypermall.com/geekspk/discuss.html
Instructions on using IRC, connecting to the Undernet, Hypermall and
Dalnet, and joining the channel are also to be found at the #GeekSpeak
web page. Brief instructions are given below.
For the complete channel charter and lots of other information, see the
URL listed above.
How to join #GeekSpeak
----------------------
After reading the channel charter, please go through at least a few of
the discussion transcripts at the #GeekSpeak web site. If you decide
that you would like to take part in channel discussions, follow the
instructions on the web pages on how to join. In brief:
#GeekSpeak exists on the private IRC server:
"irc.hypermall.com" (port 6667)
and on the Undernet system of IRC servers. #GeekSpeak
on the Undernet and Hypermall are connected through a relay
mechanism, which enables you to converse with people on the
the Undernet and Hypermall channels. Start your IRC
client and type:
/server irc.hypermall.com
(to join the Hypermall server)
or,
/server us.undernet.org
(to join an Undernet server)
Lists of current Undernet servers may be found among the links on the
#GeekSpeak web pages.
Once you are connected to the server, type:
/join #GeekSpeak
Then you should be able to converse with people on the channel.
If you visit the channel regularly, you should join the #GeekSpeak
Mailing List so that you can receive discussion announcements and other
material relevant to the channel. Note that you do *not* have to join
the channel in order to subscribe to the Mailing List.
Chris Wilson
In article <5mb7g4$121a$1...@piglet.cc.uic.edu>, pan...@uic.edu says.
<a bunch of stuff on #geekspeek.>
I took the link to #geekspeek's website to check it out. Under one
section of the site, transcripts of past sessions are posted. What
thumbnail was entitled, "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty." I
clicked on the link.
This was undoubtedly the most intellectually dishonest discussion of
libertarianism that I have ever witnessed. I was outraged by the
fraudulent statements made by the so-called "Objectivists" at this forum
It was fairly obvious from reading the ensuing conversation that the only
thing the participants ever read concerning libertarianism was Peter
Schwartz's lousy article. The comments ranged from, "Libertarians
believe that one should have the freedom to do what ever they want" to
"Libertarians believe that people should be 'free' to establish
dictatorships" to "Libertarians don't believe in rights at all" to
"Libertarians think that the non-aggression principle is an axiom".
(These aren't exact quotes.)
These statements are so obviously and so _blantantly_ untrue, that any
individual who makes them must _necessarily_ be intellectually dishonest.
There is absolutely no excuse for this garbage. Anybody who has actually
read what libertarians will see _very clearly_ that libertarians do _not_
believe any of the things that they have been accused of believing above.
And if one hasn't actually read anything about libertarianism _written by
libertarians_, one has absolutely no business pronouncing a verdict, and
that's all there is to it. One reading of Schwartz's ridiculously stupid
article does not constitute a complete understanding of understanding.
It in fact constitutes an extreme _misunderstanding_ of libertarianism.
Anybody who reads Schwartz's argument and actually _believes_ it is in
some serious need of deprogramming.
If I had to pick the one thing that really annoys me about ARI
Objectivists, it would be their general stance on libertarianism and
anarcho-capitalism. I have never seen such evasively untrue arguments.
I expect such misrepresentations of libertarianism from Marxists, not
from Objectivists.
CJW
Chris Wolf
Chris Wilson writes:
>In article <5mb7g4$121a$1...@piglet.cc.uic.edu>, pan...@uic.edu says.
>
><a bunch of stuff on #geekspeek.>
>
>I took the link to #geekspeek's website to check it out. Under one
>section of the site, transcripts of past sessions are posted. What
>thumbnail was entitled, "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty." I
>clicked on the link.
>
>This was undoubtedly the most intellectually dishonest discussion of
>libertarianism that I have ever witnessed. I was outraged by the
>fraudulent statements made by the so-called "Objectivists" at this forum
>
>It was fairly obvious from reading the ensuing conversation that the only
>thing the participants ever read concerning libertarianism was Peter
>Schwartz's lousy article. The comments ranged from, "Libertarians
>believe that one should have the freedom to do what ever they want" to
>"Libertarians believe that people should be 'free' to establish
>dictatorships" to "Libertarians don't believe in rights at all" to
>"Libertarians think that the non-aggression principle is an axiom".
>(These aren't exact quotes.)
>
>These statements are so obviously and so _blantantly_ untrue, that any
>individual who makes them must _necessarily_ be intellectually dishonest.
Not necessarily. They might just be stupid. Or ignorant. Your
evidence isn't sufficient to prove intellectual dishonesty.
>There is absolutely no excuse for this garbage. Anybody who has actually
>read what libertarians will see _very clearly_ that libertarians do _not_
>believe any of the things that they have been accused of believing above.
Not everybody can always see things clearly, so quickly.
*********************************************
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
*********************************************
Jaffo
Where does the non-agression principle come from?
Do Libertarians actually use Rand's arguments to back it up?
All I've found so far is references to Natural Law.
But I can't find precise definitions of Natural Law.
So if it's not an axiom, where the heck does it come from?
Jaffo
--
"Mises was right, and Lenin was wrong. That is the great lesson
of the 20th century." -- Yuri N. Maltsev, Former Soviet Economist
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Chris Wilson
Come to think of it, there may very well be a good reason for rejecting
the term "libertarianism", but its a different reason than the ones that
Objectivists typically give. The term "libertarianism" is far too
general. It describes moderates such as Hayek and Milton Friedman,
philosophical radicals such as Rand, and anarcho-capitalists such as
Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Even people like Charles Murray are
considered to be libertarians! (Tim Starr once referred to Murray's book
as "What it Means to be a Libertarian, as if I had a clue" :) The term
subsumes too much, just as the term "liberal" (in the classic sense)
subsumes too much. In philosophical circles today, "liberals" are
typically contrasted with "communitarians". The the distinguishing
characteristic between these two groups is the fact that _none_ of the
"liberals" advocate a _complete_ dictatorship. So within a philosophical
context, the term "liberal" refers to everybody who doesn't support out-
and-out tyranny, from Clinton welfare-statists to moderate libertarians
to individualist anarchists. I guess that makes us all of us advocates
of "liberalism". What are the implications of this? None whatsoever.
The same thing seems to apply to the term "libertarianism".
I need a narrower and more specific term to describe my political
philosophy. The term "libertarian" just doesn't cut it anymore. It
groups me with utilitarians, pragmatists, God-lovers, and so forth.
I reread Schwartz's article today. It's been a long time since I last
read it. I think that my earlier judgment of his article may have been
somewhat unjust, but not overly so. He makes some good arguments, and
gives Rothbard and Block some well-deserved criticisms, but in the
process, he sets up a few strawmen. I think that his article may be a
just indictment against *L*ibertarianism, but not against
*l*ibertarianism.
Yet the term "*l*ibertarian" can still be rejected for its vagueness.
When my political views are being compared to that of Charles Murray by
virtue of the fact that we are both considered "libertarians", then I
think it's time to adopt a new label.
So I've changed my position. There have been too many "fellow
libertarians" who I have vehemently disagreed with. The guy who was
trying to start up the Libertarian Club here at the University of Oregon
actually plans to work for the Republican Party after he graduates!
There is something seriously wrong about the term "libertarianism" when
it refers to both students of Objectivism _and_ Republican pragmatists.
So I've changed my position overnight. So sue me :-)
I apologize for the inconsistency.
CJW
R Lawrence
Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>Come to think of it, there may very well be a good reason for rejecting
Well, thank you for sparing me from posting essentially the same
argument (which I happened to post to HPO approximately a year ago
today).
R Lawrence
Oops, that was *APO*, not HPO. HPO didn't exist yet a year ago.
Steve Reed
Chris Wilson <cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>Come to think of it, there may very well be a good reason for rejecting
>the term "libertarianism", but its a different reason than the ones that
>Objectivists typically give. The term "libertarianism" is far too
>general. It describes moderates such as Hayek and Milton Friedman,
>philosophical radicals such as Rand, and anarcho-capitalists such as
>Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.
What makes the term "libertarianism" problematic with such a range of thinkers
is that it's erected into its own entity -- a body of conclusions (or, by some
of a more activist bent, a kind of movement) that such thinkers more or less
match up with.
Such an action takes a conceptual average on too many disparate ideas. I have
long contended that such creations of an "-ism" term almost always end up
multiplying concepts beyond genuine necessity. They end up focusing, in a
rationalistic way, on a set of specific ideas that's used as a gauge or
standard of judgment -- and not on how well different thinkers speak to a
particular issue or emphasis in philosophy.
The same difficulty applies, in spades, to any such -noun- for a "philosophy,"
including "Objectivism." Almost all attempts to erect such entities draw on
too many issues to allow for identifying a conceptual common denominator. An
amorphous mass of concretes also allows for sneaking in variations on the
fringe, such as (in Objectivist thought) Peikoff's redefinition of "the
arbitrary," because any principles of what ideas are logically -essential- or
-primary- are disregarded. It's easier to aver that one's new idea is, say, an
explication or refinement of Rand's arguments -- rather than to take the
effort to make it stand on its own merits.
(Nor is this difficulty bypassed by erecting a particular instance of such an
entity into a proper noun. To use the desideratum of "what philosophy Rand
believed" for what's included within "Objectivism" is to create a static
artifact, not a set of principles, and makes it even more resistant to
rational analysis.)
It works far better to draw the inductive -pattern- from the most distinctive
similarities that may be shared by different writers. In the case of these
writers on political philosophy, it is valid to distinguish a more or less
"libertarian" principle. It's one that is genuinely different from older
patterns, such as that of classical liberalism.
This principle is that no political institution or individual may initiate
force against anyone -- not even when it is to gain the minimal amount of
money or human effort to keep itself operating. The latter phrase represents a
historical distinction, not a logical one. Rand and others would contend that
the barring of taxation and conscription (to bring this matter to essentials)
has always been implicit in not initiating force. The classical liberals,
nonetheless, generally allowed for such an exception.
Such a principle is not something arrived at out of context. It was formulated
best, in some ways, by the distinctions that Rand made, but (against her own
claims) was implicit in many thinkers' work before she came along, and had
many lines of reasoning to justify it, both better and worse in their use of
inductive facts and premises. Some of the writers you mention above don't
genuinely hold to this principle. I would see Hayek and Friedman holding to
the earlier idea of classical liberalism, which typically does allow for the
State to minimally supply its needs through taxation, though (sometimes) not
with conscription. (Mises was one of many who saw some conscription as being
permissible under liberalism, though not necessarily the best course.)
Rand, Rothbard, and Friedman fils were (and are) distinctly different in this
matter from Hayek and Friedman pere, ruling out taxation and conscription to
fuel the apparatus for protecting rights -- whatever form the latter may take.
That similarity is distinctive enough to describe all three in political
philosophy as "libertarian," solely as adjective.
But to shoehorn these three into more-or-less agreement beyond this issue is
to integrate too many distinct ideas in disregard of necessity. Rand arrived
at her validation of the libertarian principle from Aristotelean and egoistic
reasoning, Rothbard from a natural-law-and-rights approach patterned on the
Scholastics, and Friedman fils from a form of utilitarian analysis (though in
his case, it's more an unintended consequence that he's offered a validation,
as I see it).
>Even people like Charles Murray are considered to be libertarians!
>(Tim Starr once referred to Murray's book as "What it Means to be a
>Libertarian, as if I had a clue" :)
Murray is a good example of someone who considers the broader libertarian
principle to be valid, but is skeptical of how well some institutions would
work when they have to rely wholly on voluntary actions. I don't see anything
wrong with saying he's libertarian (adjective).
>In philosophical circles today, "liberals" are typically contrasted with
>"communitarians". The distinguishing characteristic between these two
>groups is the fact that _none_ of the "liberals" advocate a _complete_
>dictatorship.
None of the (modern) "liberal" types call for total controls, but that's out
of pragmatism and gauging the political winds, not out of a distinguishing
principle of human action. The "communitarian" types hark back at least to
Saint-Simon in their underlying ideas -- the servitude of the commune taken on
voluntarily.
>So within a philosophical context, the term "liberal" refers to everybody
>who doesn't support out-and-out tyranny, from Clinton welfare-statists to
>moderate libertarians to individualist anarchists. I guess that makes us
>all of us advocates of "liberalism". What are the implications of this?
>None whatsoever.
Whoever you're talking about here seems to be making the same mistake in
trying to find a "liberalism" among too many disparate people. I'd like to
know who calls for such an amalgamation. I haven't seen it in the political
press. It also disregards most so-called "conservatives," who on their face
don't "support out-and-out-tyranny" either -- but like the modern "liberals,"
do support it in specific areas.
Where we need useful principles is in separating those who rule out State
control, period, from those who squabble over the flavor of it. "Libertarian"
as adjective has ended up being effective in this regard.
>I need a narrower and more specific term to describe my political
>philosophy. The term "libertarian" just doesn't cut it anymore. It
>groups me with utilitarians, pragmatists, God-lovers, and so forth.
Only if you want to be so grouped. It can serve as a common point for exchange
of ideas, and usually does do so. That is all such terms can actively provide:
a narrowing of the conceptual field, allowing for more productivity, whether
you're finding better debate partners or seeking better-directed analyses.
I know that almost everyone who speaks up in HPO is likely to be libertarian
(adjective). That saves debate, usually, about what degree of taxation is
proper. It also saves our time.
>I reread Schwartz's article today. It's been a long time since I last
>read it. I think that my earlier judgment of his article may have been
>somewhat unjust, but not overly so. He makes some good arguments, and
>gives Rothbard and Block some well-deserved criticisms, but in the
>process, he sets up a few strawmen.
A few? He doesn't even "set up" a definition of what he's talking about, to
allow for the string to bind those intellectual scarecrows together. You're
being far too generous to his religious-tract mentality.
Yep, Rothbard and Block went over the top at times. Even so, any analysis that
disregards their works of closest reasoning, in favor of their polemics, is no
analysis.
>Yet the term "*l*ibertarian" can still be rejected for its vagueness.
>When my political views are being compared to that of Charles Murray by
>virtue of the fact that we are both considered "libertarians", then I
>think it's time to adopt a new label.
What's wrong with being -compared- with Murray? You have far more in common
with him than you do with Bill Clinton. And it's by dint of fundamental
principle, not by agreement on nonessentials. You respect (I presume) the
barring of initiated force by any entity. So does Murray, although he overlays
it with caveats. That can be a starting point for learning from him. It
doesn't put you in the same political boat with him.
>There is something seriously wrong about the term "libertarianism" when
>it refers to both students of Objectivism _and_ Republican pragmatists.
You can -apply- the principle to many people. Some will more closely fit it
than others. That doesn't invalidate the principle as a conceptual tool. Rand
pointed out that conceptualization revolves around measurement. The reverse
side of "omitting the measurements" to create concepts is that such data must
be reintroduced, in the proper dimensions, to evaluate concretes.
That reintroduction is easy to forget, even easier to do improperly. Don't
passively accept that any such term as "libertarian" is being properly applied
to someone simply -because- it's been used to describe them.
>So I've changed my position overnight. So sue me :-)
>I apologize for the inconsistency.
You're refining your use of concepts. That's growth, not inconsistency. Don't
apologize for thinking through these issues.
= = = = = New email address! = = = = =
Steve Reed ... Stev...@earthling.net
Piece of Sky Consulting
Fine Typography and Windows(R) Support
T. Scheeler
In article <MPG.df7eacfb909200198969a@news>, Chris Wilson <cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>I need a narrower and more specific term to describe my political
>philosophy. The term "libertarian" just doesn't cut it anymore. It
>groups me with utilitarians, pragmatists, God-lovers, and so forth.
>
..
>
>So I've changed my position overnight. So sue me :-)
>
My lawyer will be contacting you in the morning :~)
>I apologize for the inconsistency.
>
At least you recognize it, attempt to rectify it, and admit it (I'm not sure
that your inconsistancy is all that bad...it's part of the learning process we
are all going through). That takes balls as big as church bells!
Tom Scheeler
Chris Wilson
Steve Reed says...
> writers on political philosophy, it is valid to distinguish a more or less
> "libertarian" principle. It's one that is genuinely different from older
> patterns, such as that of classical liberalism.
> This principle is that no political institution or individual may initiate
> force against anyone -- not even when it is to gain the minimal amount of
> money or human effort to keep itself operating. The latter phrase represents a
> historical distinction, not a logical one. Rand and others would contend that
> the barring of taxation and conscription (to bring this matter to essentials)
> has always been implicit in not initiating force. The classical liberals,
> nonetheless, generally allowed for such an exception.
