[extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history

[Jacob]

Marc Geddes wrote:

>I passed through a phase where I was an enthuiastic
>supporter of Libertarianism but was gradually argued
>out of it.  I'm still Libertarian leaning (I think the
>Libertarian ideals are the right ones), but the
>'Libertarian' label is ruined by the crack-pots and
>abolutists.
>
>The Ayn Rand gang (Objectivists) are a bunch of total
>loons.  There's no way in hell I could vote for the NZ
>Libertarian party for instance, because it's mostly
>Objectivists.  The founder was a local NZ Objectivist
>cult leader who runs a forum called SOLO.  He
>basically just uses Objectivism as an excuse to
>further his own ego and spit bile at people.  The
>Austrian School of economics is total crack-pot
>garbage.  Anarch-capitalism is a load of subjectivist
>tripe.
>  
>
Libertarianism and Objectivism have very little in common, other than
statements made by libertarians that use her works to support their
views.  The concept of a free man that is free to determine his own
destiny is antithetical to belief in anarchy which is precisely what
libertarians want us to accept.  Ayn Rand regarded such people as her
enemies.

>The reason you see government virtually everywhere is
>because life without it was pretty horrible.  Parts of
>Southern Italy, Somalia or Russia today are good
>examples of anarcho-capitalism in action.  The
>'service providers' are mafia thugs.  That's life
>without regulation.  The thugs and psychopaths take
>over.  The few strong and agressive types are more
>free, but virtually everyone else is *less* free.  The
>purpose of government regulation is to *reduce* the
>total force by restraining the psychos.  Real freedom
>has to look at the *over-all* freedom (taing everyone
>into account), not just the freedom of a few.
>
>As someone on another board pointed out well, the
>places in the world with weak states are all poor,
>violent and disease ridden. Schools in India burn to
>the ground without fire saftey regulations.  Tourists
>in Asia fall sick without food saftey regualation. 
>Disease is rampant without people can't afford drugs
>and there is no proper infrastructure.  It's not a
>pretty sight. 
>
>A semi-Libertarian postion might work, but at the very
>least you:
>
>*Very strong democratic government to provide
>accountability, transparency and due process and
>regulate against force and fraud
>
>*A minimal saftey net for those with really seriously
>misfortunes (like disability).  Why shoud those with
>disabilities have to be at the beck and call of the
>lucky purely because of an accident of birth?
>
>*Government to handle 'public goods' (goods and
>services affecting every-one that cannot easy
>partitioned).  In this category fall:  
>
>Police
>Defence
>Courts
>Infrastructure
>Disaster relief
>Dealing with Infectious Disease
>Environment
>Basic Scientific Research
>
>Now if Libertarians would distance themselves from the
>anarcho-capitalist and Randian nutters, and recognise
>that we do need a Minimal government, I think the
>Libertarian brand would really take-off and eventually
>be wildly successful.  But if they continue to only
>count anarcho-capitalists and hard-core Minarchists as
>'Libertarian', then they're going to get absolutely
>no-where and be (rightly) written off as crack-pots.
>  
>
Sir, do you realize that you have just proven Ayn Rand's point that,
yes, we do indeed need limited government?  No honest Objectivist would
ever admit to believing a philosophy which admitted of no government. 
No government gives way to "might makes right".  This is precisely Ayn
Rand's thought.  One must conclude that the source of such a view on her
philosophy exists elsewhere.  That source is libertarians plagarizing
and corrupting her philosophy, effectively using her as means to forward
their own ends.

>From Ayn Rand herself:

    "The use of physical force--even in retaliatory use--cannot be left
    at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is
    impossible if a man lives under the constant threat of force to be
    unleashed against him by any his neighbors at any moment.

    Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their
    judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a
    sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice--the
    use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary
    decision of another." (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", Virtue
    of Selfishness/// <http://capmag.com/store_detail.asp?offset=60&ID=5>/)


Article:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4221

More links from across the web:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ayn+rand%22+anarchy&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/18/18perigo.php
Article excerpt from above link:
"Imagine, for example, being confronted by a Hegelian, who would claim
to be an enthusiastic devotee of freedom. In his lexicon, however,
individual freedom is a misnomer and true freedom consists in submission
by the individual to the state. Such a creature would vigorously promote
abuses of individual rights like compulsory taxation, military
conscription, censorship, drug prohibition, murder for the "common good"
(war) etc., and sincerely argue that by such means, true freedom would
be achieved. Rex and I, on the other hand, would loudly protest that
such outrages were "interferences with our freedom." In Rex's
government-less society, who would prevail? Without a formally
constituted agency charged with defining and defending individual rights
(government), the answer could only be: he who has the bigger club. Rex
might have no intention of "standing idly by" while his rights are
abused, but in the presence of armed Hegelians and absence of legally
constituted police, to whom and to what would he repair? Like-minded
people with better weapons? A home-made nuclear arsenal in his back
yard? The spectre of might is right looms large.

Hence Ayn Rand's statement that "a society without organised government
[or, to anticipate Rex, 'organised without government'] would be at the
mercy of the first criminal [or Hegelian] who came along.""

Thank for your time,
--Jacob Bennett