Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Is the Objectivist View of Libertarianism?
Objectivist Center ^ | 3/03 | David Kelley and William Thomas

Posted on 04/13/2003 3:40:52 PM PDT by RJCogburn

The Objectivist political ideal is a society of trade, in which people interact by voluntary means to mutual benefit, rather than by coercion, plunder, and the exercise of power. A society of trade is a free society, in which individuals enjoy rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and in which government is strictly limited to the function of protecting those rights through a system of law, with no authority to regulate belief, speech, the arts, or economic markets except to prevent one citizen or group from violating the rights of others.

This political outlook puts Objectivism squarely in the tradition of thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, as advocates of the political position known as "classical liberalism," "market liberalism," or, in Europe and Latin America, simply as "liberalism." All of these terms derive from "liberty" and signal someone who is a strong advocate of individual freedom. Classical liberals, unlike the leftist "liberals" in America today, advocate both freedom of speech and economic freedom—"free minds and free markets," as Reason magazine puts it.

Libertarians are also classical liberals. Sometimes, indeed, the word "libertarian" is used simply as a modern equivalent for that broad political approach. More often, it means something narrower: Libertarians recognize that an individual's rights can be violated only by the initiation of force against him. Liberty therefore requires a political order that bans the initiation of physical force from human relationships (excluding, to some degree, relationships with children and the mentally incompetent). The implication, as David Boaz of the Cato Institute writes in Libertarianism: A Primer (New York: The Free Press, 1997), is that "the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud" (p. 2). And government exists for the purpose of seeing that these actions are forbidden—period. This limitation excludes certain functions that other classical liberals ascribe to government, such as providing roads and schools.

Objectivists agree with this strict limitation on government. It was John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, who said: "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others" (p. 949, paperback). The clarity and insistence of Rand's cry—"do you hear me?"—resounded through her essays and speeches on individual rights and limited government, igniting the birth of modern libertarianism in the 1960s. Indeed, Rand remains a major influence in the general libertarian movement.

Some Differences However, there are significant differences between Objectivism and the views of many—perhaps most—libertarians. Rand herself thought these differences so great that she rejected the label "libertarian." She preferred to be known as a "radical for capitalism."

One key difference is over the need for government. Objectivism holds that liberty requires an enforceable system of adjudication based on objective principles, that is, a legal system. Such a system establishes when force has been used and allows for the rational settlement of disputes on the basis of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Only an institution that effectively dominates and regulates the use of force in a given geographic area can provide and enforce such a system of law. So we need government to set us free from force.

While many libertarians would agree, others are anarchists who believe that some "free-market" system of competing law courts and for-profit police agencies can ensure a "non-monopolistic" system of rights protection. Objectivists would reply that freedom cannot come from the marketplace: it is a precondition of the marketplace, which can operate only to the extent that individuals can act, trade, and own property by their own choice, free from the use of force. It is thus impossible to have the market provide the protection that frees one from force in the first place. Anarchism, in practice, would amount to civil warfare (Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 112-13).

If we exclude anarchism, we can say that libertarianism is the Objectivist position in politics. But Objectivism includes more than politics. It is a systematic philosophy that also includes a specific view of reality, human nature, and the nature of knowledge. It includes a specific code of morality based on the requirements of life in this world. The Objectivist commitment to individual rights and a ban on the initiation of force is grounded in its view of nature, knowledge, and values. Its political conclusions thus stand on a firm and quite specific foundation. Ayn Rand put it this way: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows" ("Introducing Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter, vol. 1 no. 8, August 1962, p. 35).

Philosophically, some libertarians are Objectivists, or would at least agree with the core elements in the Objectivist case for liberty, such as the individual's need to act by means of reason in pursuing his life and happiness as ultimate values. Others hold that liberty is grounded in some other philosophical (or religious) viewpoint, such as Christianity, utilitarianism, Kantianism, or postmodern subjectivism. Others still would deny the need for a philosophical basis altogether; in their view, the principle of non-initiation of force is an "axiom" of social organization that is self-evident or to be taken on faith.