But as of late, "libertarian" has come to mean something completely
different. And this is because not all libertarians are consistent in
their opposition to physical force. Many libertarians are pretty damn
moderate. Their goal isn't living in a society where there is an absence
of coercion, but in a society where there is _less_ coercion.
Consider the guy who heads the college Libertarian Club that I spoke
about earlier. He was telling me about how the club would probably not
flourish at the U of O because the predominant sentiment here is anti-
development and anti-private property. I agreed and said, "Yeah, and
here I am, advocating the privatization of all public lands." He said,
"Oh, I wouldn't go that far." I thought to myself, "What do you mean you
wouldn't go that far, you wuss. If you wouldn't go that far, then what
the hell business do you have calling yourself a libertarian. You're no
more than a political pragmatist."
Now we may try to preserve the sanctity of the term "libertarian" by
claiming that this guy is not one, but I don't think that it will be of
much use. The public generally conceives of libertarians as merely being
"people who want less government interference in both the social and
economic spheres". But I consider my position much stronger and more
principled than this, and this is why I need a more specific term. The
meaning of the term "libertarianism", as commonly understood by people,
has deteriorated considerably, and if I wish to communicate consisely to
people what my positions are, I need a term that is more specific.
I kind of like the term "propertarian anarchist". :-)
> >So within a philosophical context, the term "liberal" refers to everybody
> >who doesn't support out-and-out tyranny, from Clinton welfare-statists to
> >moderate libertarians to individualist anarchists. I guess that makes us
> >all of us advocates of "liberalism". What are the implications of this?
> >None whatsoever.
> Whoever you're talking about here seems to be making the same mistake in
> trying to find a "liberalism" among too many disparate people. I'd like to
> know who calls for such an amalgamation. I haven't seen it in the political
> press. It also disregards most so-called "conservatives," who on their face
> don't "support out-and-out-tyranny" either -- but like the modern "liberals,"
> do support it in specific areas.
Consider Robert Nozick and John Rawls, for example. In _Anarchy, State,
and Utopia_, Robert Nozick sets out to defend libertarianism, and in his
_A Theory of Justice_ , John Rawls attempts to defend the welfare state.
Despite the differences in opinion between these two, they are both
considered defenders of "liberalism" (as opposed to socialism or
communitarianism).
> Where we need useful principles is in separating those who rule out State
> control, period, from those who squabble over the flavor of it. "Libertarian"
> as adjective has ended up being effective in this regard.
It doesn't seem to anymore.
Don't confuse "Libertarianism" and "libertarianism", BTW.
"Libertariansm" refers only to the LP.
> >I reread Schwartz's article today. It's been a long time since I last
> >read it. I think that my earlier judgment of his article may have been
> >somewhat unjust, but not overly so. He makes some good arguments, and
> >gives Rothbard and Block some well-deserved criticisms, but in the
> >process, he sets up a few strawmen.
> A few? He doesn't even "set up" a definition of what he's talking about, to
> allow for the string to bind those intellectual scarecrows together. You're
> being far too generous to his religious-tract mentality.
I'm not generous to his article at all. He says a lot about what
libertarians believe, and almost none of it is true. As a libertarian, I
certainly wasn't aware that I believed any of the things he claimed me to
believe.
As an aside, I recall that Schwartz quoted from a publication called the
_Libertarian Vanguard_. I wonder if that wasn't one of those anarcho-
commie rags. I know that the term "libertarian" was first devised by
anarcho-statists to refer to their own political philosophy. American
advocates of the free-market then co-opted the term and beginning
applying it to their own philosophy (much like the welfare-statists did
with the term "liberal"). But I can see Schwartz going out of his way to
dig out old anarcho-theftist crap, and then attributing their "left-
libertarian" views to people that are commonly known as libertarians
today.
Or would that be below Schwartz's dignitity?
Hell no.
> Yep, Rothbard and Block went over the top at times. Even so, any analysis that
> disregards their works of closest reasoning, in favor of their polemics, is no
> analysis.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I've derived a lot of value from Rothbard's
works.
Thanks for your response.
CJW
David Friedman
In article <MPG.df8d7975ec8ed8898969c@news>, Chris Wilson
<cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> But as of late, "libertarian" has come to mean something completely
> different.
I think you are missing a crucial historical fact here. The term "liberal"
used to be a broad term for people generally inclined towards
laissez-faire and related ideas. It was then converted (in the U.S.) to
its present meaning of democratic socialism in dilute acqueous solution.
That left the old liberals with no term to describe themselves, so many of
them started calling themselves libertarians. That process was well under
way thirty-five years ago when I was an undergraduate, and the term
covered about the same range of views that you object to its covering
today.
Among libertarians (as among other ideological groups) there is some
tendency for a person to take his own views as the norm, regard any
version of those views that is significantly weaker as "not one of us,"
and thus (in the case of libertarians) define "libertarian" as anyone who
is at least as pro-market anti-coercion as he is. That means that if you
are in favor of reducing the Federal budget to a quarter its present size,
deregulating all regulated industries, and abolishing the minimum wage,
you count everyone from that position to my position as libertarian. If
you are in favor of all that, except that you want to get the federal
government down to a tenth of its size, forbid government borrowing, move
to a non-interventionist foreign policy, permit private competition with
the post office, and shift to competing private moneys, than any position
less extreme than that (such as the first one I described) isn't "really
libertarian."
I have no objection to Chris wishing to use more precise terms for
himself--I often do for myself. But I don't think it is correct to regard
Charles Murray or my father as someone who has taken over and misused the
term. My father was using that particular term before some of the people
active in this group were born, and his views have become if anything a
little more extreme in the intervening years. I think it is clear that
Murray is fundamentally on our side, in the sense of wanting to change the
world in the same direction we do, even though he at present believes he
would be happy with a much smaller level of change in that direction than
we would be.
> I know that the term "libertarian" was first devised by
> anarcho-statists to refer to their own political philosophy.
I don't think that is correct. I believe the original meaning was
religious--a libertarian was somebody who believed in free will. The left
wing usage was later, probably mid to late 19th century, although I'm not
sure of the dates.
David Friedman
--
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Robert J. Kolker
Isn't the term "anarcho-statist" an outright contradiction? It reminds me
of "square-circles" (in a normal Euclidean space thank you).
Bob Kolker
--
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you
will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is"
Chris Wilson
Steve Reed says...
> Nor would I call anyone who works within the Republican (or Democratic) party,
> by that fact alone, a non-libertarian. Their principles are vitally important,
> whatever they deem to be practical in pursuing electoral politics. You seem to
> be decrying the dilution of the LP's ideas, while criticizing those who choose
> to work within other parties, if I'm reading you correctly. That doesn't leave
> much room for political activity.
Well, I'm fairly skeptical of attempts to change the political structure
within the political structure anyway. I don't think that there should
be an LP, for a variety of reasons. (Will explain if queried, but not
now.) If the individual members of the LP focused upon the promotion of
ideas, rather than upon getting elected to public office, I think that
that would be a much more effective stategy in promoting liberty. A book
written by a libertarian economist or philosopher or lawyer is, without
exception, much more influential than a libertarian politician can ever
be.
> And the latter category would include most of the active Objectivists that I know.
I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans! The
Republicans stand in greater opposition to O'ist principles than the
Libertarians ever could. The way Objectivists (especially those of the
ARI camp) tend to judge libertarianism borders upon the hysterical--all
because of that stupid strawman set up by Peter Schwartz.
> The folk wisdom, since we're talking about the "public," is coming to realize
> more each year that little or no practical difference exists between the two
> wings of what in fact is one Statist Party. To oppose both is to orient toward
> a new distinction, for or against political power -as such.-
> I see this as being behind the rise of the new "communitarians." The obeisance
> to power has faded, especially in the once-Soviet bloc, so it's now submission
> to the local community or to Hillary's "village" that is exalted.
All those envious bastards who vehemently lobby city hall so as to keep
Wal-Mart and Costco out of their city came to my mind as I read this.
> >I kind of like the term "propertarian anarchist". :-)
> So do I, especially when reading Neil Smith's novels (his "Probability Broach"
> series details a "propertarian" alternate universe).
> I suppose that for me, it isn't that such a specific term is undesirable in
> itself, as that "libertarian" still has a great deal of rhetorical life left
> in it, and allows for the meeting of many productive minds.
I think that this is probably correct. The term "libertarian", though
becoming increasingly general, still means something in the minds of most
people. Even though the term is more general than I'd like, I would
still be subsumed. Nobody would know what the hell I was talking about
if I said I was a "propertarian".
L. Neil Smith publishes a quote in every issue of the Libertarian
Enterprise. Is says basically, "A libertarian is a person who opposes
the initiation of force. Those who adhere to this principle are
libertarians, whether they know it or not. Those who do not consistently
adhere to this principle are _not_ libertarians, regardless of what they
say." (Not an exact quote.) This is L. Neil's way of conducting an
ideological purge on all moderates who call themselves libertarians.
Though I appreciate the fact that he publishes that statement, I'm not
certain as to how well it is working.
Is there a _Probability Broach_ series? I've read the novel. I wasn't
aware that there were any sequels.
> >Consider Robert Nozick and John Rawls, for example. In _Anarchy, State,
> >and Utopia_, Robert Nozick sets out to defend libertarianism, and in his
> >_A Theory of Justice_ , John Rawls attempts to defend the welfare state.
> >Despite the differences in opinion between these two, they are both
> >considered defenders of "liberalism" (as opposed to socialism or
> >communitarianism).
> Considered by whom? From my readings, I wouldn't call Nozick a defender of
> "liberalism" in the modern sense. He actively disdained it. He wasn't an
> anarchist, either. I seem to be missing the common point that you are wanting
> to stress here.
In the contemporary sense, Nozick is not a liberal. In the philosophical
sense, however, he most certainly is considered a defender of the
"liberal tradition". Academic philosophers use the term "liberal" to
refer to philosophers who advcate "personal freedom" to some degree.
And yes, by "anarcho-statist", I was referring to all the Kropotkinist,
Bakuninist (spelling), "Proudhon-ish", "property is theft" types.
CJW
Chris Wilson
David Friedman says...
> > I know that the term "libertarian" was first devised by
> > anarcho-statists to refer to their own political philosophy.
>
> I don't think that is correct. I believe the original meaning was
> religious--a libertarian was somebody who believed in free will. The left
> wing usage was later, probably mid to late 19th century, although I'm not
> sure of the dates.
You're right. I should have said that the anarcho-statists were the
first to use the term in a political context.
CJW
Chris Wilson
Robert Kolker says...
> Isn't the term "anarcho-statist" an outright contradiction?
Yup! :-) But then again, their political philosophy is a contradiction.
Why not apply a term that fits?
CJW
David Friedman
In article <MPG.dfa91ee653a4e8698969f@news>, Chris Wilson
<cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Well, I'm fairly skeptical of attempts to change the political structure
> within the political structure anyway. I don't think that there should
> be an LP, for a variety of reasons. (Will explain if queried, but not
> now.) If the individual members of the LP focused upon the promotion of
> ideas, rather than upon getting elected to public office, I think that
> that would be a much more effective stategy in promoting liberty.
It might be--if the same people who are good at political campaigning and
enjoy political campaigning are also good at other means of approaching
ideas. On the other hand, in a world where different people have different
talents and tastes, persuading someone not to promote liberty by the
tactic he likes and is relatively good at doesn't mean that he uses the
superior tactic you prefer--it means he watches television or reads sf
instead.
> A book
> written by a libertarian economist or philosopher or lawyer is, without
> exception, much more influential than a libertarian politician can ever
> be.
Perhaps--but do you think that most of the people active in the LP are
likely to write such books? Do you think the people who write such books
are likely to divert their energies into the LP?
Chris Wilson
David Friedman says...
> Perhaps--but do you think that most of the people active in the LP are
> likely to write such books?
They must have some talents _other_ than being a politician. If they
don't, that's pretty pathetic. I'd highly suggest that they pursue a new
line of work, because within the social system that you and I advocate,
their jobs are redundant.
> Do you think the people who write such books are likely to divert their
> energies into the LP?
Let's hope not.
CJW
Dena L. Bruedigam
In article <MPG.dfe2f7673aa637f9896ac@news>, Chris Wilson
> They must have some talents _other_ than being a politician. If they
> don't, that's pretty pathetic. I'd highly suggest that they pursue a new
> line of work, because within the social system that you and I advocate,
> their jobs are redundant.
Are you saying that in a Objectivist society there would be no need for
any government officials? No president, no congressmen, no mayors, no
city council, no judges, etc.?
I certainly would not agree.
Besides, I think you have forgotten one important thing and that is that
the forum a political candidate or elected official gains simply from his
position as such is indeed a valuable tool to use in educating the
public. For example, think of how many opportunites a Bill Clinton or a
Trent Lott have to speak to people about very relevant and important
issues. And think how many people read Hillary Clinton's book (I know,
it's a scary thought....). They would have never heard of her if she
weren't the president's wife.
Don't underestimate the value of running for and/or holding public
office. I can tell you from experience that the first things that happen
whenever someone files as a candidate for office are (a) the media calls
and wants to know what you think and they print it in the paper and (b)
you get invited to speak at all kinds of public forums.
In many instances you will reach a much wider audience than if you just
sit home and write a dry free market economics treatise.
As my father used to say: there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Furthermore, I know some people who would never get involved in anything
political other than voting and who aren't interested in writing books but
who will gladly write a check to finance a Libertarian campaign simply
because they want to be able to go to the polls and vote Libertarian.
--Dena L. Bruedigam
_____________________________________________________________
Dena L. Bruedigam ------------ brued...@osu.edu
"It's a very lonely time to be a socialist in America."
--- Mary Cal Hollis, Socialist Party 1996 pres. candidate
==============================================================
David Friedman
In article <MPG.dfe2f7673aa637f9896ac@news>, Chris Wilson
> David Friedman says...
>
> > Perhaps--but do you think that most of the people active in the LP are
> > likely to write such books?
>
> They must have some talents _other_ than being a politician. If they
> don't, that's pretty pathetic. I'd highly suggest that they pursue a new
> line of work, because within the social system that you and I advocate,
> their jobs are redundant.
The people in the LP aren't being politicians, with a very few exceptions,
because they don't get elected. They are being political organizers,
campaigners, public relations people, ... . That is one way of getting
ideas into circulation, in a context where people expect to talk about
political issues.
I expect lots of them have some talents other than being a politicians.
But in order to write a valuable book, you have to have something to say
that hasn't been said before, at least as well, by someone else. I don't
think very many people in the libertarian movement, or any other political
movement, meet that criterion.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>> I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans!
>
>why he quit the Republican Party.
That's interesting and it brings a couple of questions to my mind. Perhaps
you can help to answer them, since I can't pick up the Peikoff radio show
here in Ohio.
1. What were his reasons for rejecting the Republican Party?
2. What party is he going to support now, if any?
3. Does this mean that it is now immoral for Objectivists to support and/or
join the Republican Party? Since it is currently anti-Objectivist to
support and/or join the Libertarian Party, will this now apply to the
Republicans, too? What about voting for Republicans? Is that okay, or not?
Just curious.
--Dena L. Bruedigam
______________________
Dena L. Bruedigam
brued...@osu.edu
Betsy Speicher
On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans!
Leonard Peikoff would agree with you. He just did a whole radio show on
why he quit the Republican Party.
Betsy Speicher
YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO YOU!
Sign the petition at http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude
Liberty
In article <3.0.32.19970606...@pop.service.ohio-
state.edu>, brued...@osu.edu says...
>
> Also, for whatever its worth, I think it's accurate to say that running for
> president gave Harry Browne a platform that reached vastly more people than
> his book. I'm not putting down books (and I hope David writes another one
> soon), but the average person just doesn't read that much these days,
> unfortunately.
>
I hope this is not true.
I don't think people are reading less. The growth of the
bookselling industry seems to indicate that this is not
really the case. In a small town like Port Alberni - there
was enough business to support 3 new books - bookstores and
4 used bookstores as well as an always busy public library.
The town population is under 12,000 and 16,000 with outlying
areas.
This is an area I paid special attention to for a couple of
years when I worked in the Bookselling industry.
Granted these people weren't making piles of money - but
they made enough to make it profitable to stay in business
for at least 5 years.
The problem as I see it with bookselling - at least in
Canada is the regulations and bullshit that the government
has put in place that limit what booksellers can do.
For instance - booksellers can not sell a book from an
American Distributor (even if it costs less) - if the book
can be ordered through a Canadian distributor.
