What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[warpus]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

Oh I'm sure that discussion there would be quite.. objective

A place where everyone agrees with the tenets of some thing or idea is never a going to be a good place for discussion. It's basically going to turn into a place where people pat eachother on the back with no clear disagreement about the "axioms" of whats being discussed

 

[Traitorfish]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

Why does disagreeing with Rand mean that we are categorically incapable of having a sensible discussion on her work and philosophy?

 

[Crezth]

Consciousness and its identifications are the source of all the knowledge that we have, objective or non-objective. So whether we like it or not, that's it. It may or may not be sufficient, but there is no known alternative.

If you consider it improper to use this as the sole font of knowledge, please tell me which other font of knowledge exists, other than consciousness.

Well whether or not the consciousness is capable of making objective, measured observations and judgments is integral to the philosophy of Objectivism, I should think.

I have already described what the closest thing to objective knowledge we have is. Pure objective knowledge would be math - but it can be hard to apply math to the world in any way more esoteric than "2+2=4."

Sceptical questions like that can only occur if existence exists. Without existence, we would not be able to question existence. This is the A=A part - it is simply pointless trying to question whether existence exists. It really is self-evident, and the fact that you are here and asking questions about it is proof.

What is existence? Define it.

I don't remember saying that I could define my entire way to objective truth, in any sense of the meaning. But also, what do you mean by the statement "you cannot define your entire way to objective truth"? Do you mean to a total knowledge of objective reality? If so, I have already stated that objectivism makes no claim to omniscience.

That's all well and good, so whence come the relevance of a statement like "existence exists" or "A is A?"

Also I'd like to hear what you think about Schrodinger's cat and the quantum uncertainty principle, both without objective truths re: existence (or mutually exclusive qualities such as life and death).

"Existence exists" - there is objective knowledge. It exists. And that kills your claim [which incidentally, looks like a claim to objective knowledge] that "You will find this literally impossible to prove for as long as you're human"

Objective knowledge is (roughly speaking) that knowledge that exists outside and separate from human perception. No matter what one perceives, there is that knowledge.

Aside from 2 and 2 making 4, there is little in the way of "objective knowledge" outside of an argument that validates itself through its own definitions. Even that, however, is not based on a fundamental system of hard rules and numbers, but ultimately is derived from human perceptions, which have been established to be flawed.

Please stop telling me what Ayn Rand failed to grasp if you haven't read her theories Rand has a theory of definition and of concept formation. Relations between naming conventions or other forms of logical word-games are interesting but irrelevant [to date] to the principle of non-contradiction in its true sense.

I said earlier in the thread that I read Atlas Shrugged, and I have also read half of The Fountainhead and all of Anthem. Now, then...

Can you explain how the theory of definition and of concept formation and her tautological statements about existence existing are used to justify some of Objectivism's other notable pillars, such as man being an end in himself, and capitalism being the only moral government? Earlier in the thread, when you bring up Objectivism's pillars, you sort of gloss over this bit.

Because we already stated that "existence exists". So it must exist in some form, which means it cannot simultaneously be that form and not be that form. This applies to all different types of existence, as we move from the general "existence as a whole exists" to the specific "this leaf exists".

We may or may not recognise the leaf and its properties in an accurate way. We may mis-identify them, but we know that things don't "exist and not exist", at the same time.

The good Paradigm Shifter already responded to this quite well, so I'll leave it at that.

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

Just realized what your user name is. By the gods of altruism, you don't actually like the Sword of Truth series, do you?

This post pretty much sums up why I think Objectivism is theology. Objectivists claim to have hard, marble pillars upon which their entire philosophy is rationally stacked, but if you point out the pillars are constructed on a foundation of mud, it's because you're a "statist" or a "parasite" who simply can't understand and they zealously defend against all critique. Pretty much no other philosopher in history is defended like this, but almost all religions are. Makes ya' think.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

Ahh, the classic "Charge! Run away!!!!" tactic.


Link to video.

 

[JonBonham]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

Thanks for the link, I will check it out for sure, but I would also love to hear your own personal viewpoint on the matter (and amadeus if you're reading this) to get a balanced idea (thanks Ayn Rand the poster for making the effort to have discussion, it's been very educational!)

 

[Crezth]

Thanks for the link, I will check it out for sure, but I would also love to hear your own personal viewpoint on the matter (and amadeus if you're reading this) to get a balanced idea (thanks Ayn Rand the poster for making the effort to have discussion, it's been very educational!)

W- wait! No special thanks to all the liberals* in this thread?

*I personally don't call myself liberal, I prefer the term "leftist." I'm not sure what I am specifically, though, because my political activity consists solely of voting for Obama.

 

[JonBonham]

What is existence? Define it.

Maybe it is, but I would like to ask, is this first part really relevant to discuss the other parts of her theories? I mean, for part 1, Metaphysics - Objective Reality, it seems like the long-story short is Rand says we reality is real so here's my theory about how best to go through life in this real reality... instead of discussing whether reality is real or not, can the conversation not move on ahead on her ideas of how to go throught life in the real reality regardless of whether or not we can truly 'objectively' prove whether reality is real or not? All I mean is, at the end of the day does any of part 1 really make a difference on discussing the latter?


2. Epistemology - Reason
3. Ethics - Self-interest
4. Politics - Capitalism

W- wait! No special thanks to all the liberals* in this thread?

*I personally don't call myself liberal, I prefer the term "leftist." I'm not sure what I am specifically, though, because my political activity consists solely of voting for Obama.

Well I do appreciate all of you taking the time to have serious discussion here so plenty thanks as well, but I didn't feel compelled to say it because reading the boards does seem like there's more of you than them (liberals/lefties as opposed to liberterians) and other threads seem to be dominated by your PoV so that the other side leaves or doesn't partake, so I wanted to personally thank those who do stick around to partake in my thread

 

[Ayn Rand]

It's true that Objectivism hasn't had as much time to develop as Marxism has, and has neither the membership or the supporting infrastructure, to so to expect the divergences which the Marxist movement was able to support, especially in the post-war period, would be unreasonable. But even within those terms, there seems a lack of scepticism towards "really existing capitalism" from within the Objectivist movement, and so a lack of inclination to submit it- and therefore Rand's political work- to any real criticism. Capitalism and the free market are presented as the necessary means by which "individual freedom" is realised, and the divergence between reality and ideal regarded as a challenge for Objectivism to overcome, rather than as a challenge to Objectivist political thought itself.

If anything, I'd say that it demonstrates not so much the novelty of Objectivism, but the insulation of Objectivists from the need to formulate concrete programs, and so the need to seriously think about what they're arguing for, which means that, people being people, few ever really do. (And that isn't an attempt to be derisive. This is quite the same problem that the left-beyond-the-CP has faced for the last eighty years, and why the vast majority of what they/we produce is complete garbage.)[/

Yes, while Objectivism is serious about political philosophy, it doesn't seem to be so serious about politics. It retains a nicely integrated overall philosophy but it is not a heavyweight political-analytical theory in the sense that modern Marxism is or appears to be [at least from the outside]. Objectivism in practise tends not to take a societal view so much as a "civilizational" view - it aligns more to abstract values and principles than it does to anything socially specific such as some kind of class interest.

Partly this is not simply the theory, but Objectivists themselves - mostly disinterested in politics, we can be aggravated into anti-socialist reactionary stance in defence of the status quo but are not interested in the mechanics of practical politics beyond the "minimise government" mantra.


Regarding capitalism as it really is, the Worldview is that capitalism is okay but government and socialism are messing it up. The specifics of capitalism's faults that have caused people to give their support to welfare programs etc are not considered except in sometimes simplistic moral terms - a dangerous blindspot. The same is true of libertarianism, many elements of which are dismissed despite their complexity and validity in some areas.

I see your point, but I don't think the (real or percieved) limits of feasible political change imply that criticism must be similarly limited. Any effective body of social criticism begins at the very bottom, so that even if it accepts the vast majority of what it finds, it knows why its accepting them, and not simply making assumptions. Even if you find out that you can't get the changes you'd like, and instead settle for what you can get (á la Eurocommunism), you have to show your working, and I don't think that Objectivist can simply resort to more mainstream libertarian arguments in this regard, because they begin with different ethical premises and so aren't measuring socio-economic models by the same metric.

Marxists/Socialists excel at criticism and often get large parts very correct. However, a fatal weakness in socialism is that it doesn't know where or when to stop - it takes an idealistic attitude to its own theoretical process which almost prides itself on ignoring certain specific concepts such as limits, risk and complexity/uncertainty which anyone working in a complex system will know are some of the dominant factors that are likely to kill your whole process if you don't manage them.

This often causes fundamentally sound parts of left-wing criticism to fall apart at the seams, or be overshadowed as more emotionally powerful or idealistic ideas totally eclipse the structurally more rigorous parts of the analysis. This provides the laughable [to me] spectre of poor theories being launched from relatively good analytical frameworks [in some parts]. While our ideas don't fit into convenient diametrical opposites, it seems that Objectivism has a reverse tendency of being strong in theory but somewhat reluctant and anaemic in applied analysis. [sorry for digressing a little bit there ]

It wasn't directly directed at you.

