"Libertarianism" has driven a wedge through organized Objectivism, dividing it into two disparate camps. On one side of the rift are those who openly embrace libertarianism. On the other are those who denounce libertarianism as "an evil doctrine."

    Which side in this debate should a rational person favor? If objectivity is the guide, the answer is neither.

Organized Objectivism's False Dichotomy

    The "official" Objectivist movement is led by the self-proclaimed intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and his cohorts at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) . The view of libertarianism as inherently evil was not articulated by Ayn Rand herself, but by ARI Chairman of the Board Peter Schwartz in his article "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" (republished in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought).

    According to Schwartz, there is no need to judge libertarians on an individual basis because, he alleges, evil is "inherent" in libertarianism itself.

    Viewing the ARI hierarchy's attacks on libertarians as tantamount to "the behavior of religious zealots," former ARI scholar David Kelley, who was formally denounced by Peikoff in 1989 for speaking to a group of libertarians, strives to promote a more open and "tolerant" brand of Objectivism (see "Introduction to Truth and Toleration").

    Kelley's The Objectivist Center (TOC) goes out of its way to distance itself from ARI. TOC officials not only tolerate libertarians, but regard them as allies. TOC even welcomes anarchists into its ranks and occasionally invites them to be speakers at TOC events.

    In rejecting ARI's blanket condemnations of libertarians, TOC has become unwilling to criticize even those libertarians who advocate blatantly irrational ideas. This is not surprising given Kelley's peculiar conviction that ideas as such cannot be morally judged (see "A question of Sanction").

    Organized Objectivism's battle over libertarianism centers on a philosophical dispute between those who believe ideas fall outside the realm of morality and those who believe that moral judgments inhere within ideas themselves. What's missing from both TOC and ARI is objectivity in formulating moral judgments.

    The first step in making a valid moral evaluation is to carefully consider the relevant context. What, then, is libertarianism?

Identifying Libertarianism

    Etymologically, "libertarian" comes from "liberty," which has its roots in "liber," the Latin term for freedom. Etymology, however, offers but a clue to a word's true meaning.

    Words acquire various associations and connotations over time that can alter and sometimes completely transform their original definitions. Consider what happened to "liberal." Carrying the same etymological roots as "libertarian," "liberal" originally referred to advocates of individual freedom. But by the twentieth century, "liberal" had become co-opted by statists, who projected onto "liberal" their inclinations toward government activism.

    The modern vernacular came to accept the statist, rather than the classical, definition of "liberal." Thus, by the mid twentieth century, classical liberals found themselves in need of a new word to describe their political views. "Libertarian" began to fill that need. Since the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971, "libertarian" has enjoyed widespread use.

    Today, what libertarianism actually stands for is disputed. But the relevant question is quite simple: What fundamental principle unites all libertarians?

    Is it a belief in individual liberty? Most libertarians certainly claim to be advocates of liberty. But "liberty" has a specific meaning -- the condition under which individuals are free from the threat or initiation of force -- and a specific requirement for its preservation: a government that defends individual rights to life, liberty, and property. While some libertarians support the rule of law necessary for individual freedom, others desire the abolition of law and (wittingly or unwittingly) the destruction of liberty.

    Libertarianism's inconsistency leads Peter Schwartz to conjecture that libertarianism is inherently subjective and therefore doesn't really stand for anything. He goes so far as to assert that the essence of libertarianism is nihilism -- the negation of all values.

    Schwartz tries to back up this fantastic assertion by launching in the aforementioned "Libertarianism" and in "On Moral Sanctions" a blitzkrieg of equally fantastic claims: that libertarians embrace communism and Nazism as well as "bomb throwers" and "baby killers"; that "the goal of libertarians is to topple the state's power elite through armed struggle" in "the streets and the back alleys"; and that a libertarian system would cause "widespread death." Schwartz stops short of accusing libertarians of wanting to destroy the entire universe, but he gratuitously remarks, "it is from the universe as such that Libertarians wish to be 'liberated.'"