The taxes on books cut directly into the profit of the
booksellers. If there was no tax on books - then I am sure
more people would be buying books.
Despite the less than 2% return on selling of a book - these
businesses are managing to stay in business by selling
books.
At christmas time the bookstore I worked for turned over 85%
of its inventory 2.5 times.
And there are lots of people still spending up to $500.00 a
year on books - I know because I handled the orders and sold
them the books over a period of a year.
Now it could be that there are fewer book buyers but these
people are spending more - rather than as you suggest there
are fewer people reading.
I don't know. It seems like a vague sort of assertion to me.
What is your proof that average person does not read that
much these days?
MW
Brad Aisa
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>> I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans!
>
>Leonard Peikoff would agree with you. He just did a whole radio show on
>why he quit the Republican Party.
I have maintained for quite some time that liberals are actually more
likely targets for edification than conservatives. The reason, is that
liberals tend to be more secular, and more open to reason. They may have
the wrong *ideas*, but they have the right *method*. I would much prefer a
liberal who says, "Reason tells us we should have social programs to help
the poor." rather than a conservative who says, "Belief in capitalism and
freedom derives from belief in God." The former's ideas can be challenged,
and their proponent may very well alter his views; what can you say to
someone who founds their ideas on belief in a being from another dimension
who operates this dimension via remote control?
In our just-concluded federal election, the two parties of the (alleged)
right were both *clamoring* to out proclaim the other in their strident
determination to *increase* socialism in the areas of education and health
care. Apparently, our Liberal party did too good a job the last four years
in cutting government spending and bringing us within two years of a
balanced federal budget -- and we'll be the first G7 country to achieve
that, BTW.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 1 Jun 1997 03:55:45 GMT, Chris Wilson
wanted to share:
:Well, I'm fairly skeptical of attempts to change the political structure
:within the political structure anyway. I don't think that there should
:be an LP, for a variety of reasons. (Will explain if queried, but not
:now.) If the individual members of the LP focused upon the promotion of
:ideas, rather than upon getting elected to public office, I think that
:that would be a much more effective stategy in promoting liberty. A book
:written by a libertarian economist or philosopher or lawyer is, without
:exception, much more influential than a libertarian politician can ever
:be.
And what do you think The Cato Institute is? It is an organization to do
exactly what you suggest, formed by members of the Libertarian Party.
:> And the latter category would include most of the active Objectivists that I know.
:
:I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans! The
:Republicans stand in greater opposition to O'ist principles than the
:Libertarians ever could.
Republicans oppose the welfare state. And they support tax cuts. (Or at
least they used to.) Democrats want to inflate the welfare state and increase
taxes. It's just that simple. And both parties are equally hostile to
freedom of speech and association.
:The way Objectivists (especially those of the
:ARI camp) tend to judge libertarianism borders upon the hysterical--all
:because of that stupid strawman set up by Peter Schwartz.
Nathaniel Branden is a Libertarian.
Ayn Rand was a Libertarian.
Ask me my source for this. <G>
:> The folk wisdom, since we're talking about the "public," is coming to realize
:> more each year that little or no practical difference exists between the two
:> wings of what in fact is one Statist Party. To oppose both is to orient toward
:> a new distinction, for or against political power -as such.-
:
:> I see this as being behind the rise of the new "communitarians." The obeisance
:> to power has faded, especially in the once-Soviet bloc, so it's now submission
:> to the local community or to Hillary's "village" that is exalted.
Everybody read this paragraph twice. This is ABSOLUTELY 100% on target. I'm
fighting with half a dozen Communitarians on my newsgroup right now. They
don't want to be Liberals and they call me names when I compare them to
Communists and Socialists, but they use the word COMMUNITY to justify all the
atrocities of the welfare state.
The Community is the absolute authority. One of them things Community is more
important than the Individual, and the other thinks they must be equal.
They are both straight out of Hillary's camp.
Here is the justifcation they use for their ideals:
:1) People make all kinds of decisions, some very stupid and
: self-destructive, some very wise and shrewd. In general, people
: manage to make decisions to provide for themselves and their families,
: when they have the power to do so. Some people will make decisions
: to benefit at the expense or harm of others. Others decide to help
: others at their own expense, but in general, people choose things
: that benefit themselves over things that benefit others.
:
:2) The result of the above is that there are some things in society
: that would be of benefit to everyone that will not get done unless
: everyone is required to contribute in some way. Since this
: "requirement" implies a government with coercive force, we have to
: elect and administer that government carefully and wisely to
: prevent it from unjustly taking money and/or poorly administering it.
:
:What I've been arguing is that the premises of Libertarianism are wrong.
:I think the whole idea of radical individuals who stand apart from
:society, create themselves, and only enter into "voluntary" contracts is a
:fantasy and a myth. You are born owing a debt to those who birthed you,
:raised you, and educated you. The people of your community protected you
:from thieves and invaders, made sure the water was clean and the food was
:sanitary, and gave you a share of the earth's resources with which you can
:turn a profit.
:
:Now you can say "all those things can be done without a government," but
:the fact is you owe this debt to people who decided to provide for at
:least some of those things through a system where everyone contributes
:taxes and the government administers at least some of these services. You
:can argue that we ought to change the system, but all I'm trying to say is
:that the current system is a legitimate system, that it is not theft or
:otherwise morally wrong for a democracy to levy taxes and use them to
:provide services for the common good.
:
:Now I'll gladly admit that the system has problems, that some government
:programs do more harm than good, that rich people and corporations can
:bribe government to do unjust things, and I'll even consider the notion
:that government should be as small as possible and the private sector
:should take care of most things government does. But that's a different
:sort of argument, based on different premises than the Libertarian fantasy
:of individualism.
Now, there is a perfect definition of Communitarianism. From a friend in my
newsgroup right now. Steve has nailed this one to the wall.
Jaffo
--
I have prevented my master from obliterating the world on several
occasions by serving as a convenient outlet for his wrath.
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 5 Jun 1997 06:06:21 GMT, David
Friedman wanted to share:
:I expect lots of them have some talents other than being a politicians.
:But in order to write a valuable book, you have to have something to say
:that hasn't been said before, at least as well, by someone else. I don't
:think very many people in the libertarian movement, or any other political
:movement, meet that criterion.
Mr. Friedman, I think you are doing a great disservice to the Libertarian
scholars at the Cato Institute when you say things like this.
These people are Libertarians. They are associated closely with the LP, and
they produce real, hard-core scholarship in support of their positions.
And like it or not, Harry Browne wrote a fabulous book that is great for
explaining the basic principles of Libertarianism to ordinary people.
The Cato Institute is one of the greatest bastions of Libertarian scholarship
ever created, and it was created by a member of the LP.
I think it's wrong to just casually dismiss them like you have.
Tom Scheeler
Jaffo wrote:
>
> In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 1 Jun 1997 03:55:45 GMT,
> :Now I'll gladly admit that the system has problems, that some government
> :programs do more harm than good, that rich people and corporations can
> :bribe government to do unjust things, and I'll even consider the notion
> :that government should be as small as possible and the private sector
> :should take care of most things government does. But that's a different
> :sort of argument, based on different premises than the Libertarian fantasy
> :of individualism.
>
> Now, there is a perfect definition of Communitarianism. From a friend in my
> newsgroup right now. Steve has nailed this one to the wall.
>
What you have is a good example of pragmatism, which is where
Communitarianism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and L(l)ibertarianism.
David Friedman
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970608...@usr02.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand, always rejected many of the ideas
> -- or lack of them -- that the Libertarian Party stands for.
Clearly Objectivists reject many of the "lacks of ideas" that the
Libertarian Party stands for--specifically, its failure to adopt
Objectivism as its official policy on all issues. I am curious as to the
many positive ideas that the Libertarian Party stands for that
Objectivists reject. The closest thing to an example that I can think of
is the LP's refusal to exclude anarchists. But that is not an "idea that
the LP stands for" in the same sense as, say, free trade--it is an
internal policy of the party. The LP doesn't run candidates on a platform
of "anarchists should be tolerated." And, of course, it is one idea, not
many.
I gather from this thread that Peikoff used to be a member of the
Republican Party, and that Betsy still is a registered Republican. I am
curious as to whether she believes that the ideas the Republican Party
stands for are closer to hers than the ideas the LP stands for.
Betsy Speicher
On 6 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans!
> >
> >Leonard Peikoff would agree with you. He just did a whole radio show on
> >why he quit the Republican Party.
>
> That's interesting and it brings a couple of questions to my mind. Perhaps
> you can help to answer them, since I can't pick up the Peikoff radio show
> here in Ohio.
>
> 1. What were his reasons for rejecting the Republican Party?
They stand for a lot of wrong ideas and don't support the right ideas
consistently enough.
> 2. What party is he going to support now, if any?
He's looking for one.
> 3. Does this mean that it is now immoral for Objectivists to support
> and/or join the Republican Party?
Certainly not! We Objectivists decide such things for ourselves. I
intend to stay registered as a Republican. Of course I never supported
the Republican Party, and I don't know an Objectivist who ever did. What
I have done is occasionally join with Republicans is join with them in
support of some candidate or issue or allow the Republican Party to
support some project of mine.
> Since it is currently anti-Objectivist to support and/or join the
> Libertarian Party,
Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand, always rejected many of the ideas
-- or lack of them -- that the Libertarian Party stands for.
Betsy Speicher
Tom Scheeler
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>
> > Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > >On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't understand how Objectivists can support the Republicans!
> > >
> > >Leonard Peikoff would agree with you. He just did a whole radio
> show on
> > >why he quit the Republican Party.
> >
> > That's interesting and it brings a couple of questions to my mind. Perhaps
> > you can help to answer them, since I can't pick up the Peikoff radio show
> > here in Ohio.
> >
> > 1. What were his reasons for rejecting the Republican Party?
>
> They stand for a lot of wrong ideas and don't support the right ideas
> consistently enough.
I've experienced the same plight regarding the democrats, the
libertarians, Ross Perot, the American Taxpayer party, the Natural Law
Party (boy, was that a disappointment),
the Constitution party (said the Constitution was derived from the
Bible), one group called the "American Heritage" party (if memory
serves), who wanted to recind Women's Suffrage.
The Libertarian party is long, though inconsistent, on good sounding
verbagem but they fall apart when explaining their views. Listen to them
explain tough issues like abortion, or the unequal distribution of
wealth (Jo Jorgensen (sp?), on one radio show explained it away by
stating, ala George Gilder or Limbaugh, how often they give their wealth
away.
The LP is not the answer, nor are the Republicans.
>
> > 2. What party is he going to support now, if any?
>
> He's looking for one.
>
I think he is in for one LOOOOOONG search.
Tom Scheeler
(Registered Independent)
David Friedman
In article <5ng3uu$7co$3...@news.udel.edu>, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
> But even more spectacular is the successful medical cannabis initiative in
> California. ... This effort reached more people
> and has gotten more press, and so is arguably more influential than any
> libertarian book. It was partially lead by a libertarian who is now seeking
> the LP nomination for Governor of Calif (1998 elections).
>
> Terry J. Reedy
While I was delighted by the victory of that initiative, I don't think it
is even arguably more influential than the _Wealth of Nations_ was.
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 7 Jun 1997 18:30:20 GMT, William H.
Stoddard wanted to share:
:In article <33a02663...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
:
:> Republicans oppose the welfare state. And they support tax cuts. (Or at
:> least they used to.) Democrats want to inflate the welfare state and increase
:> taxes. It's just that simple. And both parties are equally hostile to
:> freedom of speech and association.
:
:On the other hand, the Republican Party's official position is
:anti-abortion and in favor of prayer in public schools, ideas I find more
:intensely vicious than the Democratic Party's desire to steal a larger
:percentage of my paycheck. I don't think it's much of a choice.
Ironically, this gets us into a game of "which brand of Statism is worse."
I think Economic Statism is more destructive, so lean toward Republican.
Others think prayer in public schools and abortion restrictions are worse, so
they lean toward Democrat.
And no, it's not much of a choice.
Eventually, perhaps these parties will merge into a "Let's Control
Everything!" Party. Believe it or not, I know a hardcore Liberal that sees a
lot more to respect in a Christian Conservative friend of mine than she does
in my Libertarian positions.
Perhaps we are seeing a realignment.
Ick.
Jaffo
--
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels
in the forms of kings to govern him?" -- Thomas Jefferson
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Tom Scheeler
William H. Stoddard wrote:
>
> In article <33a02663...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo
> <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
> > least they used to.) Democrats want to inflate the welfare state and increase
> > taxes. It's just that simple. And both parties are equally hostile to
> > freedom of speech and association.
>
> anti-abortion and in favor of prayer in public schools, ideas I find more
> intensely vicious than the Democratic Party's desire to steal a larger
> percentage of my paycheck. I don't think it's much of a choice.
>
Some of the things the Republicans passed in the 104th Congress:
.....................
1. A national database of employed people.
2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is
(among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients.
3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign
citizenship.
4. The largest gun confiscation in U. S. history--which is also an
unconstitutional ex post facto law and the first law ever to remove
people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor.
5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks
may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal
criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles.
6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude.
7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups
"terrorist"--without stating any reason and without the possibility of
appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership
lists must be turned over to the government.
8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain
classes of people.
9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers' licenses
carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as
magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1,
2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration
or the Passport Office or any other federal agency or any state or local
government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a state
driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one
issued with a verified Social Security number and security features']."
10. And my personal favorite--a national database, now being
constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes
place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your
prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also
includes--by law--any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may
be on drugs," "Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about ready
to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your mental
or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your
knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count em,
zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your government
will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a few years.
All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else
do they have in common?
...
But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of
the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon you
by the Congress of the Republican Revolution--the Congress that pledged
to "get government off your back."
From: LAND-MINE LEGISLATION by Claire Wolfe
E-mail me for the details and legislative references.
Tom Scheeler
toms382 AT worldnet.att.net
Tom Scheeler
Pat R. Galea wrote:
>
> Tom Scheeler <tom...@erase-this.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >I've experienced the same plight regarding the democrats, the
> >libertarians, Ross Perot, the American Taxpayer party, the Natural Law
> >Party (boy, was that a disappointment),
>
> who believe that yogic flying will solve all our problems by releasing a
> wellspring of "bubbling bliss". Their election broadcasts consist of
> lots of cross-legged people leaping about.
>
That's them.
> They haven't won any seats yet. Shame.
>
> I guess this isn't the same as yours? :-)
I sometimes wonder if they could do any worse! :>)
Tom Scheeler
Freedom
In article <339CBA34...@erase.worldnet.att.net>,
tom...@erase.worldnet.att.net says...
The leader for the Natural Law Party of Canada was none
other than the quasi famous Magician - Doug Henning.
I really did enjoy his spots on TV - campaigning - where he
sat in a yoga position - floating - saying
"If you elect the Natural Law Party into Government - we
will make the GST (cheesy background text pops up) - Doug
Snaps his fingers - "DISSAPEAR" - and poof the little text
that said GST - dissapeared "
I may just vote for them next time. If the government is
filled with people meditating and trying to fly and achieve
bubbling bliss - they wont be out violating my rights - now
will they? :)
MW
R Lawrence
Freedom wrote:
>
>I may just vote for them next time. If the government is
>filled with people meditating and trying to fly and achieve
>bubbling bliss - they wont be out violating my rights - now
>will they? :)
Our current governments have their fair share of addle-brained mystic
nincompoops, and they find the time. (Legislator's schedule: 7:00 a.m.
Prayer Breakfast. 8:00 a.m. Introduce bill giving death penalty for sale
of one ounce of pot. 9:00 a.m. Meet with religious lobbying group; swear
oath to the god of their choice. 10:00 a.m. Give speech explaining the
vital public interest in robbing the taxpayers blind and sending the
money to your brother-in-law. Etc.)
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote (concerning Peikoff's decision to
quit the Republican Party):
>> 3. Does this mean that it is now immoral for Objectivists to support
>> and/or join the Republican Party?
>
>Certainly not! We Objectivists decide such things for ourselves.
That's interesting. So you're saying that there is no Objectivist ban on
joining and/or supporting political parties? I guess I didn't realize that.
I assume that the same applies to Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc.,
also, so one could be a member in good standing of the ARI and of the
Libertarian Party or the Green Party.
>I intend to stay registered as a Republican. Of course I never supported
>the Republican Party, and I don't know an Objectivist who ever did.
Oh. I didn't realize that.
