Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!teddy.UUCP!mxc From: mxc@teddy.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Libertarian viewpoints Message-ID: <12233500391.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 24-Aug-86 22:24:42 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12233500391.16.MCGREW Posted: Sun Aug 24 22:24:42 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Aug-86 19:28:34 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: genrad!teddy!mxc@eddie.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 75 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith F. Lynch) writes: > From: Eyal mozes > > 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; ... > > I strongly disagree. Libertarians do use reason and morality. >Heck, our magazine is called _Reason_. Who says there are no >absolute values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil. >Those are absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that >they are sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I >just want no part of the system founded on the notion that slavery, >etc, are ok. Eyal is taking the hard-line Objectivist stance on Libertarianism. A prominent Objectivist writer, Peter Schwartz, wrote an article on "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" that is well worth reading because it brilliantly rips to shreds the supposed "liberty" oriented stand of the Libertarian Party and many so-called "libertarians". And while _Reason_ tends to have good ideas, it lacks any moral justification for them. But I don't think such condemnation is deserved for those who just believe in a truly libertarian (small, not capital L) political system. They have the right idea. However, Objectivism is a complete philosophical system that offers a system of morality that justifies a libertarian political system. After all, to be complete and consistent, there must be some reason *why* slavery, robbery, and torture are wrong. > The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't > regard your position as moral". > > I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do >several other contributors to this list. Yes, but they're probably based on some idea of absolute individual rights, right? Many Libertarians would not have such an explicit moral basis. Some, lacking a consistent morality, go on to make the mistake that *all* government is bad. > ... if you read, for example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely > regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism, > > Not by me. I've never heard of the guy. These are not my >positions, and I doubt they are the positions of any other >libertarian on this list. Obviously, then, Keith is not a Libertarian, but a libertarian. Are there any "card-carrying" members of the Libertarian party on the list? > [Ayn Rand's] writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue > of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only > antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, > > Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a >libertarian. Ayn Rand despised libertarians, thinking that they had "perverted" her ideas of political liberty into a political system without morality. I think she made an error in lumping all of them together. Not only does libertarianism have a basis in the works of other writers, such as von Mises, but Libertarian Party people shouldn't be confused with people who want liberty but lack a consistent moral basis. -- Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617) 369-4400 x2336 -------