What Does It Matter? These differences matter for two reasons. First, anyone who advocates a free society must appeal to some philosophical foundation or other. A foundation that is unsound yields bad arguments that undermine the credibility of libertarianism. For example, one cannot argue that libertarianism is true, good, or useful if one denies that it is possible to have objective knowledge in the first place; yet some libertarian thinkers embrace skeptical or relativist views that have exactly that implication. In the long run, the political principles of a free society cannot gain widespread acceptance without broad acceptance of the underlying moral and cultural values that make freedom an ideal. Creating such a culture must therefore be a long-term goal for advocates of liberty, and that goal requires us to understand what the essential values are.

Secondly, political principles are not self-contained units that can be swapped among philosophical systems without alteration, like beads moved from one necklace to another. A philosophy like Objectivism is a systematic whole, and the meaning of each principle is affected by the manner in which it is derived. Because Objectivism bases liberty on an ethic of individual happiness, for example, it does not reduce the essential purpose of rights to nothing more than the negative goal of freedom from force. The function of rights is primarily positive: enabling people to pursue their lives by reason and trade. This conception of rights has more in common with classical liberals like Thomas Jefferson—who believed that individual rights existed to enable the pursuit of happiness—than with those libertarians who deduce rights from an axiom banning the initiation of force.

An underlying philosophy affects not only the meaning of broad political principles but also the answers to specific policy questions.

When does a "person" come into being? At what level of mental or physical competence does he gain or lose rights?… Do animals have rights?… What rightful claims do children have on their parents? Do adults have the right to have sex with children? Do you have the right to shoot trespassers? to build an atomic bomb in your basement?… Does a nation have the right to bomb an aggressor nation in self-defense, even if innocent civilians will be killed? Does morality demand that we abolish all improper government interventions and programs overnight, rather than gradually?

The answers to these and dozens of similar questions will shape what "libertarianism" means in actual practice; yet surveys have shown that libertarians are deeply divided on many of the answers. Why? Because their concepts of freedom, rights, and justice are shaped…by clashing philosophical premises (Robert Bidinotto, "The Roundtable," IOS Journal, August 1997, p. 14). In light of these philosophical concerns, some Objectivists have concluded that libertarianism is utterly indifferent to philosophy and that libertarians are therefore nihilists. But that's a non sequitur. Though some libertarians advocate philosophical views that are deeply at odds with the requirements of liberty, many do not. And the libertarian movement in general is a positive force for political change. Libertarians have sought to make common cause in pursuit of liberty, despite disagreements on other issues—an approach that, within limits of broad compatibility, makes sense. Objectivists can benefit from taking part in the movement for liberty. And libertarians can benefit from the moral and epistemological insights of Objectivism.


TOPICS: Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aynrand; aynrandlist; gobbeldygook; johngalt; libertarian; libertarians; objectivist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2003 3:40:52 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The answers to these and dozens of similar questions will shape what "libertarianism" means in actual practice; yet surveys have shown that libertarians are deeply divided on many of the answers.

I'll say. That's why I left the Libertarian Party and registered Republican. It boggles the mind the degree to which Libertarians are willing to be "deeply divided" over issues like what makes a Libertarian different from an Objectivist, a distinction that is meaningless to everyone else.

2 posted on 04/13/2003 3:53:14 PM PDT by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Do I Have To Slap Ya Up The Side Of The Head?
Give NOW! I'm SICK of This!!!!
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 04/13/2003 3:54:44 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Thanks for posting this pointy-headed article explaining the intricacies of Objectivism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, and Breatharianism.
4 posted on 04/13/2003 3:56:08 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; OWK
And libertarians can benefit from the moral and epistemological insights of Objectivism.

They sure could.