As I recall, you have previously mentioned quite a few Republicans that you
support, including Steve Forbes. And I recall you mentioning that there
were Objectivists writing speeches for Forbes and working on his campaign.
Are you saying that, even though you and others have openly supported
candidates of the Republican Party, worked for those candidates, and
registered to vote as Republicans, none of this behavior indicates that you
SUPPORT the Republican Party?
Once again, I would have to assume that the same then holds true for other
parties. For example, if I (a) registered to vote as a Libertarian, (b)
wrote speeches for Harry Browne, and (c) worked on a couple of other
Libertarian campaigns, then I could, in good faith maintain that I am NOT a
Libertarian or a supporter of the Libertarian Party?
If that is the case, then it follows that there should be absolutely no
reason for antagonism between Objectivists and the Libertarian Party, given
that (1) Objectivists are free to support and work for any candidate from
any political party in the spectrum without violating any Objectivist
tenet, and (2) supporting candidates does not, as you have asserted,
indicate support for the candidate's _political party_.
>What I have done is occasionally join with Republicans is join with them in
>support of some candidate or issue or allow the Republican Party to
>support some project of mine.
This is a rather preposterous statement, to say the least. Because unless
you are a high-ranking Republican Party official (which you obviously
aren't), you have little or no say over what issue(s) the Republican Party
supports! Those decisions are made by the party officers.
>Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand, always rejected many of the ideas
>-- or lack of them -- that the Libertarian Party stands for.
Same as they do for the Republicans.
Betsy, I applaud your decision to treat Republicans, Democrats,
Libertarians, etc. equally. It's a step in the right direction and I hope
other Objectivists will follow.
Betsy Speicher
On 8 Jun 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> I gather from this thread that Peikoff used to be a member of the
> Republican Party, and that Betsy still is a registered Republican. I am
> curious as to whether she believes that the ideas the Republican Party
> stands for are closer to hers than the ideas the LP stands for.
As far as I am concerned, all parties -- including the Republicans and the
Libertarians -- lack principles. They all tend to be pragmatic.
I do definitely feel closer to more Republicans than Libertarians I have
known when it comes to the issues I personally care about: use of reason
and dedication to values.
While there are vast differences among individuals, more Republicans I
have known _practice_ rationality and are realistic, down-to-earth, and
successful. Many more Libertarians I have met lean toward impractical,
science-fiction solutions and have private lives marked by the kind of
problems and failures that thinking people don't get messed up with.
Almost all the Republicans I know tend to have clear personal goals which
they work for and a respect for the efforts and achievements of others.
Among Libertarians, however, I have seen way too many who aren't _for_ a
damn thing, have an envious, rebellious, hostile, or nihilistic attitude
toward others, and who deliberately seek to offend, antagonize, or hurt
them.
As a consequence, when I am out looking to recruit people to my particular
causes, I tend to get more of a welcome and more support from Republicans
than from Libertarians and that's my bottom line. When it comes to a
political party, I don't want a group to join and belong to and support.
I want a group that will support _me_.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>While there are vast differences among individuals, more Republicans I
>have known _practice_ rationality and are realistic, down-to-earth, and
>successful. Many more Libertarians I have met lean toward impractical,
>science-fiction solutions and have private lives marked by the kind of
>problems and failures that thinking people don't get messed up with.
Well, all I can say is: this is what happens when you judge large groups
of individuals by the few you have met in your brief lifetime. (One would
think that someone who claims to live by a a philosophy based on objective
reality would know better, but that's another issue).
Betsy, I doubt that you will get very far in this forum trying to convince
people that Republicans are bastions of rationality. If that is true, then
why are so many of their political positions so irrational, why are so many
of their politicians corrupt, why is so much of their legislation overtly
anti-individual and anti-life?
>As a consequence, when I am out looking to recruit people to my particular
>causes, I tend to get more of a welcome and more support from Republicans
>than from Libertarians and that's my bottom line. When it comes to a
>political party, I don't want a group to join and belong to and support.
>I want a group that will support _me_.
Interesting, but apparently the leaders of the ARI don't agree with you're
approach. Otherwise Michael Berliner wouldn't have solicited the
California Libertarian Party's help in the recent campaign against
volunteerism.
Now, according to what you just said, in such a case, the ARI would receive
a much larger amount of support from Republicans than Libertarians. Was
that the case in the volunteerism campaign?
Personally, I can't imagine too many Republicans jumping on the ARI
bandwagon to oppose forced volunteer service. But I know a lot of
Libertarians who did and the LP did it publicly.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
>There are at least a few examples where local libertarian politicians and/or
>activists have forced bond issues and/or tax increases onto the ballot for
>citizen vote and have successfully spearheaded efforts to win such votes
>and reject the new burden. I am not surprised, however, that you have not
>read of such.
There are more than you think. I recently was involved in a campaign to
defeat a stadium and arena sales tax in Columbus, Ohio which was primarily
started and run by Libertarians. We won, defeating the tax by a 56-44
margin, and the New York Times called it the setting of a "national trend"
against stadium taxes. We'll see, but the point remains that both
Republicans and Democrats were in favor of this sales tax and had it not
been for the political activities of Libertarians, we would all be paying
more taxes now.
>But even more spectacular is the successful medical cannabis initiative in
>California. You must have read of this!
You're exactly. right. Another example of success that wouldn't have been
achieved simply by reading, writing, and studying philosophy.
Not that there's anything wrong with those things, but they need to be
augmented with political activity, if your goals are of a political nature.
Diana Mertz Brickell
Jaffo (ja...@onramp.net) wrote:
: And what do you think The Cato Institute is? It is an organization to do
: exactly what you suggest, formed by members of the Libertarian Party.
Un, no. Cato is an organization that sponsors studies and writes books
and such, but it's not formed by members of the LP. (It's not really
clear what you mean by that though.) It was, in fact, formed by people
(such as Ed Crane) who thought that working within the LP had become
futile (largely due to anti-Third Party election laws passed in the mid
1970's.) When I was at Cato, the LP may as well not have existed, for all
that it affected Cato's goings-on. Although, I should add, I'm sure that
most policy-makers at Cato voted Libertarian.
Sorry 'bout the somewhat comfused response to the unclear statement. :-)
O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O
O Diana Mertz Brickell O
O Los Angeles, CA O
O di...@artsci.wustl.edu O
O http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~diana O
O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O
Betsy Speicher
On 11 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >While there are vast differences among individuals, more Republicans I
> >have known _practice_ rationality and are realistic, down-to-earth, and
> >successful. Many more Libertarians I have met lean toward impractical,
> >science-fiction solutions and have private lives marked by the kind of
> >problems and failures that thinking people don't get messed up with.
>
> Well, all I can say is: this is what happens when you judge large groups
> of individuals by the few you have met in your brief lifetime.
I don't. I judge people as individuals. I do, however, take into account
the groups they _choose_ to belong to and my experiences with other
members of that group. I often find it a useful starting point for
getting to know them. My experience with a group and its members is also
very relevant when I decide whether I wish to deal with that group and in
what contexts.
> Betsy, I doubt that you will get very far in this forum trying to
> convince people that Republicans are bastions of rationality.
I don't believe that myself. Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians
are _individuals_. Some individuals are rational and some are not. Heck,
Rand even projected the possibility of a rational Communist -- Andrei in
_We_the_Living_.
> >As a consequence, when I am out looking to recruit people to my particular
> >causes, I tend to get more of a welcome and more support from Republicans
> >than from Libertarians and that's my bottom line. When it comes to a
> >political party, I don't want a group to join and belong to and support.
> >I want a group that will support _me_.
>
> Interesting, but apparently the leaders of the ARI don't agree with you're
> approach. Otherwise Michael Berliner wouldn't have solicited the
> California Libertarian Party's help in the recent campaign against
> volunteerism.
Is that true?
> Now, according to what you just said, in such a case, the ARI would
> receive a much larger amount of support from Republicans than
> Libertarians. Was that the case in the volunteerism campaign?
> Personally, I can't imagine too many Republicans jumping on the ARI
> bandwagon to oppose forced volunteer service.
On that particular issue, I don't think the Republicans would have been
much help.
> But I know a lot of Libertarians who did and the LP did it publicly.
As someone involved with the Campaign Against Servitude for ARI, I don't
know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote
>> Interesting, but apparently the leaders of the ARI don't agree with you're
>> approach. Otherwise Michael Berliner wouldn't have solicited the
>> California Libertarian Party's help in the recent campaign against
>> volunteerism.
>
>Is that true?
Well, I didn't make it up, if that is what you are trying to say. I read
it in the California LP newsletter. I'm sure you could check it out for
yourself if you don't believe me.
I don't have it in front of me, but as I recall, the concluding sentence
was a request for help in the campaign.
>> Now, according to what you just said, in such a case, the ARI would
>> receive a much larger amount of support from Republicans than
>> Libertarians. Was that the case in the volunteerism campaign?
>On that particular issue, I don't think the Republicans would have been
>much help.
But you say they're "closer" to you than Libertarians are....closer, but no
help?
>As someone involved with the Campaign Against Servitude for ARI, I don't
>know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
>making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
>confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
The Libertarian Party presented the _political_ ramifications of such
practices, and for a _political_ party, I consider that to be quite
rational. The Republicans and Democrats jumped on Bill Clinton's
altruistic bandwagon. Yet you keep saying that Libertarians are
unprincipled and that Republicans are your allies. I don't get it. Am I
missing something here?
Steve Reed
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>As someone involved with the Campaign Against Servitude for ARI, I don't
>know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
>making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
>confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
So did the ARI-produced materials. If, that is, you take the notion that David
Bombardier expressed publicly, that ARI was emphasizing the moral standpoint
-in contrast and distinction to- what non-Objectivist libertarians supposedly
would do, which was to highlight the issue of -compulsory- service.
But go to the ARI Website and read the essays and op-eds that are posted. They
all deal first, and almost solely, with the issue of -compulsion.- They don't
deal with the intricacies (and, yes, it is an intricate distinction in this
Judeo-Christian culture) of moral dedication to other people as such.
All that's discussed in the Campaign's written works is the prospect that's
been raised of using compulsion to achieve these ends, and that such ends were
never intended by the founders to be part of the structure of this republic.
No discussion is made of the "real issue of altruism" as such. Unless, that
is, others here see more in a few buzzwords than I can discern.
I don't know that either non-Objectivist libertarians or the Libertarian Party
types would ever have "been that much help," either. Not when ARI's principals
consider all of them to be the scum of the earth, and a potent poison in -any-
kind of collaboration toward a political end. Why should other libertarians
want to be masochistic?
It's disingenious of Betsy to imply that other libertarians were avoiding the
larger moral framework, when they were largely ignoring this ARI project,
period -- and when the writers of the ARI's materials avoided it themselves.
= = = = = New email address! = = = = =
Steve Reed ... Stev...@earthling.net
Piece of Sky Consulting
Fine Typography and Windows(R) Support
Steve Reed
In an article earlier today, I wrote:
>But go to the ARI Website and read the essays and op-eds that are posted. They
>all deal first, and almost solely, with the issue of -compulsion.- They don't
>deal with the intricacies (and, yes, it is an intricate distinction in this
>Judeo-Christian culture) of moral dedication to other people as such.
I will have to amend that statement somewhat, having checked my files again.
The ARI "position paper" does primarily mention the moral framework as such.
It does so, however, by using large undigested chunks of quotations from
Rand's works -- which, however well expressed (and they -are- well expressed),
are not linked or related to the issue and Volunteer Summit at hand, in any
substantive manner. They are plopped on the "page" without discussing the
relevance of Rand's emphases to the current event.
A discussion of morality? Well, just barely qualifying in that respect. It
doesn't, however encourage the notion that the ARI has people involved with it
who are more than Rand-repeating automatons. The principles she states aren't
-applied- very effectively, not in discussing morality.
>All that's discussed in the Campaign's written works is the prospect that's
>been raised of using compulsion to achieve these ends, and that such ends were
>never intended by the founders to be part of the structure of this republic.
>No discussion is made of the "real issue of altruism" as such. Unless, that
>is, others here see more in a few buzzwords than I can discern.
This comment had been intended, on my part, to apply to the thrust of the four
op-ed pieces that ARI had made available. I stand by saying that any of the
"real issue" that is discussed is rarely done beyond a few Objectivist phrases
and buzzwords. Very little effort is made to integrate it effectively with the
issue of -compulsory- means.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
>I don't know that either non-Objectivist libertarians or the Libertarian
Party
>types would ever have "been that much help," either. Not when ARI's
principals
>consider all of them to be the scum of the earth, and a potent poison in
-any-
>kind of collaboration toward a political end. Why should other libertarians
>want to be masochistic?
Good question. And that brings up another question: why would Michael
Berliner attempt to enlist the aid of Libertarians?
Brad Aisa
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>As someone involved with the Campaign Against Servitude for ARI, I don't
>know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
>making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
>confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
The arguments for or against the efficacy of government programs or for or
against their monetary value are completely irrelevant. People support
these programs, because of two and only two ideas: altruism and
collectivism. They believe in sacrifice -- to the group. Everything wrong
today boils down to that.
I read some of the LP literature related to the Servitude Summit, and
because it didn't address these fundamentals, it might as well have never
been written.
This is why, after 25 years, the LP remains a marginal footnote (grin) in
American(/Western) politics. This battle is not economic. If so, it would
have been won scores of decades ago. This battle is not fiscal. If so, it
would have never arisen. This battle is not "political" or partisan -- if
so, a party of the right (in both senses) would have arisen and swept to
power ages ago.
This battle is about three things, and three things only:
Altruism. Collectivism. Period.
Betsy is absolutely right. I invite libertarians everywhere to discover
what is the essence of this battle, and choose weapons that are appropriate
for the war. The century has been lost to mealy mouthed, squirming
apologists who sneakily hide their agendas behind banal platitudes of
fiscal conservatism and practical efficiency. By *not* openly stating the
issue and repudiating their enemies' premises, these cowards are simply
providing tacit support to them, and even bolstering their case -- everyone
despises a coward, regardless of ideology. (For further practical evidence
on this point, I offer the image and successes of Margaret Thatcher.)
You can't fight nuclear weapons with obscene gestures and harsh language.
Brad Aisa
"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>[W]hy would Michael Berliner attempt to enlist the aid of Libertarians?
Oh, but Dena!
Are you unable to tell the moral (and practical) difference between
sanctioning others, versus allowing others to sanction you?
(P.S. I know nothing of Ms. Buedigam's claim, owoa.)
Dena L. Bruedigam
At 12:54 AM 6/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>[W]hy would Michael Berliner attempt to enlist the aid of Libertarians?
>
>Oh, but Dena!
>
>Are you unable to tell the moral (and practical) difference between
>sanctioning others, versus allowing others to sanction you?
Sanction? Who was talking about sanction?
I wasn't discussing the issue of sanction. In fact, I hadn't even used
that word or implied it.
I was simply responding to Betsy's statement that Republicans are closer to
her politically than Libertarians are. I pointed out that Berliner must
not agree or he would not have enlisted Libertarians' aid in the ARI
campaign against volunteerism. He would have gone to the Republicans
instead.
(My point being that I don't really think that Betsy believes Republicans
are closer to her politically than Libertarians are; it's just something
she says in an attempt to bash Libertarians which clearly reveals her
prejudices. And if she does believe it, then she is severely misinformed).
--Dena
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>The arguments for or against the efficacy of government programs or for or
>against their monetary value are completely irrelevant. ...
>...This battle is not economic. If so, it would
>have been won scores of decades ago. This battle is not fiscal. If so, it
>would have never arisen. This battle is not "political" or partisan -- if
>so, a party of the right (in both senses) would have arisen and swept to
>power ages ago.
The battle isn't economic? It isn't political? It has nothing at all to
do with money? Have you noticed how many taxes you are paying lately?
Have you noticed how many times you go to the polls and vote and are faced
with more and more tax increases? Have you noticed how the politicians you
elect to office continue to raise your taxes?
And you think that no political party should exist to oppose such actions?
Are you insane?
Excuse me, but just how many years am I supposed to sit here and pay
increasing amounts of taxes before I'm ALLOWED to get up and do something
political to put a stop to it -- or at least slow it down?
How many years am I supposed to wait for you and the ARI to re-educate the
public so that they will go to the polls and vote to lower my taxes?
How long? How many years? I'd like to know.
How much percentage of my income am I required to give to the government
before I'm allowed to organize a political party to put a stop to it --
50%, 60%, 70%?
I understand your points exactly about philosophy and I applaud the
successful efforts I see that teach people good philosophy.