Oops, how egocentric of me to assume it was

Circular argument. This invalidates the proof.

When the point under discussion is "does existence exist" then any words, any argument, circular or not, are sufficient to prove that existence exists.

 

[Cutlass]

Why does disagreeing with Rand mean that we are categorically incapable of having a sensible discussion on her work and philosophy?

Objectively, you cannot question Great Leader.

 

[Ajidica]

Thanks for the link, I will check it out for sure, but I would also love to hear your own personal viewpoint on the matter (and amadeus if you're reading this) to get a balanced idea (thanks Ayn Rand the poster for making the effort to have discussion, it's been very educational!)

I would reccomend actualy reading Rand's essays rather then getting their information second hand. After you read her essays, you start to understand how her philosophy doesn't hold up at all. In one essay she rants about the involvement of the government in scientific research by going off onto a tanget about altruism. However, the introduction to that essay stated that she viewed the Apollo Program as one of mankinds greatest achievements. I find it odd how, she could applaud the Apollo Program like that, despite it being a government program giving tax dollars to businesses in order to discover information that they would give away for free.

Never mind the fact she has little knowledge of history. It takes a very selective mind to hold up the government sponsored and subsidized Transcontinental Railroad as a triumph of her 'Great Men'.

Partly this is not simply the theory, but Objectivists themselves - mostly disinterested in politics, we can be aggravated into anti-socialist reactionary stance in defence of the status quo but are not interested in the mechanics of practical politics beyond the "minimise government" mantra.

Strange that you take such objection to an ideology whose view on the individual mirrors your own, but neglect to mention xenophobia, short-sightedness, and ignorance.

 

[JonBonham]

I would reccomend actualy reading Rand's essays rather then getting their information second hand. After you read her essays, you start to understand how her philosophy doesn't hold up at all. In one essay she rants about the involvement of the government in scientific research by going off onto a tanget about altruism. However, the introduction to that essay stated that she viewed the Apollo Program as one of mankinds greatest achievements. I find it odd how, she could applaud the Apollo Program like that, despite it being a government program giving tax dollars to businesses in order to discover information that they would give away for free.

Never mind the fact she has little knowledge of history. It takes a very selective mind to hold up the government sponsored and subsidized Transcontinental Railroad as a triumph of her 'Great Men'.

I was hoping to generate discussion between, for instance, you with your negative take on her essay and say, someone else with a positive take on it, to hear what both sides have to say, even before I go do my own personal reading/studying on the matter. I'm not the most well read and am getting a lot of reading/studying in now that I can on various topics (hence my book recommendation thread) but certain things like this that peak my interest I really do like to hear other people's positions and opinions on them as well.

 

[Crezth]

Maybe it is, but I would like to ask, is this first part really relevant to discuss the other parts of her theories? I mean, for part 1, Metaphysics - Objective Reality, it seems like the long-story short is Rand says we reality is real so here's my theory about how best to go through life in this real reality... instead of discussing whether reality is real or not, can the conversation not move on ahead on her ideas of how to go throught life in the real reality regardless of whether or not we can truly 'objectively' prove whether reality is real or not? All I mean is, at the end of the day does any of part 1 really make a difference on discussing the latter?

My point has been that it's a meaningless pillar. All it does is imply that no other philosophy acknowledges that existence exists and that, therefore, Objectivism is superior.

Actually, that's not the end of it, because then she holds up every other component of Objectivism on the same type of reasoning. Yes, existence exists: that by itself means nothing for what your great men are.

Also her ideas were not a personal philosophy really, which if they were merely a treatise on how to live life they would be. No, her's is a wide-brushed political philosophy that orders a specific type of society under which everyone should live, and if you disagree it's because you're irrational (using, again, her definition of rationality). It is also, in some important ways, fundamentally authoritarian.

 

[JonBonham]

Partly this is not simply the theory, but Objectivists themselves - mostly disinterested in politics, we can be aggravated into anti-socialist reactionary stance in defence of the status quo but are not interested in the mechanics of practical politics beyond the "minimise government" mantra.

Let's not have any aggravation or socialism discussed, but it seems that Ayn Rand was interested in the mechanics of politics and a preferred social system so can that be discussed?

her ideas were not a personal philosophy really, which if they were merely a treatise on how to live life they would be. No, her's is a wide-brushed political philosophy that orders a specific type of society under which everyone should live, and if you disagree it's because you're irrational (using, again, her definition of rationality). It is also, in some important ways, fundamentally authoritarian.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well whether or not the consciousness is capable of making objective, measured observations and judgments is integral to the philosophy of Objectivism, I should think.