5 posted on 04/13/2003 3:57:42 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
That's a fantastic essay. I have long been a fan and believer in the words and philosophy of Ayn Rand. More recently, my convictions have led me to feel disenfranchised with the Republican party as a whole. Although many of the libertarians hold different philosophical views than myself, I agree with the premise that the libertarian movement has the capacity to incite change in the political landscape.
6 posted on 04/13/2003 3:59:08 PM PDT by Castro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; Roscoe; Kevin Curry

Self-marginalization in practice.

7 posted on 04/13/2003 4:00:54 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
This is why I've taken to calling myself a "Constitutional republican", to distinguish myself from Libertarians, Republicans and conservatives.
8 posted on 04/13/2003 4:03:55 PM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Bump for later.
9 posted on 04/13/2003 4:12:21 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (No more will we pretend that our desire/For liberty is number-cold and has no fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
I liked "Liberal"...and that got corrupted.
I liked "Libertarian"...and that got corrupted.

I say "Objectivist" and I get "Huh?"

10 posted on 04/13/2003 4:15:48 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Some links for anyone interested in liberty:

Laissez Faire Books.
Ayn Rand Bookstore. (formerly Second Renaissance Books)
Reason Foundation.
Ayn Rand Institute.

11 posted on 04/13/2003 4:17:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
What Is the Objectivist View of Libertarianism?

Open borders, federalized drug program, all laws should be banned.

Nothing redeeming about the whole lot of 'em...

12 posted on 04/13/2003 4:21:24 PM PDT by Libloather (And it still isn’t safe enough to vote DemocRAT…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
First, anyone who advocates a free society must appeal to some philosophical foundation or other.

Tail chasing isn't much of a philosophical foundation.

"Prescription is the most solid of all titles, not only to property, but, which is to secure that property, to government. They harmonise with each other, and give mutual aid to one another. It is accompanied with another ground of authority in the constitution of the human mind-- presumption. It is a presumption in favour of any settled scheme of government against any untried project, that a nation has long existed and flourished under it. It is a better presumption even of the choice of a nation, far better than any sudden and temporary arrangement by actual election. Because a nation is not an idea only of local extent, and individual momentary aggregation, but it is an idea of continuity, which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space. And this is a choice not of one day, or one set of people, not a tumultuary and giddy choice; it is a deliberate election of ages and of generations; it is a Constitution made by what is ten thousand times better than choice--it is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasions, tempers, dispositions, and moral, civil, and social habitudes of the people, which disclose themselves only in a long space of time." -- Edmund Burke

13 posted on 04/13/2003 4:25:12 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Objectivist cartoon...


14 posted on 04/13/2003 4:25:41 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The last time I checked, the "Industrial Workers of the World" was not an Objectivist institution. You are about as honest as the Iraqi Minister of Information.
15 posted on 04/13/2003 4:29:41 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The fundamental problem with Objectivism is the idea that all answers can be found through reason, and that anything that cannot be explained rationally should be rejected.

Hayek clearly explains that this is not the case. That societies and their moral codes evolve together.

16 posted on 04/13/2003 4:30:49 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Castro
That's a fantastic essay. I have long been a fan and believer in the words and philosophy of Ayn Rand. More recently, my convictions have led me to feel disenfranchised with the Republican party as a whole. Although many of the libertarians hold different philosophical views than myself, I agree with the premise that the libertarian movement has the capacity to incite change in the political landscape.

But it seems lately that they are stuck on the "legalize all drugs and all our problems will go up in smoke" movement associating themselves with the socialist anti-gun movements.

17 posted on 04/13/2003 4:34:29 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Objectivists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, they all want freedom from wage-slavery, no?
18 posted on 04/13/2003 4:34:40 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (Stalinists, Maoists, Pacifists, Paleos, Libertarians: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jdege
"Hayek clearly explains that this is not the case"

I agree that Hayek is very convincing on this, he does a good job of explaining why the "rationalism" that is the root of socialism is so flawed.

However, IMO, Objectivism does agree on many points with Hayek. However, I have to admit to not being very knowledgable on Objectivism, I am making surmises based on my recent reading of The Fountainhead, which I enjoyed.