But to ignore the benefits of political activity that can reap successes
_now_ in favor of philosophical re-education that will pay off some time in
the future, probably after we're all dead, is simply ridiculous, not to
mention irrational.
David Friedman is right: division of labor. Think about it. It's a
concept I'm sure you are capable of grasping.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Some parties stand for ideas more than others. Some parties try to be
>broad-ranging and inclusive and downplay ideas. The Republics, Democrats,
>and Ross Perot's party do this. Other parties such as the Socialists,
>Communitis, and Libertarians seek to foster a specific agenda. When a
>party is selling ideology, I am more likely to evaluate it in accordance
>with its stated ideology. The Republicans and Democrats are actually
>selling individual candidates for individual offices and, in their case, I
>primarily evaluate the individual candidates.
Are you saying that the Republicans and Democrats aren't selling a SPECIFIC
AGENDA? Where have you been all of your life? Have you ever heard of the
Contract with America? Have you ever paid any attention to what goes on in
Congress?
Are you also saying that the Libertarians aren't selling candidates for
office? Do you live in a cave, or what? I would highly suggest that you
pick up a copy of a newspaper sometime and read it.
BTW, I can't help but notice that you once again refused to answer David
Friedman's question. Why is that? He simply asked which party's platform
is closer to your beliefs: Libertarian or Republican. It's a one-word answer.
>I have yet to see even a significant minority of Libertarians who share my
>epistemological or ethical foundations _anywhere_.
And you have, no doubt, found a significant majority of Republicans who do?
--Dena L. Bruedigam
DEFanyo
>At 12:54 AM 6/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>[W]hy would Michael Berliner attempt to enlist the aid of Libertarians?
>>
>>Oh, but Dena!
>>
>>Are you unable to tell the moral (and practical) difference between
>>sanctioning others, versus allowing others to sanction you?
"...allowing others to sanction you?" ?!? What on earth does that
mean. Berliner, in this case, isn't 'allowing' anything -- he's
asking for help! And don't plead that 'it's for The Cause" -- the
ends do not justify the means.
Berliner won't sanction the Libertarians, but he asks the
Libertarians to help him?
That's like saying, "You're a bum! I despise everything you and
your friends stand for, and collectively you all aren't worth a
glass of water. By the way, my house needs painting; I expect you
and your friends bright and early tomorrow morning to paint it
gratis. Bring your own water."
BAH!!
--Dorothy
Brad Aisa
>>...This battle is not economic. If so, it would
>>have been won scores of decades ago. This battle is not fiscal. If so, it
>>would have never arisen. This battle is not "political" or partisan -- if
>>so, a party of the right (in both senses) would have arisen and swept to
>>power ages ago.
>
>The battle isn't economic? It isn't political? It has nothing at all to
>do with money?
That is absolutely correct. It is a moral battle. It is about the right of
individuals to live independently, for their own sake. It is about man, the
sacrifical property of the tribe, vs. man, the sovereign egoist. It is
about whether man is a rational animal, and everything that requires, or a
pack animal.
It is not about taxes that are too high.
>[high taxes, etc.]
>
>And you think that no political party should exist to oppose such actions?
I have never said nor implied this.
>Are you insane?
No. Next question?
>Excuse me, but just how many years am I supposed to sit here and pay
>increasing amounts of taxes before I'm ALLOWED to get up and do something
>political to put a stop to it -- or at least slow it down?
I never said you should blithely take it, and I never said one shouldn't
engage in political activism. But there is useful political activism and
useless political activism -- that is the point I am trying to make.
>[Ignoring] the benefits of political activity that can reap successes
>_now_ in favor of philosophical re-education that will pay off some time
>in the future, probably after we're all dead, is simply ridiculous, not to
>mention irrational.
>David Friedman is right: division of labor. Think about it. It's a
>concept I'm sure you are capable of grasping.
XXX OOO 2U2
Now, can we get back to the *actual* subject? Whether the LP is an
intellectually and philosophically -- and thus politically -- useless
organization of mindlessly hostile anti-government pragmatists, or not.
BTW -- how much aggregate press coverage did ARI's *inaugural* and
*impromptu* political activist campaign garner... and how much coverage did
did sundry LP-related activities and media releases garner?
Ask yourself why.
Jim Klein
Brad Aisa wrote:
> BTW -- how much aggregate press coverage did ARI's *inaugural* and
> *impromptu* political activist campaign garner... and how much coverage did
> did sundry LP-related activities and media releases garner?
>
> Ask yourself why.
Tell yourself the answer---"Location, location, location."
Deep moral premises, there.
Oh yeah, and bright colors on stupid looking and monotonous signs, so
the mass media could show how ridiculous anybody against such an
"obvious good", looks.
I know R. Lawrence thinks I unfairly pick on you, but you're such a
hypocrite that it boggles the mind. You and your cohorts write time and
time again about how the LP is "unprincipled" and "lacks a philosophy".
NOW, you show how much weaker they are, because they presented
arguments, participated in "sundry activities" and sent out "media
releases" while your gang went out with a bunch of poorly designed,
run-off signs and marched in a "protest", and got more media coverage.
Lemme guess...the standards of success depend on the "context," right?
jk
Betsy Speicher
On 17 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> I was simply responding to Betsy's statement that Republicans are closer
> to her politically than Libertarians are.
Go back and read what I actually wrote. I said that with regard to the
use of reason (epistemology) and with regard to their attitude toward
values (ethics), I have more in common with the Republicans I know than
with the Libertarians I know. Superficially, Libertarians seem to have
more in common politically with Objectivists than most Republicans do. I
tend to discount that because, ultimately, a person's politics are always
determined by his epistemology and ethics.
> I pointed out that Berliner must not agree or he would not have enlisted
> Libertarians' aid in the ARI campaign against volunteerism. He would
> have gone to the Republicans instead.
>
> (My point being that I don't really think that Betsy believes Republicans
> are closer to her politically than Libertarians are;
I don't think Republicans are closer politically right now, but I have had
much better luck selling my politics to rational Republicans and Democrats
than I will ever have trying to sell my ethics to most Libertarians.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>
>> I was simply responding to Betsy's statement that Republicans are closer
>> to her politically than Libertarians are.
>
>Go back and read what I actually wrote.
I did. You said that you feel closer to Republicans than Libertarians.
I guess that's what happens when you make decisions based on feelings.
--DLB
Dena L. Bruedigam
DEFanyo <de...@teekay.win.net> wrote:
>Brad Aisa wrote:
>>This battle is about three things, and three things only:
>>
>>Altruism. Collectivism. Period.
>
>I confess I'm puzzled. Altruism I know a bit about; Collectivism
>rings a bell, however faint. But Period?
>
>>From the company it keeps, I presume that Period is a Really Bad
>Thing. Is that right. Brad? If so, I hasten to state for the
>record: I'm anti-Period! Only an evil evader could possibly be
>for Period.
Hey, put me down as anti-Period, too!
I think that also makes us pro-Menopause, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe
we can get an Official Objectivist Ruling on that!
:-)
--Dena
Dena L. Bruedigam
I, Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>Go back and read what I actually wrote.
>
>I did. You said that you feel closer to Republicans than Libertarians.
BTW, no hard feelings. I don't feel very close to you, either!
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 12 Jun 1997 16:47:08 GMT, Diana Mertz
Brickell wanted to share:
:Jaffo (ja...@onramp.net) wrote:
:: And what do you think The Cato Institute is? It is an organization to do
:: exactly what you suggest, formed by members of the Libertarian Party.
:
:Un, no. Cato is an organization that sponsors studies and writes books
:and such, but it's not formed by members of the LP. (It's not really
:clear what you mean by that though.) It was, in fact, formed by people
:(such as Ed Crane) who thought that working within the LP had become
:futile (largely due to anti-Third Party election laws passed in the mid
:1970's.) When I was at Cato, the LP may as well not have existed, for all
:that it affected Cato's goings-on. Although, I should add, I'm sure that
:most policy-makers at Cato voted Libertarian.
I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask people. The Republicans are
stealing a lot from Cato. Maybe Ed likes this.
Jaffo
--
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels
in the forms of kings to govern him?" -- Thomas Jefferson
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 11 Jun 1997 07:34:05 GMT, David
Harmon wanted to share:
:On 7 Jun 1997 09:26:17 GMT, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
:
:>Nathaniel Branden is a Libertarian.
:>Ayn Rand was a Libertarian.
:>
:>Ask me my source for this. <G>
:
:Ok, I'll bite. What is your source for that, especially the
:capital "L" which usually denotes Libertatian Party member
:as opposed to simply libertarian in philosophy?
I wrote Branden in email and he was nice enough to answer me.
He didn't really explain himself, so it's easy to read too much into the
answer, but he was clear about him (and Ayn) being Libertarians.
I don't know his personal definition. He may have meant "small l."
But he does show up frequently at Cato events.
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 11 Jun 1997 13:06:35 GMT, Dena L.
Bruedigam wanted to share:
:As I recall, you have previously mentioned quite a few Republicans that you
:support, including Steve Forbes. And I recall you mentioning that there
:were Objectivists writing speeches for Forbes and working on his campaign.
I voted for Forbes in the Republican primary. He is eloquently explaining on
his web pages why the Republican party is NOT the party of freedom, and he is
working hard to illustrate their inconsistencies.
He is my favorite Republican and I think he would make an excellent President.
He's not 100% in line with my principles, but he's DAMN DAMN close.
I couldn't figure out how he and Bob Dole could be in the same party.
Sometimes, I don't think they are.
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 11 Jun 1997 16:05:01 GMT, Dena L.
Bruedigam wanted to share:
:Betsy, I doubt that you will get very far in this forum trying to convince
:people that Republicans are bastions of rationality. If that is true, then
:why are so many of their political positions so irrational, why are so many
:of their politicians corrupt, why is so much of their legislation overtly
:anti-individual and anti-life?
I believe there is a faction in the Republican Party that is pro-individual
and pro-life (in the real sense) but they are not currently in power.
I thought Newt Gingrich was one of them, but he has betrayed me.
Betsy Speicher
On 16 Jun 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>
> >As someone involved with the Campaign Against Servitude for ARI, I don't
> >know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
> >making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
> >confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
>
> So did the ARI-produced materials. If, that is, you take the notion that
> David Bombardier expressed publicly, that ARI was emphasizing the moral
> standpoint -in contrast and distinction to- what non-Objectivist
> libertarians supposedly would do, which was to highlight the issue of
> -compulsory- service.
>
> But go to the ARI Website and read the essays and op-eds that are
> posted. They all deal first, and almost solely, with the issue of
> -compulsion.- They don't deal with the intricacies (and, yes, it is an
> intricate distinction in this Judeo-Christian culture) of moral
> dedication to other people as such.
They most certainly DO deal with the issue of altruism and a person's
_moral_ right to his own life at the website. (They have pointers
elsewhere to other Objectivist literature for those who are interested in
the "intricacies.")
I would suggest that everyone go on over to ARI's "No Servitude" pages and
sign the petition. You have only a few days left to do it. Someday you
will proudly tell -- and show -- your grandchildren that you were there
and took a stand for a man's right to live for his own sake. It may be
the best opportunity to sign an historic document since the Founding
Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>The battle isn't economic? It isn't political? It has nothing at all to
>>do with money?
>
>That is absolutely correct. It is a moral battle. It is about the right of
>individuals to live independently, for their own sake. It is about man, the
>sacrifical property of the tribe, vs. man, the sovereign egoist. It is
>about whether man is a rational animal, and everything that requires, or a
>pack animal.
>
>It is not about taxes that are too high.
So then what should a POLITICAL PARTY do about high taxes? Mount a
campaign to get everyone to read a philosophy book? Or mount a campaign to
_lower_ taxes?
>I never said you should blithely take it, and I never said one shouldn't
>engage in political activism. But there is useful political activism and
>useless political activism -- that is the point I am trying to make.
I see. So then is political activity which is designed to lower taxes or
stop government from raising taxes useful or useless? What about political
activity that successfully re-establishes individual rights, such as the
California medical marijuana issue, is that useful or useless?
>Now, can we get back to the *actual* subject? Whether the LP is an
>intellectually and philosophically -- and thus politically -- useless
>organization of mindlessly hostile anti-government pragmatists, or not.
I'm certainly not an intellectually and philsophically useless mindlessly
hostile anti-government pragmatist, and I'm an LP officer. And I can
assure you that there are many more like me out there.
>BTW -- how much aggregate press coverage did ARI's *inaugural* and
>*impromptu* political activist campaign garner... and how much coverage did
>did sundry LP-related activities and media releases garner?
I'm glad you brought that up.
Brad, if you want to put the ARI's media record up against the LP's, we'll
take that challenge any day of the week. Let's go. You get out your
clippings and I'll get out mine and we'll see who has the most column inches.
I can show you stacks of newspapers and video tapes with coverage of
Libertarian activities in the last month -- just in Ohio. (If you don't
believe me, they're sitting in my living room. Feel free to stop by and
take a look).
Multiply that by 50 and add in the interviews the LP national office does
almost daily, and the ARI can't hold a candle to the LP media-wise. If
you're trying to strengthen your point of view, I don't think you even want
to bring that issue up.
Whether you like it or not, the LP far surpasses the ARI in media coverage
and general public recognition.
And as far as the comparison of the ARI's media coverage to the LP's
concerning the volunteerism campaign, that's easy: the LP didn't have a
campaign on that issue. The communications office simply sent out a news
release stating the LP's position on the issue, which it does several times
per week on various issues. Of course a campaign with a protest march
would garner more attention than that. Duh.
David Friedman
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970617...@usr03.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Superficially, Libertarians seem to have
> more in common politically with Objectivists than most Republicans do. I
> tend to discount that because, ultimately, a person's politics are always
> determined by his epistemology and ethics.
This sounds like "I know the right answer--don't confuse me with the facts."
Or in other words, your "superficially" is a way of evading the fact that
Libertarians have (a great deal) more in common politically with
Objectivists than Republicans do. That fact implies either that you are
wrong about Libertarians' epistemology and ethics or that you are wrong
about the causal link between epistemology and ethics and politics.
"So Schwerer fur die Tatsache."
David Friedman
--
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Dena L. Bruedigam
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>> Are you saying that the Republicans and Democrats aren't selling a SPECIFIC
>> AGENDA?
>
>Most of the time, they aren't. Actually, I wish they were. I don't call
>a mess of emotional platitudes an agenda.
Well, I guess that settles that. If YOU don't "call" it an agenda, then it
isn't an agenda, even though in reality it is an agenda. What is it
Objectivists are always saying about subjectivism.....? That it's a good
thing???
>> Where have you been all of your life? Have you ever heard of the
>> Contract with America?
>
>That was the first time in recent memory, and I hope not the last time,
>the Republicans took a stand for something specific and intellectually
>coherent. It was an astounding political success. Too bad they didn't
>have the moral strength necessary to carry out the Contract after they
>sold it to the American people.
You call moral weakness, compromising, and backing down on your principles
an "astounding political success"!??! Geez. No wonder you don't like the
Libertarian Party!!
>> BTW, I can't help but notice that you once again refused to answer David
>> Friedman's question. Why is that? He simply asked which party's
>> platform is closer to your beliefs: Libertarian or Republican. It's a
>> one-word answer.
>
>Neither one. (2-word answer.)
Ah, another example of the Betsy Speicher simple question side-step. And
you wonder why people accuse you of being evasive.
--DLB
Brad Aisa
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>Nathaniel Branden is a Libertarian.
>Ayn Rand was a Libertarian.
>
>Ask me my source for this.
[... a later post]
>I wrote Branden in email and he was nice enough to answer me.
>
>He didn't really explain himself, so it's easy to read too much into the
>answer, but he was clear about him (and Ayn) being Libertarians.
"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" [aka
libertarians -- BA] who ... [claim] simultaneously to be
followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism."
Ayn Rand, "Brief Summary," *The Objectivist*, Sep/1971
"Above all, do not join the wrong *ideological* gorups or
movements, in order to "do something." By "ideological"
(in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming
some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contra-
dictory) *political* goals. (E.g., ... 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.
Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?", *Philosophy: Who Needs
It*, p. 202.
>I don't know his personal definition. He may have meant "small l."
Maybe he's just misrepresenting what Rand actually believed and wrote.
>But he does show up frequently at Cato events.
Every organization gets the speakers it deserves.
William H. Stoddard
In article <3.0.32.19970618...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>,
"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
> Hey, put me down as anti-Period, too!
