Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!wisdom.BITNET!eyal
From: eyal@wisdom.BITNET
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: libertarianism
Message-ID: <12231290962.47.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16-Aug-86 12:07:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12231290962.47.MCGREW
Posted: Sat Aug 16 12:07:57 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Aug-86 23:24:43 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 52
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


>I am not sure how to argue with libertarianism, because my difference
>with libertarians seems to me to be not so much a matter of facts as
>a matter of different values.  I think Keith's position is reasonably
>consistent if you accept his moral premises, but I don't consider his
>position moral, and I don't think he would consider mine moral.

Yes, that's definitely a big problem with libertarianism.
Libertarians take as a basic assumption that government intervention
is evil. They can't (and don't want to) use reason and morality to
support this assumption, since that would require advocating absolute
truth and absolute values, and that's anathema to libertarianism; so,
instead, they try to present "freedom" as compatible with (or even as
a pre-requisite for) ANY values. The result is that they have no
answer to those who say "I don't regard your position as moral".

Libertarianism really has a lot in common with socialism - in their
fundamental approach of making basic assumptions about politics or
morality without trying to defend them rationally, and also,
ironically, in the concrete conclusions they lead to; if you read, for
example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely regarded as the intellectual
leader of libertarianism, you can see that most of the views he holds
on concrete issues - such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic
evaluation of soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the
world's "main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible
with genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with the
views of most socialists.

The correct approach to political theory is the one diametrically
opposed to libertarianism's; political theory must be based on a sound
and detailed theory of morality, and a sound theory of morality must
be defended by rational arguments and based on reality - on correct
observation and identification of the facts of reality and of man's
nature. If you recognize that morality is an objective necessity for
man, and that arbitrary whims are not a proper standard of morality,
then this is the only correct approach, and then saying "I don't
regard your position as moral" will not be a valid answer without
presenting rational counter-arguments. Ayn Rand was the only one to
fully and consistently take such an approach, and, as a result, she
gave the only full, consistent rational and moral defense of
individual rights; her writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The
Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the
only antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, and are a must
read for anyone seriously interested in political theory.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal

-------