19 posted on 04/13/2003 4:37:30 PM PDT by Sam Cree (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Right... let's look at that list of yours. Again.

Open borders.

Yes. But only after getting rid of welfare and entitlement programs. Only those willing to work for a living and add value to our society would even WANT to come here. Also, allow our populace thier full right to the tools of self-protection... namely firearms. Anyone coming here looking to cause trouble should be fully cognizant of the fact that a few million armed civilians are keeping an eye out for them.

Federalized drug program.

Bravo Sierra. Ending the WOD ranks right up there on the issue list as high as ending government interference in our medical business. End HillaryCare and End the DEA are both issues on our table. Bush is the one pushing for a prescription drug program for agin hippies.

All laws should be banned.

More bovine fecal matter. Try all laws that do not involve "force, fraud, or theft". Most good laws fit under that catagory. Assault and battery. Murder. Rape. The Enron and Global Crossing fiasco's not to mention we would have had an easier time nabbing the Klintoons under a simplified fraud and theft charges without all the bearucratic dodges built into the system.

All this has been gone over on FR a thousand times and you flying monkies STILL have to come in here and crap all over everything.

20 posted on 04/13/2003 4:40:00 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
It may be that Objectivists are more anxious to be free of wage and price fixing by government decree.

Anyone that knows better can go ahead and correct me, though.

21 posted on 04/13/2003 4:40:14 PM PDT by Sam Cree (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: *Ayn_Rand_List; *libertarians
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
22 posted on 04/13/2003 4:42:21 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I think I read the answer to this question in High Times magazine back in the 70's.
23 posted on 04/13/2003 4:44:10 PM PDT by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Very few here will ever come out completely for true capitalism. Everyone says the market NEEDS their prefered brand of control on the whole shebang. This is patently BS as history has shown over and over again.
24 posted on 04/13/2003 4:44:19 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

More anarcho-nonsense. The basis of human law is not the foreign philosophy of Objectivism as adhered to by a few hundred humanist ideologues, but religious morality.

25 posted on 04/13/2003 4:44:21 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (Stalinists, Maoists, Pacifists, Paleos, Libertarians: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Which religion now CJ? Mine? Yours?

Sorry. No. The ancient "Golden Rule" is about all anyone really needs to deduce the most effective and morally correct form of government.

The Taliban ruled over Afghanistan as a religiously founded government. Is that what you would have for us?

26 posted on 04/13/2003 4:46:33 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Who's talking about religion? I said 'religious morality.'
27 posted on 04/13/2003 4:47:55 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Can you have a "religious morality" without having a "religion" to base it upon? You really are getting delusional.
28 posted on 04/13/2003 4:50:55 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Characaturing an oponents position in order to discredit it is call the "straw man fallacy".

Wobblies ain't Objectivists and you know it.
29 posted on 04/13/2003 5:20:15 PM PDT by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Objectivists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, they all want freedom from wage-slavery, no?

You are so full of it. You have no idea what you are talking about. I dare you to find the words "wage slavery" on an objectivist web site, being used in a manner other than to mock some left-wing cause. Objectivists are not opposed to businesses employing people.

30 posted on 04/13/2003 9:28:42 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Gasp! And so they only give lip-service to liberty. We ought to be calling them 'libertarians-lite.'
31 posted on 04/13/2003 9:42:56 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Objectivists are not opposed to businesses employing people.

And "wage slavery" is such an ugly term. Didn't Ayn Rand have a more pleasing way of putting it? Bearing in mind, of course, there are the John Galt Ubercapitalists and there are the necrotic, blood-leeching, lumpen subhumans who make up the remaining 95 percent of humanity.

32 posted on 04/13/2003 9:47:59 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2

Objectively an Objectivist's paradise...

33 posted on 04/13/2003 9:48:03 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The Taliban ruled over Afghanistan as a religiously founded government. Is that what you would have for us?

. . . speaking of strawmen.

34 posted on 04/13/2003 9:49:48 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: Kevin Curry
So which religion would YOU put in charge of our new theocracy? How would you go about dismantling the Constitution?