>
> I think that also makes us pro-Menopause, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe
> we can get an Official Objectivist Ruling on that!
Actually that's only one possible strategy; there's also anorexia, and
there's the hunter-gatherer strategy of prolonged nursing (up to three or
four years) with associated lactational amenorrhea. I suppose the next
step is a heated debate on whether all these different approaches can be
brought into one large antimenstrual movement or whether those who take
incorrect stances are evil evaders with whom the issue cannot rationally
be discussed.
More seriously, have you seen Connie Willis's "Even the Queen?" She
portrays a future society where medical technology makes menstruation
unnecessary--and where the political movement to legalize this technology
also established a "Principle of Personal Sovereignty" as the basis of the
law. A very interesting piece of fiction; she manages to recast the
contrast between Lockean and Rousseauian political philosophies as a
family quarrel in a restaurant. The story is so funny that it took me a
couple of years to notice that it had substantive intellectual content.
--
William H. Stoddard whs...@primenet.net
You'll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
Or engaged in doing complicated long division sums.
(T. S. Eliot, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats")
Betsy Speicher
On 18 Jun 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
> >Steve Reed wrote, about the Campaign Against Servitude materials:
>
> >>But go to the ARI Website and read the essays and op-eds that are
> >>posted. They all deal first, and almost solely, with the issue of
> >>-compulsion.- They don't deal with the intricacies (and, yes, it is
> >>an intricate distinction in this Judeo-Christian culture) of moral
> >>dedication to other people as such.
>
> As Betsy apparently missed, I noted later that I spoke in haste and without
> rechecking sources, and this was not true of ARI's "position paper" at the
> Website. It was, however, true of the op-ed pieces that were intended for
> newspaper or magazine reprinting.
>
ARI's most widely circulated op-ed piece, the one by David Harriman which
ran in USA Today and was read almost in its entirety on the air by Rush
Limbaugh, took on the moral issue directly. That is why the USA Today
Editor gave it the headline "Selfishness Made America Great."
Betsy Speicher
On 18 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >On 17 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> >> Where have you been all of your life? Have you ever heard of the
> >> Contract with America?
> >
> >That was the first time in recent memory, and I hope not the last time,
> >the Republicans took a stand for something specific and intellectually
> >coherent. It was an astounding political success. Too bad they didn't
> >have the moral strength necessary to carry out the Contract after they
> >sold it to the American people.
>
> You call moral weakness, compromising, and backing down on your principles
> an "astounding political success"!??! Geez. No wonder you don't like the
> Libertarian Party!!
I applaud the _proposal_ and _selling_ of the Contract with America
because it was a bold, real, coherent, and genuinely valuable proposal.
That part was an astounding success because it resulted in the defeat of
the Democrats 40-year entrenced majority in both the House and the Senate.
The subsequent moral weakness, compromising, and backing down on the part
of the Republicans when faced with charges of being cruel and heartless
for defending individual rights was a victory of another sort: a victory
for the altruist morality.
The altruist morality is the real enemy of liberty and anyone who claims
to be for liberty -- whether they call themselves Republicans or
Libertarians -- had better join to _moral_ battle. Otherwise they will
lose.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>Yogi <remov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I'm curious Brad, could you please translate the above so it has any
>>meaning whatsoever to people's lives?
>
>How about, "Fuck with me or my property and I'll blow you away."
Hmm....so now you are advocating violence?
Steve Reed
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>I applaud the _proposal_ and _selling_ of the Contract with America
>because it was a bold, real, coherent, and genuinely valuable proposal.
>That part was an astounding success because it resulted in the defeat of
>the Democrats' 40-year entrenched majority in both the House and the Senate.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is a first-year college student's fallacy.
The gain of Republican seats in Congress was far more part of the pattern of
mid-presidential-term reaction to the incumbent in the White House, along with
the newly organized and less in-your-face Religious Right. Ralph Reed (no
relation <g>) had far more to do with those victories than Gingrich did with
his piece of scrap paper.
And that's all it was. The so-called "Contract" was nothing more than a photo
op for the GOP candidates on the steps of the Capitol, and only a handful of
those running for the House bothered with noting it. You are truly wiping your
own memory when you forget the contortions Gingrich & Co. went through during
the interregnum, when they realized they'd actually have to ACT upon it.
By the way, it was no more "coherent" than any other Republican platform. It
merely reduced some of the 1992 platform stands to sound bites and tossed in a
stronger emphasis on term limits.
>The subsequent moral weakness, compromising, and backing down on the part
>of the Republicans when faced with charges of being cruel and heartless
>for defending individual rights was a victory of another sort: a victory
>for the altruist morality.
Cruel and heartless? Yep, they were charged with that, by those calling it a
"Contract ON America." But charged with that because they -defended individual
rights-? What a fantasy. None of the proposals defended rights, they (at best)
removed burdens upon the exercise of rights. No bureaucracy was removed. No
balanced budget not easily overridden was then, or ever, proposed.
Altruism was rampant in many agendas, no question. But to call it a factor in
this "Contract" coming down provokes a variation on my own favorite line:
Never ascribe to morality that which is adequately explained by politicking.
= = = = = New email address! = = = = =
Steve Reed ... Stev...@earthling.net
Piece of Sky Consulting
Fine Typography and Windows(R) Support
OEXCHAOS
Dena L. Bruedigam brued...@osu.edu wrote:
> Brad Aisa <ba...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >>The battle isn't economic? It isn't political? It has nothing at all
to
> >>do with money?
> >
> >That is absolutely correct. It is a moral battle. It is about the right
of
> >individuals to live independently, for their own sake. It is about man,
the
> >sacrifical property of the tribe, vs. man, the sovereign egoist. It is
> >about whether man is a rational animal, and everything that requires,
or a
> >pack animal.
> >
> >It is not about taxes that are too high.
>
> So then what should a POLITICAL PARTY do about high taxes? Mount a
> campaign to get everyone to read a philosophy book? Or mount a campaign
> to _lower_ taxes?
I think you miss the point, and it's an important one.
Brad is wisely, if not clearly, pointing out that when you talk about
political action of lowering taxes, vs. discussing the morality of taxes,
you cede the high philosophical ground, and get into the utility of one
tax level or another. And that is NOT what this issue is about. All you
end up doing is presenting an imporant moral issue (taxes as theft) as
just another management dicision, possibly decided by plebecite. And, as
Billy once said, that is reprehensible.
> >I never said you should blithely take it, and I never said one
shouldn't
> >engage in political activism. But there is useful political activism
and
> >useless political activism -- that is the point I am trying to make.
>
> I see. So then is political activity which is designed to lower taxes
or
> stop government from raising taxes useful or useless? What about
> political activity that successfully re-establishes individual rights,
such as the
> California medical marijuana issue, is that useful or useless?
Actually, agitating to lower taxes is sort of like agitating to require
rapists to kiss you when they are done. Theft is still theft, and rape is
still rape, no matter how the perpetrator pretends that such is in your
best interest.
Or, I suppose, we can accept that lower taxes are good, but working to do
so leaves the much more important issue unanswered. And leaving it
unanswered is what got us here in the first place.
Mark Steward Young
Publisher
The Steward Analytics FaxLetter
http://members.aol.com/oexchaos/premium.htm
Learn how our model account made 79% NET last year.
(no more than 20% at risk on any given trade)
Brad Aisa
>>["The battle for freedom and capitalism is a *moral* battle."]
>>...
>>It is not about taxes that are too high.
>
>So then what should a POLITICAL PARTY do about high taxes? Mount a
>campaign to get everyone to read a philosophy book? Or mount a campaign
>to _lower_ taxes?
Why not address the cause, instead of the effect?
High taxes are caused by high spending... spending on things that are
illegitimate... spending that is inevitably justified by altruistic and
collectivist appeals and notions.
So rewind that causal chain: repudiate the altruistic and collectivistic
notions... then you can *effectively* and *clearly* attack the particular
programs upon which the spending is made... and when you get rid of the
*spending*, then the *taxes* will no longer be necessary.
Dena, with all due respect, if you are representative of libertarians (and
based on my experience, I think that you are) then *this* is the reason you
guys are not having much popular or *moral* success -- you are not
addressing the causal chain in reality at the proper points. Unless you
attack this problem at the level of cause, you will never get anywhere.
And *no*, this doesn't mean a political party need be a philosophical
organization -- philosophical activities can take place alongside, by those
under whose mandate such actions more appropriate fall.
But at the *absolute* least, a political party that is trying to buck
the status quo must operate from a moral base. In practice, this means
always emphasizing the *reasons* why one is opposed to various
interventions. Not just cowardly platitudes like the private sector does
things more efficiently -- but solid moral and philosophical arguments,
like assertions that it is immoral for government to be competing with
private business, since they have force and coerced taxes. Etc.
And no amount of ridicule and exasperation on your part will change the
fact that the LP is so marginal it barely registers on political landscape.
And I don't buy the idea that a capitalist party of principle is too
"extreme" in principle, not to receive support. You can differentiate your
basic principles and long term goals, from immediate platform policy. After
all, there is only so much that could be achieved in a single legislative
sitting anyway, so there is no point adopting hubristic utopian platforms.
Jim Klein
Brad Aisa wrote:
> But at the *absolute* least, a political party that is trying to buck
> the status quo must operate from a moral base. In practice, this means
> always emphasizing the *reasons* why one is opposed to various
> interventions. Not just cowardly platitudes like the private sector does
> things more efficiently -- but solid moral and philosophical arguments,
> like assertions that it is immoral for government to be competing with
> private business, since they have force and coerced taxes. Etc.
I'm no Libertarian, but from what I know, the Party IS "morally and
philosophically" based, with even better premises than you present here,
by virtue of the fact that their premises are based on individuals,
while yours are based from the POV of the government. Maybe I'm
mistaken, but I get the impression that the LP represents the idea that
sovereignty rests within each individual, and the collective use of
force against any individual, is morally wrong. Prima facie, that
appears to be a moral and philosophical premise, and indeed one which is
fully consistent with Objectivism.
> And no amount of ridicule and exasperation on your part will change the
> fact that the LP is so marginal it barely registers on political landscape.
Unlike Objectivism, as presented by the ARI, right? The little
attention it gets, is only to be considered as a laughable philosophy by
mainstream Americans. Little wonder, considering that they have
abandoned both English and logic.
> And I don't buy the idea that a capitalist party of principle is too
> "extreme" in principle, not to receive support. You can differentiate your
> basic principles and long term goals, from immediate platform policy. After
> all, there is only so much that could be achieved in a single legislative
> sitting anyway, so there is no point adopting hubristic utopian platforms.
And what would you call the P.O.G.---"eminently doable", "on the verge
of happening"? The fact of the matter is that capitalism is fighting a
losing battle, both on specific policy matters, and as an overall
philosophy. Since Objectivism represents the best (perhaps only)
philosophy to offer a solid approach to it, the blame squarely falls
upon Objectivists' shoulders. Evasion of responsibility does not suit
an egoist well at all.
jk
Tom Scheeler
Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> "Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
> >Brad Aisa <ba...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> >>["The battle for freedom and capitalism is a *moral* battle."]
> >>...
> >>It is not about taxes that are too high.
> But at the *absolute* least, a political party that is trying to buck
> the status quo must operate from a moral base. In practice, this means
> always emphasizing the *reasons* why one is opposed to various
> interventions. Not just cowardly platitudes like the private sector does
> things more efficiently -- but solid moral and philosophical arguments,
> like assertions that it is immoral for government to be competing with
> private business, since they have force and coerced taxes. Etc.
>
> fact that the LP is so marginal it barely registers on political landscape.
The broad acceptance of input from the CATO Institute from the Congress
and the media indicates that (l)ibertarianism is becoming more of a
force to be reckoned with. NTL, CATO is not an arm of the LP. Further,
CATO is adept at presenting raw data, in much the same vein that Rush
Limbaugh does. Both Limbaugh and CATO are adept at the "platitudes".
Both challenge certain facets of the status quo (Liberalism), but not
the status quo per se, and certainly not the underlying morality that
Americans have accepted for generations.
Limbaugh makes a mockery of moral issues whenever he attempts to analyze
issues in terms of morality. Typically, tradition and theology are his
only tools. Likewise with Gordon Liddy and Michael Reagan. (I am sick to
death of the "God bless you"'s that come from these bozos). CATO does
not even attempt analysis other than pragmatically or statistically.
It is one thing to point out flaws in a system. It is not rocket
science. Neither is it philosophical. To move a nation politically
without moving it philosophically is a disaster waiting to happen. The
people need not don togas and read great tomes, but must have a basic
understanding of philosophical concepts, much like Rand's "standing on
one foot" presentation. The LP does virtually nothing in this direction.
I have not followed the LP closely for almost a year now, but up to the
point I broke off communications, they had not challenged anything other
than politically. Their challenge to taxation, public education,
victimless crime, gun rights, etc., is valid but going to go nowhere
without an explanation of underlying principles that are comprehensible
to the average Joe and Jane. As things stand they come off more like an
adolescent tantrum.
Tom Scheeler
Tim Starr
In article <5o4n9v$4...@news.interlog.com>,
>>know that the Libertarians were all that much help either. They were
>>making anti-government and pragmatic arguments, but shied away from
>>confronting the REAL issue: altruism.
>
>against their monetary value are completely irrelevant. People support
>these programs, because of two and only two ideas: altruism and
>collectivism. They believe in sacrifice -- to the group. Everything wrong
>today boils down to that.
>
>I read some of the LP literature related to the Servitude Summit, and
>because it didn't address these fundamentals, it might as well have never
>been written.
>
>This is why, after 25 years, the LP remains a marginal footnote (grin) in
>American(/Western) politics.
While the Objectivist movement has had what positive effect upon American
politics, exactly?
>Betsy is absolutely right. I invite libertarians everywhere to discover
>what is the essence of this battle, and choose weapons that are appropriate
>for the war. The century has been lost to mealy mouthed, squirming
>apologists who sneakily hide their agendas behind banal platitudes of
>fiscal conservatism and practical efficiency. By *not* openly stating the
>issue and repudiating their enemies' premises, these cowards are simply
>providing tacit support to them, and even bolstering their case -- everyone
>despises a coward, regardless of ideology. (For further practical evidence
>on this point, I offer the image and successes of Margaret Thatcher.)
Thatcher was largely influenced by the Institute for Economic Affairs & the
Adam Smith Institute, both of which owed more to Friedrich Hayek's economics
than to anyone else. The only moral arguments she made were based upon
Christianity.
So, you're offering as an example of the successful use of moral principles a
woman who merely managed to halt the progress of socialism in the UK based
primarily upon economics with a bit of Christianity thrown in?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Betsy Speicher
Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote (concerning Peikoff's decision to
> quit the Republican Party):
>
> >> 3. Does this mean that it is now immoral for Objectivists to support
> >> and/or join the Republican Party?
> >
> >Certainly not! We Objectivists decide such things for ourselves.
>
> That's interesting. So you're saying that there is no Objectivist ban
> on joining and/or supporting political parties?
How could there be? There is no institution to do the "banning" nor to
enforce it.
> I guess I didn't realize that.
Consider yourself informed.
> I assume that the same applies to Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc.,
> also, so one could be a member in good standing of the ARI and of the
> Libertarian Party or the Green Party.
There is no such thing as being a "member" of ARI. There are a handful of
members of the ARI Board of Directors, several dozen employees and
volunteers, and thousands of contributors -- but no "members."
> >I intend to stay registered as a Republican. Of course I never supported
> >the Republican Party, and I don't know an Objectivist who ever did.
>
> Oh. I didn't realize that.
Another contribution to your enlightenment.
> As I recall, you have previously mentioned quite a few Republicans that
> you support, including Steve Forbes. And I recall you mentioning that
> there were Objectivists writing speeches for Forbes and working on his
> campaign.
>
> Are you saying that, even though you and others have openly supported
> candidates of the Republican Party, worked for those candidates, and
> registered to vote as Republicans, none of this behavior indicates that
> you SUPPORT the Republican Party?
Right. We support individual Republican candidates and issues if, and
when, they merit our support. On many occasions, we have allowed the
Republican Party to support, financially underwrite, and publicize
Objectivist causes.
> Once again, I would have to assume that the same then holds true for
> other parties. For example, if I (a) registered to vote as a
> Libertarian, (b) wrote speeches for Harry Browne, and (c) worked on a
> couple of other Libertarian campaigns, then I could, in good faith
> maintain that I am NOT a Libertarian or a supporter of the Libertarian
> Party?
If you supported an anarchist like Browne, I would have serious doubts
about where you were coming from.