I invited you to advance any other sources of reason that exist other than consciousness. Perhaps you can respond to this?

What is existence? Define it.

Please try to restrict yourself to serious points/discussion rather than digressing into possible word games which we certainly don't need to pursue

That's all well and good, so whence come the relevance of a statement like "existence exists" or "A is A?"

It is simply the basis of Objectivist philosophy, whether you choose to accept that basis as legitimate or not is your choice to make.

Also I'd like to hear what you think about Schrodinger's cat and the quantum uncertainty principle, both without objective truths re: existence (or mutually exclusive qualities such as life and death).

There are still objective truths involved - that a quanta[?] is a specific thing, with specific properties, that behaves in specific and limited ways, by virtue of what it is.

Like nearly all of the arguments/questions you have made so far, you are simply reinforcing the idea that Objectivism is fundamentally correct

Objective knowledge is (roughly speaking) that knowledge that exists outside and separate from human perception. No matter what one perceives, there is that knowledge.

Incorrect - that is a definition of Objective Reality not of Objective Knowledge. Knowledge, as far as we know, does not exist independently of human perception.

Aside from 2 and 2 making 4, there is little in the way of "objective knowledge" outside of an argument that validates itself through its own definitions. Even that, however, is not based on a fundamental system of hard rules and numbers, but ultimately is derived from human perceptions, which have been established to be flawed.

Established to be flawed by what mechanism? You say there is no objectivity, then cite objective, scientific research on the nature of perception as though it is an objective fact.

Is your position contradictory? I think so.

I said earlier in the thread that I read Atlas Shrugged, and I have also read half of The Fountainhead and all of Anthem. Now, then...

Which are not works on epistemology which shows why you are unaware of Rand's work on the nature of definition.

Can you explain how the theory of definition and of concept formation and her tautological statements about existence existing are used to justify some of Objectivism's other notable pillars, such as man being an end in himself, and capitalism being the only moral government? Earlier in the thread, when you bring up Objectivism's pillars, you sort of gloss over this bit.

Together they form a theory of mind, reality and human agency which are taken in conjunction with historical progress to arrive at an ethical theory that is considered optimal to human freedom and well-being.


Crezth, I can't drip-feed you the ideas of Objectivism. For one, I'm not experienced enough to do a good job at it - and secondly, you are holding the contradictory position of stating on the one hand that you have knowledge of the theory, while on the other demanding that I spoon-feed you knowledge about it because you are apparently innocently incapable of grasping even its most basic details I'm sure you are capable of higher-calibre intellectual arguments if you put your mind to it, you prove nothing by tedious or over-simplistic nitpicking in a theory that no-one is pretending is perfection/omniscience.

 

[amadeus]

Thanks for the discussion everyone, and amadeus redralph said you were the most consistent liberterian on the boards so i wondering if you yourself find her works somewhat contributing towards liberterianism, not at all contributing, very contributing, somewhat sensible, not at all or very sensible, (does the laissez-faire with government policing/court/defense make sense along the lines of liberterianism?)

I hope I don't seem too nitpicky about words and such, but Rand definitely contributed by turning them on to libertarianism. I think the vast majority of people that read Rand's fiction liked the laissez-faire themes, but I don't think they continue on to read Rand's non-fiction, though maybe they've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It's sort of like Milton Friedman and his contribution to libertarianism; lots of people have read Free to Choose, but they didn't all go on to be monetarists.

In so far as Objectivism has played a role in libertarian politics, I just don't see the influence anywhere. The major debates within the Libertarian Party in the 1970s, for example, were typically between the radical libertarians (Murray Rothbard, later joined by antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo and others) and the minarchists/minimal-statists. Ed Clark, the Libertarian candidate in 1980, was part of the latter and characterized libertarianism as "low-tax liberalism." The disputes continued in the 80s and Clark and David Koch (of the Koch brothers) left the party. The party had more influence from the radicals in the 80s, culminating in the 1988 nomination of Ron Paul. The 90s and 2000s were uneventful on the national level and I don't think there was as enthusiasm within the party as there was in the 70s and 80s. The party's leadership has more and more started to cater to disaffected Republicans rather than the libertarian faithful. It's sad, and I think you can see the influence on the 2012 GOP nominations race as lots of libertarians are defecting to the GOP so they can vote for Ron Paul, and regardless of Paul wins or loses, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch back to the LP.

tl;dr version: Rand who? No Objectivist caucus in the LP.

