Sign Up for the Good Stuff

Hi. I recommend J. Michael Oliver’s book – The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism.

Written in 1972, it’s central thesis is that Anarchism, not Minarchism is the logical political philosophy to be derived from basic Objectivist principles of metaphysics and ethics.

It also stresses the importance of Objectivist metaphisics, epistemology,…[Read more]

To the best of my knowledge, the main issues with Libertarianism according to Rand and Objectivism is a moral one. The disconnect lies with Rand’s view that Libertarianism, despite advocating limited government and free markets, fails to provide a concise moral justification for those positions. I would start with this article for more…[Read more]

@lflinks79
Jeremiah. Good find. I recall this line from “For the New Intellectual”. It is in the first essay. In that essay she explains much of her worldview including her understanding of the history of ideas.

Here’s the quote again:
Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping,…[Read more]

@eliot Who said she was perfect? FTR, who is? Also, the vast majority of anarchists I’ve met cannot explain why anarchy is good, they just feel that it is. Personally I think a true laissez faire society would evolve into a ancap society since private companies would, through efficiency and competition resulting in lower costs, render govt…[Read more]

@lflinks79 Seems to me her objection to libertarians is the same as with everyone else. As you said, lacking a moral, objective basis for the beliefs.

@makiaveli Yes. I of course have much in common with all liberty minded folks. But it distresses me when many have little intellectual and philosophical basis for their positions. Without that it is too easy to undercut oneself and to be sold a bill of goods.

What I don’t understand is why Rand did not like Murray Rothbard. Murray was a deeply philosophical and extremely well educated fellow and very deep advocate of anarcho-capitalism and of libertarianism. This man really new his stuff. I think Ayn Rand and he could have had extremely fruitful conversations.

As deeply as I love objectivism and…[Read more]

@sjatkins So the philosophy should be open to interpretation and mean whatever anyone wants it to mean?

You differ on core principles, then insult them for saying you aren’t an Objectivist?

@makiaveli You have to use your own mind to understand it. You can’t take the word of some purported high priest. I don’t differ on any truly core principles at all. But they call things essential that are not. For instance Rand claimed that no rational woman could ever want to be president. I hardly consider that an essential to objectivism…[Read more]

@makiaveli ARI folk have insulted people deeply committed to objectivism principles and living them because of doctrinal disagreements in rather rarefied areas. The Kelley split is a case in point. By so doing they have decreased the reach of highly essential objectivism insights in the culture. This is really sad.

This was the reason for the Kelley-Peikoff split. David Kelley believed that objectivism was open and should be tolerant to fellow travelers, but Peikoff as you stated completely disagreed with it. So david kelley went on to found the Atlas Society, but you could read more about it directly from him on their website.

@freeelectron
Perhaps Ayn Rand’s greatest fault was in her abysmal choice of “friends.” First Branden and then Peikoff made a mockery of objectivism and destroyed the cultural influence it could and should have had. Perhaps in another generation or two, when their baleful influence fades into obscurity objectivism can flourish as it ought to do.

@freeelectron
I do not give credence to the “toleration” controversy as the real reason for the Kelly-Peikoff split. I think that was just an excuse Peikoff contrived to rationalize to his followers the excommunication of someone he felt threatened his cult status.

@ccspencer so I suppose you’re on the peikoff side of the argument?

@freeelectron
Why would you think that! I said I thought the whole controversy was phony. I don’t have to take sides on meaningless foolishness.

@ccspencer Ok sorry, I think I misinterpreted your comment. I agree its kind of silly but it comes down to control, does peikoff have the control he wants over the message or is it more open ( like a methodology that can be used and applied like austrian economics is a methodology)

@freeelectron
I think it is clear that Peikoff invented the faux controversy as a means to promote his control over the cult followers separate and apart from the alleged issue itself. It was just a way to force objectivists to choose between following him or not. The whole thing makes a mockery of objectivism.

As to the issue itself … If…[Read more]