    Schwartz's wild attempts to discredit libertarianism are so riddled with hyperbole, non-sequiturs, and outright distortions as to suggest intellectual dishonesty. As an especially blatant case in point, he introduces a libertarian organization's statement that individuals "have a natural right to do their own thing, providing that they do not physically harm or coercively restrict another individual's life, liberty or property" [emphasis added] and ignores its important qualification, inexplicably concluding in the very next sentence, "the libertarian interprets liberty to mean the license to do whatever he feels like doing...to him, any obstacle in the path of people's whims is undesirable." This is not merely an exaggeration on Schwartz's part, but an apparently deliberate misrepresentation -- a perversion, one might say, of objectivity.

    Even if Schwartz had offered evidence of nihilism infusing the libertarian movement, it would not logically follow that nihilism forms the essence of libertarianism. A proper definition situates a term in its appropriate context and then differentiates it from other concepts within that context. Nihilism, like Christianity and Objectivism, is a philosophy complete with metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical tenets. Libertarianism is not a philosophy. Like socialism and conservatism, libertarianism refers to a political ideology. It is only within that context that libertarianism could legitimately be defined.

Libertarians Seek to Limit Government

    Contrary to what Schwartz and Peikoff claim, libertarians do not welcome into their ranks anyone who says "I'm for liberty." Socialists claim that government-run health care frees people from medical worries and thus enhances "liberty." Yet, no libertarian organization advocates a government takeover of the health-care system.

    Libertarians are not united by the arbitrary assertion of "liberty," but by a particular goal. The planks of the Libertarian Party platform, the articles written in libertarian journals, and the postings on libertarian internet forums indicate that libertarians, while holding to a wide range of goals and philosophies as individuals, share a common, essential political belief. It was articulated by two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne as he pleaded for votes in 2000: "The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this: Do you want smaller government?"

    Students of Objectivism (excepting some militantly "tolerant" TOC supporters) generally dissociate themselves from wrongheaded statements such as Browne's. "Smaller government," is only one ingredient in a free society, and only if that smaller government protects individual rights. Unfortunately, as Browne's campaign slogan reveals, not all libertarians understand this. Some simply seek to get rid of government entirely and replace it with nothing.

    Some students of Objectivism want "libertarianism" to be a better term than libertarians themselves have made it. Robert White, writing in The Free Radical, asserts that libertarianism is based on "a single, unifying principle: thou shalt not initiate the use of physical force." But the non-initiation of force principle is a matter of great controversy within libertarianism. Libertarian "consequentialists" reject the principle entirely, preferring to defend libertarianism on grounds of its supposed social utility. Two of the most popular libertarian magazines, in fact, Liberty and Reason, defend libertarian policies from an amoral consequentialist perspective.

    Libertarians, no matter what their personal philosophies or attempted justifications for their political goals, all seek to significantly reduce the size and scope of government. Libertarianism, therefore, can be defined as a political movement that seeks to significantly reduce the size and scope of government.

A Pair of Flawed Philosophies

    The point is lost on tolerationists, who say there's nothing wrong with libertarianism, and on moralizers, who insist everything is wrong with it.

    Tolerationists hold, in essence, that one should practice moral neutrality toward individuals with whom one disagrees philosophically. After all, one can never really be sure of anyone else's inner motivations. Thus, tolerationists even tolerate explicit opponents of liberty on the premise that such toleration is virtuous.

    An anarchist might genuinely believe his views to be honest and moral, so, according to tolerationists, one must refrain from judging. In other words, the facts of reality, and one's integration of them, must yield to the unknowable potential thoughts, intentions, and feelings of others.

    So-called tolerationism is infected by epistemological skepticism and moral subjectivism. TOC regards libertarians as allies simply because they seek smaller government. Even among those libertarians who advocate all-out anarchy, tolerationists insists that one can't judge them or their ideas as being immoral becuase one can't really know what motivations and intentions are lurking inside their heads.

    Toleration is not a virtue in itself, ARI supporters correctly point out. But neither is intolerance.

    Schwartz insist sthat libertarianism has certain inherent characteristics that form the essence of the term -- even if no libertarians actually hold the views allegedly subsumed under libertarianism! His notion of "libertarianism" is a floating abstraction detached from actual referents in reality.

