In defense of the Libertarian Party

I don't recall exactly when or how I discovered the Libertarian Party. I only know that whenever it was, I was absolutely thrilled to discover a political party whose platform agreed perfectly with the political conclusions of my guiding philosophy, Objectivism. Imagine my surprise when other Objectivists began to tell me that Libertarians are actually the lowest of the low, deviant hijackers of philosophy who stole all of Ayn Rand's ideas and are now ruining everything for Objectivism. Confused? I know I am.

I have met almost no one who has identified him/herself to me as a Libertarian. So, all I have to go on to judge the party is the official party platform (and Wikipedia, whose article on Libertarianism I only just browsed today). Not a single thing in either of these documents conflicts with Objectivism. Not one. Nor is the platform missing any major issues. Some of the language even echoes Rand's (which is not surprising since it was her philosophy the Libertarians "stole" back in the day). I don't know the history of the party, and I really don't care. What matters to me is that the current party espouses everything that I believe in with regard to political conclusions.

The shortcomings of the Libertarian Party lie in its lack of clarity. For instance, the platform advocates a foreign policy of "non-interventionism." It also advocates the defense, against attacks from abroad, of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people. For those of us who can add two and two, "non-interventionism" in this context does not mean pacifism. Whatever particular members of the party pontificate, the official party is not anti-war. Obviously a government cannot defend its citizens against attacks from abroad without fighting. But, because this is not made 100% clear, people can get away with being anti-war and calling themselves Libertarians without anyone calling them on it (except me, apparently). Other examples of insufficient clarity are present as well.

So, what is it that Objectivists hate so much about Libertarians? Supposedly, it is that Libertarians do not have the correct philosophical bases for their conclusions. This is all fine and well, except how does anyone know? The official website does not list philosophical bases, except for the principle of self-ownership.

From the LP platform:

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." (Those evil Libertarians, not explaining the metaphysical and epistemological line of reasoning leading to this conclusion! Which is also funny, since Objectivists are so afraid of deduction (as against induction).)

While this is not an Objectivist axiom (it is a derivative conclusion), it can certainly be taken as axiomatic in the realm of politics, because it derives from conclusions which do not belong to the political branch of philosophy. That aside, I ask again, how does anyone know what philosophical bases "Libertarians" have for their conclusions? Did ARI take a survey of Libertarians? Is there a Libertarian Pope? No! Therefore, I think it is complete nonsense to throw about claims about why Libertarians believe what they do.

Yes yes, now you will give me examples of this and that Libertarian you met who believed in abstaining from murder for all the wrong reasons. This is all fine and well, but anecdotal evidence is not convincing to me. As any statistician will tell you, n < 30 is not large enough to be a statistically significant sample size, and I doubt many of these naysayers have even met 10 Libertarians. The LP has 200,000 members. My calculator can't handle calculations of this size, but I would bet a significant amount of money that even if 75% of the party were actually objectivists, the probability of encountering even 100 crazies by chance is not trivial. If I'm going to draw conclusions about the LP, it will be based on their official stance and not on what people I encounter claiming to be Libertarians say about their own opinions. (Funny how the two major schools of Objectivism can denounce one another without denouncing Objectivism itself, yet denounce Libertarianism in general because some Libertarians are wrong.)

The only objection to capital-L-Libertarianism (which no one has ever brought up to me) that I could accept is that the official party lets its members get away with this stuff. Although it calls itself the "party of principle", it is decidedly unprincipled in its approach to membership. This relates to the earlier issue of clarity. Making it more clear that pacifists, for instance, aren't really Libertarians, would improve the party's standing in my mind. (I would hope that it would also make Objectivists more accepting of it, but I have my doubts - they are maintaining Rand's grudge quite well.) What probably happened, I think, is that the LP avoids doing this because it wants to keep more members. Whether this is a good strategy in the long term is a subject for another discussion.

In short, I think Objectivists need to give the LP a break. Very few people care about epistemology. Including this at the beginning of the platform would put people to sleep. A political party's job is to advocate political conlcusions, not entire philosophical systems. Focus on the real problems, people.

if only it were so

(18:24:36) MalikFalasteeni: i always imagine girl hair cuts taking hours in luxurious turkish baths.