Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: *The Intellectual Activist* is neither.
Message-ID: <190@frog.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:27:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.190
Posted: Thu Jun  6 21:27:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:52:32 EDT
Reply-To: frog!tdh
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 101

*The Intellectual Activist* is so little of either that it
may justifiably be called neither.  I subscribed to it, off
and on, for about two years -- until now.  It has for the
most part been useless, boring, and generally mediocre, but
I kept hoping, since it was the only Objectivist
publication of its kind (apart from the floundering *Ergo*,
which has been a good student newsletter), that I would
find it worth my while.  It barely was.  I was duped by the
presence of Beckmann's, Hazlitt's and Peikoff's names on the
editorial board.

I am very sorry for the length of this posting, but the
mere posturing of Schwartz as a consistent advocate of
reason could not rightly have been exposed without offering
reasons and documentation.

In the most recent issue, Peter Schwartz, the editor and
publisher, wrote the first of a series "analysing"
Libertarianism.  It suffered from several kinds of errors:

1) It was replete with smears.

   There were numerous examples of quotes from that chancre
   on the face of libertarianism, the obstreperous minority
   Radical Caucus, including one of its former members,
   Murray Rothbard, and from "Smash the Onion" Richman,
   together with statements about how "the Libertarian"
   believes them.  It was impossible, seeing the range of
   quotes, to believe that the smears were ignorance and not
   malice.

   One example (of many) followed in the article by some
   quotes from Rothbard: "Any legitimate proponent of
   liberty realizes that a show of force by the state should
   be morally evaluated according to whether it is being
   used for aggression or for self-defense.  But not the
   Libertarian."
   
2) It used what amounted to an argument from intimidation.

   It quoted Emil Franzi (who is a lively and engaging man,
   and who at the last LP convention was distributing "Nuke
   the Freeze" buttons) as an example of mindlessness and
   irrationality, without *anywhere* explaining why this was
   so.  It was simply "drooling".  The paragraph:

   "`I believe that there are genuine, radical issues that
   will appeal to a segment of the American population
   known, for want of a better name, as rednecks,' writes
   Emil Franzi, an Executive Committee member of the
   Libertarian Party.  What types of acts do `rednecks' most
   want legalized?  `Dueling, prostitution, the use of
   laetrile and cyclamates, plural marriage and whatever
   else our fertile brains can discover,' along with the
   ownership of `bazookas, field artillery, cane-swords,
   flame-throwers, anything,' says the drooling Franzi."

3) It either malinterpreted the positions of some of those
   quoted or implicitly proclaimed what has been mostly an
   error of absence in Objectivism.

   In quoting Steve Trinward, saying that greater emphasis
   should be placed on the ways that people relate to others
   than on whether or not they agree with libertarian
   tenets, he claimed that Steve was showing "an
   unwillingness to challenge the basic *philosophy* behind
   statism".  (location of period intentional, for syntax
   pedants)

   In quoting Jorge Amador of SIL, "the only convincing
   argument for Libertarianism is: `People have values.
   Liberty -- the absence of obstacles to action -- is the
   condition that will enable them best to pursue their
   values.' ... This is simply an adaptation of the view
   expressed earlier by Rothbard that liberty is compatible
   with all philosophies and is a prerequisite for all
   values."

   What does Schwartz think ethics is for, if not the
   obtainment/retention of people's values?  Rand was too
   vague in defining "man's life", or the life of man per
   se.  But what she meant by it was never fully explained.
   So is Schwartz being clumsy or is he treating ethics as
   if its justification were some magic incantation, and as
   if its content and basis excluded an analysis of the
   action and interaction of humans?

4) It was tactically self-defeating.

   See the two examples above.  Does Schwartz expect people
   to be struck by a bolt of lightning and see the light?
   (The cliches seem perfectly appropriate for describing
   one of Rand's lesser epigones.)  How does he expect to
   motivate people to think about what they are doing???

5) It proposed no political alternative to the LP.  (It
   would be nice if there were a better one.)

   Admittedly, a continuation of the article would permit
   this, but no hint was given that the tenor, let alone
   competence, of the article would change.