    When faced with examples of libertarians who do, in fact, advocate limited government, individual rights, and the other prerequisites for liberty, Schwartz reverts to his declaration that libertarianism is evil and deduces that all libertarians are evil by definition. This is intrinsicism, the belief that moral judgments are somehow self-evident and can be cast in spite of, or in direct contradiction to, empirical evidence. Intrinsicism naturally leads to dogmatism because the instinsicist has placed adherence to fixed conclusions above the very process by which valid conclusions can be reached.

    Both intrinsicist "Objectivists" and subjectivist "Objectivists" fail to grasp that the primary virtue involved in any moral evaluation is objectivity.

Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

    In contrast to both the blind-eye tolerationism and dogmatic moralizing exhibited by some of today's "Objectivists," Ayn Rand objectively identified libertarianism's relationship to Objectivism. When asked in a 1964 interview if there were any "conservatives" who offered a rational justification for capitalism, Rand responded as follows:

Oh, yes, there are some. They are usually called libertarians. That is a group which would include, for instance, Professor Ludwig von Mises or Henry Hazlitt as the best exponents. They are defenders of capitalism on a non-mystical, scientific base.

    Rand acknowledged the overlap between libertarian and Objectivist politics. She also distinguished her philosophy from philosophies (or the lack thereof) commonly held by libertarians without casting a blanket moral judgment on libertarianism as such.

In a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is [sic] in the fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their philosophical frame of reference, it varies from men to men, and we're usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework but in agreement with most of their economic theories.

    Although Rand became more hostile toward most libertarians in her later years, calling the worst among them "plagiarists" and often associating their movement with anarchism, she never fell into the kind of intrinsicism that is today propounded by some of the self-proclaimed defenders of her philosophy. Anti-libertarians in the Objectivist movement have taken the term "libertarianism" out of its (proper) political context and have attempted to evaluate it as if it referred to a philosophy. According to this view, political advocacy does not merely arise from wider philosophical principles, but politics and philosophy as such are indistinguishable. The logical (and dangerous) implication is that that political institutions -- namely, governments -- ought to be in the business of making and enforcing any number of pronouncements pertaining to the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and esthetic branches of philosophy.

    Rand took a much different position. In "How to Judge a Political Candidate" she emphasized that, while politics derives from metaphysical, epistemological, and moral premises, "one cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy. ...It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job. It is only political consistency that we can demand of him." Indeed, in a free society, government inserts itself only into the area of morality that pertains to the proper use of force, and that is the context within which a political movement should be judged.

On Using "Libertarian"

    Schwartz and Peikoff insist that political consistency resides in "capitalism." But "capitalism" carries many of the same problems as "libertarianism."

    Surprisingly enough, Leonard Peikoff agrees. "As a rule," Peikoff states in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, "the defenders of capitalism have been worse -- more openly irrational -- than its attackers." This is a stunning admission. Peikoff is acknowledging that one can be irrational and still be an advocate of the political/economic system of capitalism.

    Peikoff's stance on capitalism contradicts the premise behind Schwartz's attack on libertarianism -- namely, that it can be condemned for having irrational adherents. It is perfectly reasonable to hold that the mere existence of irrational capitalists cannot not render capitalism itself an immoral system. Similarly, irrational atheists do not render atheism invalid. Shouldn't libertarianism be judged in the same manner?

    Peikoff would, of course, insist that libertarianism and capitalism are two distinct concepts. And indeed they are, but they overlap. Capitalism is the broader concept, referring to the political/economic system of private property and free enterprise. "Libertarian" carries more of a political connotation, referring to the movement that seeks to dramatically reduce government (which is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for capitalism). If, by "openly irrational" defenders of capitalism, Peikoff did not mean to refer to libertarians, it is difficult to conceive of who Peikoff could have possibly been referring to.

    Ayn Rand often modified "capitalism" by referring to it as "laissez-faire capitalism." Even though the modification was logically redundant in her view, she knew that the modification was necessary in order to communicate her ideals clearly. Without the addition of "laissez-faire," many audiences would never question their own prejudices and misunderstandings of capitalism.

    Likewise, "libertarian" is, at present, too loose a word to stand by itself in most circumstances. If left unmodified, "libertarian" can connote a host of viewpoints, ranging from membership in the Libertarian Party to anarchy to "civil liberties" statism. Therefore, anyone using "libertarian" with the hope of connoting liberty will have to provide (explicitly or implicitly) the context of individual rights and limited government.