> If that is the case, then it follows that there should be absolutely no
> reason for antagonism between Objectivists and the Libertarian Party,
> given that (1) Objectivists are free to support and work for any
> candidate from any political party in the spectrum without violating any
> Objectivist tenet, and (2) supporting candidates does not, as you have
> asserted, indicate support for the candidate's _political party_.
It's one thing to be free to do something and quite another to actually do
it. I am free to swallow poison, but I'm not going to do it.
> >What I have done is occasionally join with Republicans is join with them in
> >support of some candidate or issue or allow the Republican Party to
> >support some project of mine.
>
> This is a rather preposterous statement, to say the least. Because unless
> you are a high-ranking Republican Party official (which you obviously
> aren't), you have little or no say over what issue(s) the Republican Party
> supports! Those decisions are made by the party officers.
I was a party officer -- a committeewoman -- when I was first old enough
to vote. I was also involved with the Metropolitan Young Republican
Club in the 1960's which was an Objectivists-only group sponsored by and
receiving money from the Republican Party. Objectivists I know have also
been speech-writers for and advisors to prominent Republicans, educational
chairmen setting up programs for county organizations, and on the
committees which determine which candidates and issues the local party
will support.
Jim Klein
Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Also, concerning banning, if there is no such thing as an Objectivist ban
> on anything, as you just said, how can it come about that people get
> excommunicated from the Objectivist movement, specifically the ARI?
> Wouldn't that qualify as a ban?
C'mon, get with it! Sure, it's the same action as "banning"; yes, it
has the same motivation as "banning"; indeed, it produces the same
result as "banning". But "banning" it's not; it's "removal of a
sanction" or some such euphemism.
Even more impressively, it's not done subsequent to a value judgement,
since value judgements arise STRICTLY from facts, and every single one
of them can be classified as "consistent with reality" or inconsistent
with it. So the "banning" which isn't taking place is more like gravity
than preferring chocolate ice cream---it's human action guided (as a
_necessary_ cause of aciton) by a godammed fact of the universe.
Of course, that does leave the question, "What the hell IS choosing
chocolate ice cream, in Peikovese?" I know that in the Aisan dialect,
the answer concerns "essential values, critical values, important
values, less important values, hardly-important-at-all values, totally
irrelevant values, etc.
Dena then quotes Betsy giving us these two pearls:
> >I was a party officer -- a committeewoman -- when I was first old enough
> >to vote. I was also involved with the Metropolitan Young Republican
> >Club in the 1960's which was an Objectivists-only group sponsored by and
> >receiving money from the Republican Party. Objectivists I know have also
> >been speech-writers for and advisors to prominent Republicans, educational
> >chairmen setting up programs for county organizations, and on the
> >committees which determine which candidates and issues the local party
> >will support.
and...
> >>> .. Of course I never supported
> >>> the Republican Party, and I don't know an Objectivist who ever did.
This is very easy to understand, actually. The "Republican Party" is an
entity quite distinct from the individuals who make it up, and the
actions they take. In another place and time, this would be branded as
"collectivist", but Rand's been dead for some years now.
> ???? I'm really confused now.....
Well, sure...you're speaking English, among non-English speakers. You'd
be just as confused if you found yourself in Kuala Lumpur, and tried
that!
jk
Brad Aisa
"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Also, concerning banning, if there is no such thing as an Objectivist ban
>on anything, as you just said, how can it come about that people get
>excommunicated from the Objectivist movement, specifically the ARI?
>Wouldn't that qualify as a ban?
Dena, do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in the
freedom to not associate? Do you believe that a person who thinks an
associate in a context is no longer upholding the intellectual or moral
standards necessary to have common civil relations in that context, that
the person should *still* associate with the second in that context? What
would be the moral meaning of that? In what way would that completely
destroy one's associations and sanction of those who *did* meet the
standards of the context? Do you even think about such things?
>can a person be a member of the Libertarian Party or the Green Party and
>be a contributor to or a volunteer for the ARI?
I have made donations to ARI, and don't ever recall being asked to provide
any details of my beliefs or activities.
Perhaps you should ask ARI, if they would continue to welcome contributions
from someone whose actions they viewed, by their own standards, to be
incommensurable with the ideals of Objectivism. It is a generally accepted
principle in the context of voluntary organizations to repudiate
contributions from enemies or those whose actions or beliefs are
incommensurable with your ideals. This is not something Objectivism
invented. Perhaps this is just another example of how much closer, really,
is Objectivism to the reality of most American's lives and day-to-day
real-life ethics, than the stifflingly rationalistic and
amoral Libertarianism unethics (if you are characteritic of L'ism, and your
moral boggles are representative, both of which I think are true).
Betsy Speicher
On 23 Jun 1997, Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
> >> That's interesting. So you're saying that there is no Objectivist ban
> >> on joining and/or supporting political parties?
> >
> >How could there be? There is no institution to do the "banning" nor to
> >enforce it.
>
> Then you agree that a person _can_ be both an Objectivist and a Libertarian
> at the same time.
Your conclusion does not follow at all. Just because there is no
institution banning you from Objectivism doesn't mean that Objectivism and
Libertarianism (i.e., the LP) are compatible. There is no institution
banning you from having your cake and eating it too, but that does not
mean you can do it.
> Also, concerning banning, if there is no such thing as an Objectivist ban
> on anything, as you just said, how can it come about that people get
> excommunicated from the Objectivist movement, specifically the ARI?
They don't. That come from the Anti0ARI Myth Book. Anybody can
contribute to ARI and anybody who acts civilly is welcome at ARI events
and functions -- including a few Big-L Libertarians I know of.
> >>..... so one could be a member in good standing of the ARI and of the
> >> Libertarian Party or the Green Party.
> >
> >There is no such thing as being a "member" of ARI. There are a handful of
> >members of the ARI Board of Directors, several dozen employees and
> >volunteers, and thousands of contributors -- but no "members."
>
> Okay, then I'll re-phrase the question: can a person be a member of the
> Libertarian Party or the Green Party and be a contributor to or a volunteer
> for the ARI?
I personally know a few who are.
> >> Are you saying that, even though you and others have openly supported
> >> candidates of the Republican Party, worked for those candidates, and
> >> registered to vote as Republicans, none of this behavior indicates that
> >> you SUPPORT the Republican Party?
> >
> >Right. We support individual Republican candidates and issues if, and
> >when, they merit our support. On many occasions, we have allowed the
> >Republican Party to support, financially underwrite, and publicize
> >Objectivist causes.
> >
> >> Once again, I would have to assume that the same then holds true for
> >> other parties. For example, if I (a) registered to vote as a
> >> Libertarian, (b) wrote speeches for Harry Browne, and (c) worked on a
> >> couple of other Libertarian campaigns, then I could, in good faith
> >> maintain that I am NOT a Libertarian or a supporter of the Libertarian
> >> Party?
> >
> >If you supported an anarchist like Browne, I would have serious doubts
> >about where you were coming from.
>
> Thanks for the editorial comment, but would you care to answer the question
> I asked?
I would assume, at the least, that you were a supporter of Harry Browne
and of the other candidates on whose campaigns you worked.
> Could I do all of the above and still claim NOT to be a Libertarian or a
> Libertarian Party supporter, similar to your claim NOT to be Republican?
>
> Yes or no?
You might claim that you were not a supporter of the LP itself but, in the
example you gave, I don't see how you could claim you weren't supporting
an anarchist.
> >> If that is the case, then it follows that there should be absolutely no
> >> reason for antagonism between Objectivists and the Libertarian Party,
> >> given that (1) Objectivists are free to support and work for any
> >> candidate from any political party in the spectrum without violating any
> >> Objectivist tenet, and (2) supporting candidates does not, as you have
> >> asserted, indicate support for the candidate's _political party_.
> >
> >It's one thing to be free to do something and quite another to actually do
> >it. I am free to swallow poison, but I'm not going to do it.
>
> Another unrelated comment. Do you agree or disagree with my statement
> above? And if you disagree, I would be interested in knowing why.
I gave you my reason and if you think it is unrelated, I probably means
you didn't understand or don't accept my reason.
> >I was a party officer -- a committeewoman -- when I was first old enough
> >to vote. I was also involved with the Metropolitan Young Republican
> >Club in the 1960's which was an Objectivists-only group sponsored by and
> >receiving money from the Republican Party. Objectivists I know have also
> >been speech-writers for and advisors to prominent Republicans, educational
> >chairmen setting up programs for county organizations, and on the
> >committees which determine which candidates and issues the local party
> >will support.
>
> Very interesting. You and other Objectivists do all of the above yet still
> claim that you AREN'T REPUBLICANS?
_Some_ Objectivists do or have done some or all of the above. Some, like
me, have always registered Republican. Some Objectivists have _never_
registered Republican. Some Objectivists -- like Peikoff -- have quit the
Republican Party.
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find
> this to be strange? Does anyone else see a conflict here with the
> paragraph above and Betsy's previous statement on this issue:
>
> >>> .. Of course I never supported
> >>> the Republican Party, and I don't know an Objectivist who ever did.
>
> ???? I'm really confused now.....
Don't you see the difference between supporting a few, selected Republican
candidates because you like those particular men and supporting the
Republican _Party_? Don't you see the difference between supporting what
a political party stands for and allowing a political party to support
what _you_ stand for?
If you do not grasp these distinctions, no wonder you are confused!
Eric Knauer
David Friedman wrote:
> To go from the general to the specific ... . Would you deny that ARI
> in
> fact has an implicit ban on speaking to libertarian groups--made
> fairly
> explicit in the response of Peikoff and those around him to David
> Kelley
> speaking to one such group? If I received an invitation from an
> Objectivist student group supported by ARI to speak on "the case for
> anarchism," do you think ARI would approve? Would take any action?
> Perhaps
> we should try to arrange the experiment.
>
> Great idea. It would be a thrill to see some professional
> objectivists go head to head with D. Friedman debating the proper
> function (or lack) of the government. IOS(ARI would surely reject a
> proposal) has a feature called the rountable where opposing ideas are
> debated in a professional manner. I emailed the institute about a
> month ago suggesting they invite Friedman to submit an essay
> supporting his theory of anarcho-capitalism but unfortunately I did
> not receive a reply. Anyway, hopefully a mature, professional debate
> will materialize in the near future.
>
David Friedman
In article <5omllg$p...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa
<ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Also, concerning banning, if there is no such thing as an Objectivist ban
>>on anything, as you just said, how can it come about that people get
>>excommunicated from the Objectivist movement, specifically the ARI?
>>Wouldn't that qualify as a ban?
>
>Dena, do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in the
>freedom to not associate?
Brad, do you believe in answering the question asked, instead of inventing
questions and answering them instead?
Dena did not said that ARI did not have the right to excommunicate people.
He said that doing so was an Objectivist ban--something Betsy had just
denied existed. Between you and Betsy, you are saying:
A. Objectivists don't ban people for doing things, and can't (Betsy).
B. And anyway, our banning people is a good thing, and shows " how much
closer, really, is Objectivism to the reality of most American's lives
and day-to-day
real-life ethics, than the stifflingly rationalistic and amoral
Libertarianism unethics ..."
(Brad).
David Friedman
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property while the legislature is in session"
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@interlog.com> wrote:
>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Also, concerning banning, if there is no such thing as an Objectivist ban
>>on anything, as you just said, how can it come about that people get
>>excommunicated from the Objectivist movement, specifically the ARI?
>>Wouldn't that qualify as a ban?
>
>Dena, do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in the
>freedom to not associate?
Of course I believe in freedom of association. That's why I don't hang out
with you.
I was asking Betsy if the ARI also believes in freedom of association and
how the organization goes about enforcing it, if they do. Her comment that
there is no banning of people or activities leads me to believe that
they're very inclusive.....dare I say tolerant? Nah, I better not. How
about "accepting"?
(Anyway, I think you got a little carried away with your diatribe against
me, but I'm used to it).
>I have made donations to ARI, and don't ever recall being asked to provide
>any details of my beliefs or activities.
Interesting.
>Perhaps you should ask ARI, if they would continue to welcome contributions
>from someone whose actions they viewed, by their own standards, to be
>incommensurable with the ideals of Objectivism.
Well, I could ask Betsy, but it takes at least three times to get her to
answer a question, if she ever does, and that gets a little tedious.
However, if the ARI has never asked you, a donor, about your beliefs or
activities, and if they don't ask other contributors, how could they know
that they are accepting money only from people they agree with
philosophically, or do they care?
I don't know the answer. I'm just curious, so don't jump down my throat
with a bunch of non-sequitors accusing me of all kinds of crimes against
Objectivism. Unless curiosity is a crim, that is.
>It is a generally accepted
>principle in the context of voluntary organizations to repudiate
>contributions from enemies or those whose actions or beliefs are
>incommensurable with your ideals. This is not something Objectivism
>invented.
I understand. I wonder how they go about doing that.
--Dena
Diana Mertz Brickell
: "Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> asked:
: >So then what should a POLITICAL PARTY do about high taxes? Mount a
: >campaign to get everyone to read a philosophy book? Or mount a campaign
: >to _lower_ taxes?
Brad Aisa (ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com) responded:
: Why not address the cause, instead of the effect?
: High taxes are caused by high spending... spending on things that are
: illegitimate... spending that is inevitably justified by altruistic and
: collectivist appeals and notions.
And in the meantime, while we wait for such philosophical arguments to be
effective, we're supposed to fork over our hard-earned dollars? No
thanks. I want to keep my money.
I really find it amazing that Brad would be opposed to someone fighting to
keep what *by all rights* belongs to them. Am I supposed to have the same
attitude towards life-saving drugs that the FDA is holding up?
I'm not denying that long-term, philosophical arguments must be made.
What I am saying is *the short term matters*. People die, suffer, and
generally live less well than they could otherwise because of government
intervention. We ought to try to stop that as soon as we can, not wait
until the whole world around us has changed.
O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O
O Diana Mertz Brickell O
O Los Angeles, CA O
O di...@artsci.wustl.edu O
O http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~diana O
O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O O-*-O
Brad Aisa
"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>The thing that I don't understand is:
>
>Why can an Objectivist be a Republican Party officer, activist, campaign
>worker, etc. and NOT be supporting the Republican Party while a
>Libertarian who does the same for the Libertarian Party IS supporting the
>Libertarian Party, the LP platform, etc.?
Maybe it is because post-Schwartz's article, some Objectivists may have
been torturing the concept "Libertarian" beyond what may humanely be
excused, turning it into a category which enables them to do a simple
one-step categorization of any person, book, organization, politician, or
other entity, action, phenomenon or existent of whatever kind... without
any independent thought, and under the unadmitted but very real auspice of
being under necessity to conform or else face the prospect of themself
being categorized as an L-sympathizer and being thus made totally unwelcome
in Objectivist circles.
In short, maybe it is just another instance of Borg-think, but somewhat out
of the Borg's own territory and within the alliance's ranks.
Of course, no Good Objectivist could be guilty of this, just as no Good
Objectivist is guilty of the sin of Rationalism. Objectivists are only
capable of Good.
Brad Aisa
"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>However, if the ARI has never asked you, a donor, about your beliefs or
>activities, and if they don't ask other contributors, how could they know
>that they are accepting money only from people they agree with
>philosophically, or do they care?
Maybe they do not operate on a "nightmare metaphysics", paranoid world
view. Maybe they figure that the reason people give them money, is because
said people agree with the actions and goals of ARI. And maybe they
recognize that, except in some highly delimited context, accepting a
contribution from someone is not a sanction of that person and their
beliefs or actions. There are many possible shades of reverse sanctioning,
depending on what one knows of another, and the nature of that other.
Again, I hardly think Objectivists or ARI has a monopoly on common sense in
this area.
>I don't know the answer. I'm just curious, so don't jump down my throat
>with a bunch of non-sequitors accusing me of all kinds of crimes against
>Objectivism. Unless curiosity is a crim, that is.
>>It is a generally accepted
>>principle in the context of voluntary organizations to repudiate
>>contributions from enemies or those whose actions or beliefs are
>>incommensurable with your ideals. This is not something Objectivism
>>invented.
>
>I understand. I wonder how they go about doing that.
I haven't got a clue, but it doesn't sound too difficult to imagine the
details. You are great at inventing things -- use your imagination.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>Diana Mertz Brickell <di...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>And in the meantime, while we wait for such philosophical arguments to be
>>effective, we're supposed to fork over our hard-earned dollars? No
>>thanks. I want to keep my money.