 

[Crezth]

@Ayn Rand

Please read what I'm writing before responding to it. You've been dodging points all day as it suits your fancy and have yet to respond to any point about the fundamental non-objectivity of perception.

What I'm saying is that it's no valid theory of mind, reality, etc. as it is formed purely via broken logical arguments and a notable lack of science.

You have yet to demonstrate Objectivism to be "fundamentally correct." You can't just SAY that it's scientific and that the existence of science validates this. There is no connection.

And also, I've been trying to explain to you that scientific research is not objective knowledge either, although it is a lot closer to being something you could accept as a definitive law than the perceptions of a single man. And whenever someone mentions that human perception is flawed in every single way, you completely ignore it. Because all knowledge draws itself back to these roots, to these initial perceptions, all knowledge is subjective. Once again, your reality is different from another's reality.

Finally, even your axiomatic "existence exists" is not absolute truth. Another detail you've ignored, conveniently.

I mean, Rand did not form her tenets objectively. She just says she did.

Edit: Also, when I ask someone to explain their views, or explain this or that component of an argument or philosophy, it's meant for clarification. So we can be on the same page. It's a litmus test to see if that person know what they're talking about, and I'm not surprised you weren't able to answer anything beyond this:

Together they form a theory of mind, reality and human agency which are taken in conjunction with historical progress to arrive at an ethical theory that is considered optimal to human freedom and well-being.

It's because Objectivism is disjointed and illogical. As I said on page one, it has the consistency of air.

Kindly prove me wrong but I have talked with countless Objectivists and never once received a satisfactory answer to that question. Namely, the theory of mind is incomplete and ignores psychology, the theory of reality is pointless in its obviousness, and the theory of human agency connects the latter and the former in a way that absolutely does not follow.

 

[Ayn Rand]

@Ayn Rand

Please read what I'm writing before responding to it.

Don't tell me to read what you're writing when I have been clearly doing so and responding to many of your points. Crezth, you're just trying to play a game of portraying Objectivists as some kind of "absolutists" who believe their theory is absolutely perfect and omnisciently correct. I've repeatedly written that we don't believe that - this concept of total objectivity is yours, and practically a straw-man.

If you think you have proven your point that Objectivism "has the consistency of air" then go ahead and believe that. But your way of "proving" this point is to constantly try to grandstand me into defending a position that I don't hold, and which no other Objectivist holds either, outside the realms of your own imagination.

 

[Crezth]

Don't tell me to read what you're writing when I have been clearly doing so and responding to many of your points. Crezth, you're just trying to play a game of portraying Objectivists as some kind of "absolutists" who believe their theory is absolutely perfect and omnisciently correct. I've repeatedly written that we don't believe that - this concept of total objectivity is yours, and practically a straw-man.

If you think you have proven your point that Objectivism "has the consistency of air" then go ahead and believe that. But your way of "proving" this point is to constantly try to grandstand me into defending a position that I don't hold, and which no other Objectivist holds either, outside the realms of your own imagination.

Really? Objectivists aren't absolutists? Funny you should say that:

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

You've been ignoring points you cannot respond to all day. If it's a scientific finding that shows what Rand said about human perception's relationship to reality to be false, you conveniently pounce on the science aspect of it and say "See?! SCIENCE! JUST LIKE OBJECTIVISM!"

I mean, buddy, I work in research. In science. That's sort of like a thing I do so I can eat and pay for my education. So understand that it's not part of a big, evil, statist plot when I say that Rand's philosophy isn't supported by science in literally any way. Except in that "existence exists," but what "follows" from there most assuredly does not.

 

[warpus]

It is simply the basis of Objectivist philosophy

Wait.. so the basis of objectivist philosophy is a tautology? And objectivist philosophy is what libertarianism is based on?

I hope you realize that it's logically impossible to build any sort of system on top of a tautology.

A tautology doesn't imply anything. It is basically somebody saying "True!". You can't draw any conclusions from it.

So you are either very wrong about this being the basis, or.. libertarianism is an inherently flawed ideology.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh btw Crezth

Oh, yes it is. Why should my hard-earned tax dollars pay for some parasitic kid? Losing your legs is a matter of personal responsibility. What a chump!

Because the majority - represented by the government - has decided so. Democracy. Unless Ayn Rands philosophy argues against democracy and its mechanisms, or public armed forces, that seems legit to me. Especially because the soldier might have never signed up without those special benefits after retirement. So those are not so much entitlements than contract conditions necessary to get "workers" (soldiers) hired.