    In the future, things may change. If genuine advocates of individual liberty infuse the libertarian movement with rationality, then perhaps "libertarian" could one day stand on its own and require no further clarification. If, on the other hand, "libertarian" becomes hijacked by anarchists, it may suffer a fate similar to "liberal" and come to mean the opposite of liberty.

Conclusion

    One thing is certain: neither tolerationists nor moralizers are prepared to deal with libertarians objectively. Objectivity means respecting the individuality of others (and of oneself) by judging individuals based on their own consciously chosen actions and ideas. Those who fail to judge are as guilty as those who judge without warrant.

    Libertarians are not inherent enemies (or friends) of Objectivism. Most libertarians believe, in a general sense, in individual sovereignty and individual rights. Most understand, on a basic level, that initiating force is wrong. Therefore, they should be regarded as potential allies who could become Objectivists if offered some philosophical guidance.

    Where are they going to find help in turning their inclinations into principles and integrating those principles within a comprehensive philosophy of life? Not at TOC, which condescendingly assures libertarians -- anarchists included -- that they will be "tolerated" no matter how irrational their beliefs. And surely not at ARI, some of whose leaders would automatically brand them as "evil."

    Until a new organization is established to rise above the false dichotomies represented by TOC and ARI, it is up to those of us who truly appreciate the Objectivist ideals of reason, individualism, and liberty to set the record straight.

Postscript: Anti-Libertarians Exhibit Hypocrisy

    The Ayn Rand Institute's most ardent anti-libertarian, Peter Schwartz, insists that Objectivists must morally denounce and completely dissociate themselves from libertarians. However, Schwartz does not practice what he preaches.

    Schwartz formerly wrote for Reason magazine, which analyzes social and political issues from a generally free-market perspective. It also bills itself explicitly as a libertarian publication. Schwartz now says that writing for Reason was a mistake. But how, one onders, could he have agreed to deal with "bomb throwers" and "baby killers" for even a moment?

    Perhaps Schwartz believes that writing for libertarians is not as heinous as speaking to them, the act that led (or at least contributed) to David Kelley's excommunication from ARI. Kelley spoke at a Laissez Faire Books event in 1989 on the topic of why Objectivism provides the proper foundation for liberty. Ironically, Leonard Peikoff, who angrily denounced Kelley for giving the talk, had just seven years earlier promoted The Ominous Parallels by speaking to the very same libertarian group!

    Schwartz, in addition to chairing ARI's Board of Directors, serves as editor and publisher of the Ayn Rand Bookstore (ARB), formerly known as Second Renaissance Books. In the bookstore's editorial policy, Schwartz states that "the selections we carry meet rigorous philosophic standards."

    A number of libertarians somehow managed to slip through those "rigorous" standards. In addition to featuring works of the late libertarian economists Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt, ARB also showcases works from modern libertarians. Appearing on the cover of its Spring 2001 catalog was a book by Larry Elder, a radio talk show host who regularly has libertarians join him on the air as guests, who speaks at Libertarian Party events, and who explicitly describes himself as a libertarian.

    Edmund Contoski, whose biography is accessible through the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's web site, has addressed state Libertarian Parties around the country. Incidentally, his libertarian magnum opus, Makers and Takers, is available through ARB. As are books by libertarian activist-professor Alan Charles Kors and "libertarian conservative" David Horowitz. Back issues of the libertarian economic journal The Freeman (now known as Ideas on Liberty) have also been showcased on the pages of ARB.

    Apparently, ARB customers find such selections valuable. But the very idea that a book written by a libertarian could be of value to an Objectivist contradicts the very essence of what Schwartz himself preaches. According to his own code of morality, his catalog would have to feature in its politics section only works authored by non-libertarians. Of course, the politics section would be embarrassingly thin if such a policy were to be adopted.

    The philosophy propagated by Schwartz and Peikoff as "official Objectivism" in many ways betrays the very ideals Ayn Rand stood for. Their philosophy is a variation of intrinsicism, which, like all irrational viewpoints, cannot be sustained indefinitely or applied consistently. As the conspicuous inclusion of well-known libertarians in Schwartz's book catalog reveals, he knows it.

   

Individualist Voice
Home | Philosophy | Society | Politics | Self-Liberation | Rants | Quotes | Store | FAQ