>
>Huh? And just precisely how do you intend to fight for lower taxes, against
>people who want higher taxes, because they want the cause of higher taxes?
I think I explained that very well in a previous post that I made on this
subject where I described how we defeated the stadium/arena tax here in
Columbus. I gave concrete examples based on a real life situation and
asked for your opinion on how I handled things. But for some reason you
didn't respond.
>>I'm not denying that long-term, philosophical arguments must be made.
>>What I am saying is *the short term matters*. People die, suffer, and
>>generally live less well than they could otherwise because of government
>>intervention. We ought to try to stop that as soon as we can, not wait
>>until the whole world around us has changed.
>
>Ms. Brickell (and Ms. Bruedigam) are setting up a strawman false dichotomy:
>a choice between principled intellectual activism, that will not have any
>practical effect for ages; or "practical" "hear-and-now" activism, that
>will have near-term consequence, but which happens not to be fundamental or
>philosophical in nature.
I don't see how. We have both said that both approaches are important.
You are the one saying that there is only one way to skin the cat.
>The correct strategy is to fight specific instances of government spending,
>and to do it on moral, principled grounds.
That sounds really nice every time you say it, but whenever I ask for
specifics, I never get any. You can't convince me of anything by repeating
Objectivist mantras. If you can't show me how they can be applied to real
life situations, then they are useless. Absolutely useless. Period. (And
period's a really bad thing, too, right Dorothy?).
>Those fighting *for* a program,
>do so, explicitly or implicitly, on a moral base.
That's hardly true. The corrupt business men who were trying to get tax
money from us to build their arena and stadium weren't doing so from a
moral base. They were just trying to get what they could get from a
gullible public. They lied and presented false pragmatic arguments to
support their position. Whenever they lost, they turned around and decided
to go ahead and build the arena with their own money.
>Now, it is the case that
>the left's (and the fascist right's) moral base is entrenched in our
>culture, and often needn't even be formally or explicitly invoked. This
>doesn't mean their schemes and programs don't depend on such a base. And it
>is only by identifying this moral base, and blasting it in each case, can a
>program expect to be defeated.
Once again, the things you say sound nice, but they just aren't backed up
by reality.
>Anyone pretending otherwise is only kidding themselves.
Anyone who accepts what you say at face value, without doing a little
research into reality, is a fool.
Brad Aisa
>
>: >So then what should a POLITICAL PARTY do about high taxes? Mount a
>: >campaign to get everyone to read a philosophy book? Or mount a
>: >campaign to _lower_ taxes?
>
>Brad Aisa (ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com) responded:
>
>: Why not address the cause, instead of the effect?
>
>: High taxes are caused by high spending... spending on things that are
>: illegitimate... spending that is inevitably justified by altruistic and
>: collectivist appeals and notions.
>
>effective, we're supposed to fork over our hard-earned dollars? No
>thanks. I want to keep my money.
Huh? And just precisely how do you intend to fight for lower taxes, against
people who want higher taxes, because they want the cause of higher taxes?
>I really find it amazing that Brad would be opposed to someone fighting to
>keep what *by all rights* belongs to them.
But I've never suggested people shouldn't fight for their rights. In fact,
it is their *rights* -- their selfish, moral, *property* rights -- which I
have always suggested it should be what people argue and fight for.
>I'm not denying that long-term, philosophical arguments must be made.
>What I am saying is *the short term matters*. People die, suffer, and
>generally live less well than they could otherwise because of government
>intervention. We ought to try to stop that as soon as we can, not wait
>until the whole world around us has changed.
And who has suggested waiting?
Ms. Brickell (and Ms. Bruedigam) are setting up a strawman false dichotomy:
a choice between principled intellectual activism, that will not have any
practical effect for ages; or "practical" "hear-and-now" activism, that
will have near-term consequence, but which happens not to be fundamental or
philosophical in nature.
The correct strategy is to fight specific instances of government spending,
and to do it on moral, principled grounds. Those fighting *for* a program,
do so, explicitly or implicitly, on a moral base. Now, it is the case that
the left's (and the fascist right's) moral base is entrenched in our
culture, and often needn't even be formally or explicitly invoked. This
doesn't mean their schemes and programs don't depend on such a base. And it
is only by identifying this moral base, and blasting it in each case, can a
program expect to be defeated.
Anyone pretending otherwise is only kidding themselves.
--
T. Scheeler
In article <5ordfu$ahe$1...@newsreader.wustl.edu>, Diana Mertz Brickell <di...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
..
>I'm not denying that long-term, philosophical arguments must be made.
>What I am saying is *the short term matters*. People die, suffer, and
>generally live less well than they could otherwise because of government
>intervention. We ought to try to stop that as soon as we can, not wait
>until the whole world around us has changed.
And, as stated here many times before, no one is entitled to even ONE SECOND
of my life. How much more so when they take YEARS.
Sic Semper Tyrannus
Tom Scheeler
T. Scheeler
In article <5ort2f$g...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
..
>
>The correct strategy is to fight specific instances of government spending,
>and to do it on moral, principled grounds. Those fighting *for* a program,
>do so, explicitly or implicitly, on a moral base. Now, it is the case that
>the left's (and the fascist right's) moral base is entrenched in our
>culture, and often needn't even be formally or explicitly invoked. This
>doesn't mean their schemes and programs don't depend on such a base. And it
>is only by identifying this moral base, and blasting it in each case, can a
>program expect to be defeated.
>
>Anyone pretending otherwise is only kidding themselves.
>
number of people falling for the altruist "crappola" is RISING. Ah, yes, the
American way: "cut my taxes, raise spending on me, send the bill to the other
guy".
Tom Scheeler
Brad Aisa
T. Scheeler <tom...@erase.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ah, how well has that "moral, principled" argument [against government
>spending and intrusion] gone over? Last I saw, the number of people
>falling for the altruist "crappola" is RISING. Ah, yes, the American way:
>"cut my taxes, raise spending on me, send the bill to the other guy".
And would you mind telling me where you have witnessed this alleged "moral,
principled" argument being made against government spending and intrusion?
Don't blame what (for all intents) isn't being done, for not working.
What I did, was to offer a clearly argued reason for the near utter
inefficacy of such pragmatist-conservative types of opposition to big
government as have been made in the last decades.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>However, if the ARI has never asked you, a donor, about your beliefs or
>>activities, and if they don't ask other contributors, how could they know
>>that they are accepting money only from people they agree with
>>philosophically, or do they care?
>
>... Maybe they figure that the reason people give them money, is because
>said people agree with the actions and goals of ARI. And maybe they
>recognize that, except in some highly delimited context, accepting a
>contribution from someone is not a sanction of that person and their
>beliefs or actions. There are many possible shades of reverse sanctioning,
>depending on what one knows of another, and the nature of that other.
>Again, I hardly think Objectivists or ARI has a monopoly on common sense in
>this area.
So then are you saying that they just assume that if someone donates money
to the ARI, he is philosophically in agreement with Objectivism? Or that
it doesn't matter because accepting money from someone doesn't imply any
type of sanction?
>>>It is a generally accepted
>>>principle in the context of voluntary organizations to repudiate
>>>contributions from enemies or those whose actions or beliefs are
>>>incommensurable with your ideals. This is not something Objectivism
>>>invented.
>
>>I understand. I wonder how they go about doing that.
>
>I haven't got a clue, but it doesn't sound too difficult to imagine the
>details.
Maybe you could explain that to me then. You've already said that you
donate to the ARI and they don't ask any questions about your beliefs. If
this is true for all donors, then I don't see how they would know who is
and who is not their enemy.
It almost appears as if the ARI has lower standards than say....... the
Libertarian Party. After all, in order to join the LP you have to sign an
oath stating that you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force
to achieve social or political goals. But I guess that's different, right?
>You are great at inventing things -- use your imagination.
Thanks for the compliment!
Tom Scheeler
Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> T. Scheeler <tom...@erase.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Ah, how well has that "moral, principled" argument [against government
> >spending and intrusion] gone over? Last I saw, the number of people
> >falling for the altruist "crappola" is RISING. Ah, yes, the American way:
> >"cut my taxes, raise spending on me, send the bill to the other guy".
>
> And would you mind telling me where you have witnessed this alleged "moral,
> principled" argument being made against government spending and intrusion?
>
ARI?
(BTW, I was quoting you!)
Tom Scheeler
Yogi
Betsy Speicher wrote:
> Right. We support individual Republican candidates and issues if, and
> when, they merit our support. On many occasions, we have allowed the
> Republican Party to support, financially underwrite, and publicize
> Objectivist causes.
I find this very interesting. Brad was attacking certain efforts by
others due to the fact that they were simply pragmatic measures and not
accompanied by the necessary moral changes. Here, however, objectivists
are willing to support members of the Republican party when "they merit
[their] support." This seems to be a purely pragmatic move since
Republicans have an actual chance to win and a true objectivist would
not (this is not an insult but reality). I find it interesting that an
objectivist would be willing to throw their weight behind a politician
who clearly would not share the same moral principles across the board.
So in this case there is a willingness to forego a number of principles
as long as there is a sufficient sharing of attitudes.
Just thinking quietly out loud...
Billy Goode
Yogi
> "Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> queried quite logically:
>
> >However, if the ARI has never asked you, a donor, about your beliefs or
> >activities, and if they don't ask other contributors, how could they know
> >that they are accepting money only from people they agree with
> >philosophically, or do they care?
Brad Aisa wrote:
> Maybe they do not operate on a "nightmare metaphysics", paranoid world
> view. Maybe they figure that the reason people give them money, is because
> said people agree with the actions and goals of ARI. And maybe they
> recognize that, except in some highly delimited context, accepting a
> contribution from someone is not a sanction of that person and their
> beliefs or actions. There are many possible shades of reverse sanctioning,
> depending on what one knows of another, and the nature of that other.
> Again, I hardly think Objectivists or ARI has a monopoly on common sense in
> this area.
Or maybe they just rationalize the acceptance of ANY contribiution because
they need the money.
"Sooo, you're one of those 'don't Honestly yours,
call me a chick' chicks." Billy Goode
Bart Simpson
Betsy Speicher
On 24 Jun 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >Dena L. Bruedigam wrote:
>
> >> That's interesting. So you're saying that there is no Objectivist ban
> >> on joining and/or supporting political parties?
> >
> >How could there be? There is no institution to do the "banning" nor to
> >enforce it.
>
> This is ingenuous. ARI is controlled by a few people, who have many
> beliefs in common, and it controls money used to promote Objectivism in
> various ways. ARI certainly can have a policy of refusing to associate
> with, invite to conferences, publish, etc. people who do certain things.
> If it has such a policy, it is reasonable to describe it as an Objectivist
> ban on doing certain things. Such a ban would not violate rights--but some
> people might regard it as a reason to think poorly of those doing the
> banning.
Your family's purchases are controlled mostly by you and your wife who
have many beliefs in common and you control money used to promote your
family's welfare in various ways. You may have decided to purchase Pepsi
instead of Coca Cola. If you have, is it reasonable to describe it as
your ban on Coca Cola? Your purchases of Pepsi would not violate rights,
but does it give people a good reason to think poorly of you?
> To go from the general to the specific ... . Would you deny that ARI in
> fact has an implicit ban on speaking to libertarian groups--made fairly
> explicit in the response of Peikoff and those around him to David Kelley
> speaking to one such group?
They choose not to spend their money on such things.
> If I received an invitation from an Objectivist student group supported
> by ARI to speak on "the case for anarchism," do you think ARI would
> approve? Would take any action? Perhaps we should try to arrange the
> experiment.
ARI is _giving_ its money to groups for certain purposes only. If you
offered to give someone a gift and he said you ought to be giving him a
_different_ gift instead or else you're being unfair to him, wouldn't it
strike you as odd?
Betsy Speicher
On 27 Jun 1997, Yogi wrote:
> Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> > Right. We support individual Republican candidates and issues if, and
> > when, they merit our support. On many occasions, we have allowed the
> > Republican Party to support, financially underwrite, and publicize
> > Objectivist causes.
>
> I find this very interesting. Brad was attacking certain efforts by
> others due to the fact that they were simply pragmatic measures and not
> accompanied by the necessary moral changes. Here, however, objectivists
> are willing to support members of the Republican party when "they merit
> [their] support." This seems to be a purely pragmatic move since
> Republicans have an actual chance to win and a true objectivist would
> not (this is not an insult but reality).
I disagree. I think an Objectivist has a lot to say to the average
American and can make an appealing candidate for many offices.
Supporting a morally worthy candidate who is running on a major party
ticket is a practical thing to do, and a good thing to do as well.
> I find it interesting that an objectivist would be willing to throw
> their weight behind a politician who clearly would not share the same
> moral principles across the board. So in this case there is a
> willingness to forego a number of principles as long as there is a
> sufficient sharing of attitudes.
The moral principle relevant to politics is the candidate's stand on
individual rights, his committment to them, and his basis for them. While
I would prefer to vote for an Objectivist, there are several worthy
non-Objectivists out there I would consider voting for as well.
Betsy Speicher
On 29 Jun 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> If, for example, every time I got irritated at you
> for being unable to follow straightforward arguments that led to
> conclusions you didn't like, I responded by refusing to buy any product
> made by a firm whose name began with S, that would be a reason for people
> to think poorly of me. Do you find that puzzling?
I find that totally nonsensical. Can we return to the real world please?
> If ARI refuses to publish articles by someone because he gave a talk to a
> group of libertarians, or because he came out in support of someone else
> who had given a talk to a group of libertarians, that would be (is) a
> reason to think badly of them, and to describe them as banning certain
> sorts of behavior.
If you mean David Kelley, the fact is that ARI continued to support him
and his work and to sponsor his speaking engagements for quite some time
after it was well-known that he spoke at the Libertarian Supper Club.
ARI's break with Kelley came a long time after his break with the
Reisman's and with Peikoff. It even came after his break with Schwartz.
Even if ARI stops supporting someone for reasons you do not deem worthy,
what business is it of yours? It is not your money. It was given to ARI
voluntarily by contributors to use in certain ways. Any one of those
people can stop contributing at any minute, but most of them have not. As
a matter of fact, ARI's contributions -- totalling in the millions of
dollars, have increased year by year.
> >> To go from the general to the specific ... . Would you deny that ARI in
> >> fact has an implicit ban on speaking to libertarian groups--made fairly
> >> explicit in the response of Peikoff and those around him to David Kelley
> >> speaking to one such group?
> >
> >They choose not to spend their money on such things.
>
> They choose not to spend money on someone because he gave a talk to a
> libertarian supper club. Isn't that an "implicit ban on speaking to
> libertarian groups?"
No more than your personal decision to buy certain products is an
"implicit ban" on the vast number of products which you choose not to buy.
When you use a term like "ban" you are bringing in all kinds of
totalitarian connotations which pertain to the use of force to prevent
freely chosen actions. Using the word "ban" to refer to the _voluntary_
choices made by people spending their _own_ money only serves to blur the
distinction between the voluntary and the forced and between the exercise
of rights and the violation of rights.
Betsy Speicher
On 1 Jul 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose GM announces that it will fire any employee who attends an
> Objectivist conference; further suppose they are all employees at will, so
> GM has a right to fire them for any or no reason. Wouldn't you describe
> that as GM banning attendance at Objectivist conferences by its employees?
> Wouldn't you think such behavior worth noting and criticizing--even though
> it is within GM's rights?
>
> >When you use a term like "ban" you are bringing in all kinds of
> >totalitarian connotations which pertain to the use of force to prevent
> >freely chosen actions. Using the word "ban" to refer to the _voluntary_
> >choices made by people spending their _own_ money only serves to blur the
> >distinction between the voluntary and the forced and between the exercise
> >of rights and the violation of rights.
>
> So you would object to the use of the word "ban" in my GM example?
Absolutely! What they are doing in your example is stupid and immoral,
but it involves voluntary choices on all sides and exercise of their own
property rights. To blur the distinction between that and the Red Chinese
ban on having more than one child or a ban on reading certain books in
Medieval times is not only wrong, but it is dangerous to the cause of
liberty.
Betsy Speicher
On 24 Jun 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> I know for a fact that there was an ARI-affiliated student group at UC
> Berkeley a few years ago that wanted to invite George Smith to address
> them on Objectivism. ARI wouldn't let them. They had to disband, then
> form a new, independent group in order to be able to hear him speak.
In other words, there was nothing stopping them from inviting any speaker
they wanted. It is just that ARI would not pay for it.
> Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
> Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
> (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Would ISIL financially support groups that invited Socialists and Fascists
to address them on the subject of indvidual liberty?