Come on KC... don't hold back now.

36 posted on 04/14/2003 7:14:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Dead Corpse; FastCoyote
knock it off.
38 posted on 04/14/2003 7:20:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
What Is the Objectivist View of Libertarianism?

The one-word answer: HERESY.

39 posted on 04/14/2003 7:21:38 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I'm an objectivist libertarian.

(who thinks that both libertarians and objectivists ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the respective philosophies.)
40 posted on 04/14/2003 7:27:31 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
So between two posts you go from claiming Objectivists are the bretheren of Communists to claiming that the Communists are right that Objectivists are the spawn of Satan. I can see you are not an Objectivist, because you are completely lacking in reason.
41 posted on 04/14/2003 7:56:22 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OWK
True -- my post was intended more a comment on the fulminations of self-proclaimed Objectivists than a comment on the philosophy itself.
42 posted on 04/14/2003 7:58:35 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Thanks for posting this pointy-headed article explaining the intricacies of Objectivism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, and Breatharianism.

An article that might have produced some serious discussion on a subject that might be of interest to some.

Your comments are in poor form, IMO, adding nothing of substance.

43 posted on 04/14/2003 11:35:46 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, it's bold talk.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OWK
(who thinks that both libertarians and objectivists ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the respective philosophies.)

That would nice, but Libertarianism as such doesn't address philisophy - just politics.

Only the most ill-informed, casual thinking Libertarians claim that their political party is an integrated philosophy.

It is entirely acceptable and non-contradictary to be a mystical, anti-reason, altruistic, collectivist dope smoker and still be a Libertarian. I have unfortunately met more like this than than any group this side of the Greens. This included *Democrats* (!)

Suffice it to say, these traits are not Objectivism.

I was a Libertarian before I wised up. I don't see what an Objectivist can learn from "Libertarianism".
44 posted on 04/14/2003 10:55:56 PM PDT by Rate_Determining_Step (Objectivist first and always!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rate_Determining_Step
It is entirely acceptable and non-contradictary to be a mystical, anti-reason, altruistic, collectivist dope smoker and still be a Libertarian.

Not if the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarian political advocacy) is followed to it's logical conclusion.

Are there non-thinking dolts who call themselves "libertarian" because they think it sounds cool, without ever having bothered to find out what it is?

Sure.

Are there pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals who stretch objectivism into all sorts of contortions to make it fit their worldview (making it essentially useless)?

Absolutely.

But that isn't an indictement of either libertarianism or objectivism. It's an indictment of dolts and pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals.

45 posted on 04/15/2003 4:22:22 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
...the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force...

:)

Yes, it's a romantic, idealistic dream, which assumes people will act in a principled way, when left to their own devices. But maybe should all strive for a little more romance and ideals, in our politics?

46 posted on 04/15/2003 4:38:10 AM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Hey, OWK! Great to see you back on FR, mate.
47 posted on 04/15/2003 4:39:17 AM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OWK
>> It is entirely acceptable and non-contradictary to be a mystical, anti-reason, altruistic, collectivist dope smoker and still be a Libertarian.

>> Not if the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarian political advocacy) is followed to it's logical conclusion.

OK, pull "collectivist" and I'm accurate.

You entirely bypass my point that Libertarianism is a >political party<. NOT a philosophy. Not even close.



48 posted on 04/16/2003 11:24:57 AM PDT by Rate_Determining_Step (The US Military! Draining the Swam of Terrorism since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rate_Determining_Step
You entirely bypass my point that Libertarianism is a >political party<. NOT a philosophy. Not even close.

It is a political party which is supposed to be predicated on the non-aggression principle.

49 posted on 04/16/2003 4:32:53 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OWK
> It is a political party which is supposed to be predicated on the non-aggression principle.

Big whoop. Not enough.
50 posted on 04/16/2003 8:38:14 PM PDT by Rate_Determining_Step (The US Military! Draining the Swam of Terrorism since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson