Should I join my college's Libertarian club?


Evan

Recommended Posts

I am a rising college freshman at a large, well-respected public university. There is a group called Young Americans for Liberty, the "leading advocates for social and economic freedom and individual liberty on campus." As of now, I am planning on joining this group and seeing how it goes. Do you think it is moral for an Objectivist to join a Libertarian organization? I know dealing with Libertarian organizations is a highly-debated topic within Objectivism, and I would like to hear any opinions on this issue. I would love to join the organization, but am worried it could conflict too much with some of my beliefs. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go for it.

They aren't Objectivists (or maybe they are), so you'll likely butt heads with some (or all) of them. This will give you plenty of opportunity to sharpen your own ideas and mind. You may even form a few alliances along the way.

Is there any price of admission? Keg stands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a rising college freshman at a large, well-respected public university. There is a group called Young Americans for Liberty, the "leading advocates for social and economic freedom and individual liberty on campus." As of now, I am planning on joining this group and seeing how it goes. Do you think it is moral for an Objectivist to join a Libertarian organization? I know dealing with Libertarian organizations is a highly-debated topic within Objectivism, and I would like to hear any opinions on this issue. I would love to join the organization, but am worried it could conflict too much with some of my beliefs. Thanks!

Push the "Think" button.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a rising college freshman at a large, well-respected public university. There is a group called Young Americans for Liberty, the "leading advocates for social and economic freedom and individual liberty on campus." As of now, I am planning on joining this group and seeing how it goes. Do you think it is moral for an Objectivist to join a Libertarian organization? I know dealing with Libertarian organizations is a highly-debated topic within Objectivism, and I would like to hear any opinions on this issue. I would love to join the organization, but am worried it could conflict too much with some of my beliefs. Thanks!

Push the "Think" button.

--Brant

Brant's suggestion is actually the moral thing to do.

But I suppose that's an evasive platitude worthy of any politician,so I'll answer ever so slightly lesa cryptically:

It's worth noting that many of the people who frequent this site have expressed displeasure at the penchant that orthodox Oists seems to have for ridiculing Libertarianism.

Also, Nathaniel Branden looked favorably upon the movement, and Branden is viewed favorably by many here.

This is all assuming you're asking because of a possible qualm with Libertarianism itself, and not this a specific organization. (About which I know very little).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say, go for it. I dont encounter the crazies in the Libertarian movement that were there in the 1970sI am not sure from where I copied the following from but it is all interesting. And it shows how Ayn could turn on former friends like John Hospers who was not an ogre. Sorry the hypens and other marks will vanish from the quotes.

What was Ayn Rands view of the libertarian movement?

Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.

In 1971 she wrote: For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called hippies of the right, who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [brief Summary, The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971]

And in 1972 she wrote:

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to do something. By ideological (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the libertarian hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see The Anatomy of Compromise in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [What Can One Do? The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]

Rand was often asked about libertarians and the Libertarian Party in the question-and-answer periods following her lectures. Here, from pp.72-76 of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, ed. Robert Mayhew, are some of those questions and her answers. (In the excerpt below, Q stands for question, AR for Ayn Rand, FHF for Ford Hall Forum, a venue where Ayn Rand was often invited to speak, OC for Objective Communication, a course given by Leonard Peikoff in which Ayn Rand participated in some of the question-and-answer periods, and 71 for the year 1971.)

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves libertarians, especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. Thats worse than anything the New Left has proposed. Its a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but dont want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. Thats the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR: Id rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewistheyre not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt hell do), it would be a moral crime. I dont care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinkerhes a demagogue, though with some couragebut even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But dont run for presidentor even dogcatcherif youre going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party?

AR: I dont want to waste too much time on it. Its a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians wont get. Todays events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldnt rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowedI wont say from whomideas, is irresponsible, and in todays context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: Theyre not defenders of capitalism. Theyre a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which cant be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now its a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]

Q: Have you heard of Libertarian presidential candidate Roger MacBride? What do you think of him?

AR: My answer should be I dont think of him. Theres nothing to hear. The trouble in the world today is philosophical; only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists, and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand they call themselves Libertarians and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; Im not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. [FHF 76]

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AR: I dont think plagiarists are effective. Ive read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasnt my ideas badly mishandledthat is, the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given. I didnt know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. Ill take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

Q: Why dont you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. Theyre lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]

Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why dont you support them?

AR: Please dont tell me theyre pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. Thats how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan The end justifies the means. That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians arent worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]

Robert Nozick, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, was a well-known libertarian.

Q: Could you comment on Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, and Utopia?

AR: I dont like to read this author, because I dont like bad eclecticsnot in architecture, and certainly not in politics and philosophyparticularly when Im one of the pieces butchered. [FHF 77]

Q: Whats your view on the idea of competing governments?

AR: Its an irresponsible piece of nonsense. Thats the only answer the question deserves. [FHF 70]

Q: Why is the lack of government in Galts Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?

AR: Galts Gulch is not a society; its a private estate. Its owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galts Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didnt need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.

But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of moralityand no government. Thats the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you dont leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among menparticularly men of different views. And its good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each others rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesnt have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

Objectivism and Libertarianism

by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. (nathaniel@nathanielbranden.com)

Copyright © 1999, Nathaniel Branden, All Rights Reserved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I first heard the term "libertarianism" in the early 1950s, I mentioned it to Ayn Rand as a possible name for our political philosophy. She was suspicious of the term and inclined to dismiss it as a neologism. "It's a mouthful," she remarked. "And it sounds too much like a made-up word."

I answered maybe so, but what alternative did we have? She said, "We're advocates of laissez-faire capitalism." I answered, sure, but that's kind of a mouthful too it's not a one-word name and besides, it puts the whole emphasis on economics and politics and we stand for something wider and more comprehensive: we're champions of individual rights. We're advocates of a non-coercive society.

I suggested that "libertarianism" could convey all that by means of a single word especially if we were to define "libertarianism" as a social system that (a) barred the initiation of force from all human relationships and (b) was based on the inviolability of individual rights.

Ayn considered this suggestion briefly, then shook her head and said, "No, it sounds too much like a made-up word."

Later, when many advocates of laissez-faire took up the word, and some of them were anarchists (notably Murray Rothbard), Ayn felt vindicated at rejecting a term broad enough to include Objectivist advocates of pure capitalism, on the one hand, and "anarcho-capitalists," on the other. She did not realize that the majority of people who called themselves "libertarians" were advocates not of anarchism but of constitutionally limited government (in essence, the Objectivist model), and that she could have fought for her interpretation of the term just as she fought for her interpretation of the word "selfish." There was no good reason to surrender a much-needed word to the opposition.

Later still, when she saw that libertarians often supported their position with aspects of her philosophy, without necessarily subscribing to the total of Objectivism, she became angrier still and decided that all libertarians were "whim-worshipping subjectivists."

Being a more balanced and reality-oriented teacher of Objectivism than Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley addressed libertarian groups with the aim of persuading them that Objectivism was the best possible foundation for their political beliefs. For this he was denounced by Peikoff as a traitor to Objectivism. Poor Leonard.

In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as "a libertarian philosopher." Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it.

About ten years ago, I came across a saying from the Talmud that impressed me profoundly. I have not been able to stop thinking about it. I have often wondered what might have happened if I'd had the chance to discuss the idea with Ayn if there would have been any way to break through. Who knows what might have been different in the years that followed?

The line that so impressed me was: "A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy"

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Here are some comments made by Nathaniel Branden about anarcho-capitalism in a Seminar recording from January, 1970. This is a literal, unedited transcript. I thought his remarks might be interesting from a historical perspective.

Question: What is your opinion of the trend among certain alleged defenders of free enterprise to repudiate the concept of government entirely and to advocate instead what amounts to some form of anarchy?

Branden: Well let me say at the outset that I of course am an advocate of limited constitutional government. I'm in complete agreement with Ayn Rand's essay on The Nature of Government which appears both in her collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness and was then reprinted again in her later book Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. Therefore I'm not going to here review the arguments for the necessity of a constitutional form of government since I assume you're all familiar with it and in fact agree with me on that subject. I think it's a very unfortunate trend which is seducing an awful lot of somewhat careless thinkers-- this trend among alleged libertarians to advocate what you correctly call anarchism. I think the motives differ from person to person. I think the motives of those who cooked up this idea are not necessarily the same as some of those who are seduced by their arguments. I think they do a very serious disservice to the cause of free enterprise because they put forth a position which is so palpably ridiculous that they just make their own contribution to putting the advocacy of capitalism in the category of a lunatic fringe.

And that's very unfortunate because some of the people associated with the anarcho-capitalist movement are not stupid. They can be very intelligent. They can be very articulate--some of them, not many. And they do a real disservice to the cause of rational capitalism. I think this is a movement that will have a brief vogue and will die in a few years. As people have a chance to mature and think the matter over I think they are going to realize that the arguments they have accepted are very spurious and they may look back with some feeling of embarrassment about this period of their intellectual development. I don't think the whole issue is of great social or sociological significance. I think it's an unfortunate phase. I think it will pass and I really have to say I think it's all pretty stupid.

Question: Well then, Dr. Branden, how would you answer the argument of these anarchists that, since government necessarily entails a monopoly on the use of force, such a monopoly can be maintained only by force and, hence, government always involves some violation of individual rights?

Branden: This, of course, is their favorite argument and their stock argument. In briefest essentials, I would answer as follows. Let's imagine, to make it very simple, that we--this group in this room tonight-- form a society and agree on the principles to be operative in the society in a political sense. We agree upon a constitution and a government is created for the purpose of carrying out the principles laid down in this constitution. Now, let us say that somebody new is born into the society or enters it from some other country, and he says: Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government. I want to set up a competing system of government. How can you justify forbidding me from doing so and threatening me with jail if I don't go along with the present political order of things?

And my answer is the following. And remember we are talking here about a free system, about a government which is limited in its function to the protection of individual rights. Suppose that I am the spokesman for this hypothetical government. Then I would say to this person as follows: In this society, nobody is forbidding you anything so long as you do not violate the rights of anybody else in this society. That means, more specifically, if you want to form private arbitration agencies to settle disputes among people who will become your clients, you may do so. That happens even in our present society. You can form a private club or a private organization and lay down any kind of rules you want for your members. You will not be stopped until and unless you attempt to use physical force or fraud or some derivative against some fellow member of this society. That you have no right to do.

If you ever attempt to use force, let us say, in retaliation against a criminal, which you may have to do if the police are not available, you will be obliged to justify later your use of force and to demonstrate that it was, in fact, necessary. If you can justify it, you're in no trouble, any more than any other citizen of a free country is in trouble. So that so long as you don't infringe somebody else's rights, you can form any kind of organization you want. You can have your own arbitration committee, you can have your own system of penalties and fines and so long as the people who go along with your organization voluntarily agree to pay them, you have no problem. Your problem begins when you attempt to use force to get your way.

Therefore, in conclusion, I argue that in the system we are advocating, the individual is not having his rights violated because he is not allowed to set up a competing government.

Question: Dr. Branden, a few members of this anarcho--capitalist group are advocating an alliance with the New Left. Can you offer any explanation of this rather bewildering position?

Branden: Well, when you talk about the members of the so-called anarcho groups who advocate an alliance with the New Left, there I would say they are examples of what I called counterfeit individualism in an article I wrote a number of years ago for The Objectivist Newsletter. I described this type in my book The Psychology of Self-Esteem when I spoke about the so-called independent social metaphysician, the people who are against for the sake of being against, the people who are rebels for the sake of being rebels, but who are not for anything. They are primarily against and their chief intention is to destroy. The so-called anarchists capitalists who advocate alliance with the New Left justify it on the grounds that they have in common with the New Left an animosity toward the state. Let's tear down the state, they say, that common goal is a bond between us more important than any intellectual difference.

What sort of intellectual or ideological differences are they willing to ignore? The fact that the New Left sees nothing wrong with the use of force to gain its ends. It sees violence as a perfectly valid instrument of political motion or political development. The fact that they are willing to cooperate, that is to say the anarchists, are willing to cooperate with the New Left, only tells us how little regard or respect they have for property rights or individual liberty or philosophical consistency. I think here you deal with the very lowest depths of the anarchistscapitalists---meaning those who are willing to talk about an alliance with the New Left. Maybe some of their followers are confused and have not thought the issue out very carefully. But here you deal--and I put it bluntly--with the real intellectual scum who are no more friends of capitalism or individualism or individual rights than a Hitler or a Stalin is. They are against this society or any society because they feel themselves to be outcasts and with bloody good reason because I doubt very much if they would find a place in any civilized society.

Nathaniel Branden

Academic Associates Seminar, January, 1970

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow guys, thank you for these wonderful and timely responses. I have some more information, and a couple more questions.

The group I am considering joining, Young Americans for Liberty, is a large youth movement towards limited government. It was formed as a result of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. The group is very active, and holds informational sessions on issues such as police brutality and guest lectures from speakers such as John Allison of the Cato Institute. However, they also support Libertarian politicians. Say one task of this group is to support a Ron Paul-like figure in running for president. Should I support this as well?

Another question: How do you think Ayn Rand would view Libertarianism today? Do you think she would show more disdain that her ideas have taken a backseat to such a broad, largely undefined movement? Or do you think she would be glad that general ideas towards freedom and limited government are growing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, as an incoming college student, there are many reasons why finding others with similar interests and values can be of tremendous benefit. Entering into a new, academically rigorous environment can be extremely stressful, especially if the environment you are entering is notoriously controlled by liberal ideology. I am not suggesting my life would be ruled by this group or any group, but it would be a great way for me to make new friends and participate in political and philosophical discussions/events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say "don't" or necessarily "shouldn't." The principle is that a group is not entitled to take positions on behalf of its members unless each member signs off on it, if then. Also, if the group has already taken a position you endorse it by joining. If I were in your school I might join this club. You're not likely to end up in bed with a socialist. Something like that happened with my parents. They got married. Dad did the honorable thing. Much more common in 1934 than today.

--Brant

the 1944 man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan:

I went to NBI in the 60's in NY City. I lived in Queens. We lived on the tallest westerly height in NY City and my room faced the skyline of Ayn's beloved city.

I also was an organizer of the Libertarian Party in NY City.

Regardless of what some have said here about dead O'sts, or, the confused growing pains of the Libertarian Party, that was then.

You live now. A philosophy without ground troops will fail. Ayn just could not understand that and it was one of the reasons that we lost as a movement to effectively change American society.

You can change that by finding common ground and building a field force that can effectively deliver votes. Target a small race where the voter turnout is low and take it over. Use that office as the foundation to build on and demonstrate that our ideas can work at the local level.

Use whichever office you hold as a rational sounding board for our ideas.

What are you concentrating on in school?

A...

If you want to discuss it off this forum, just message me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do you think it is moral for an Objectivist to join a Libertarian organization?"

I wrote the gambling policy for my country's equivalent of the US Libertarian Party (specifically, the Liberal Democratic Party or LDP). I've been involved with libertarian organizations for quite some time.

There is nothing immoral about joining a libertarian organization and any Objectivist who argues such is frankly an idiot. Peter Schwarz's "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" is a disgrace and a monument to bad sampling and atrocious reasoning (as well as a secret underlying authoritarian mentality).

Join up. You'll lose nothing and at the very least gain intellectual stimulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the Young Americans for Everything Nice intend to shackle you in chains and mandate your activities and interfere with your individual policy and practice, you have nothing to lose (unless The Borg finds out about you consorting with The Libertassians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F.A.S.T.

Free American Student Thinkers

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, you seem like a nice enough kid. It is hard to imagine that you would have a hard time making friends. Allow me to suggest that you will find far fewer "like-minded" people among YAL. You have an interest in music theory. You might find musicians more "like-minded" even if you disagree about politics.

If you just sit around with people who complain about the government, you are going to suffer from ennui.

My freshman year was 1967. I attended five different colleges and universities before enrolling in another college and another university and completing my degrees (AA, BS, MA) in 2007, 2008, and 2010. In 1967, I was like you: only interested in ideas that I knew in advance that I would agree with. This last time around, my greatest learning came from those whose premises and conclusions were diametrically opposed to mine.

In fact, I found strong intellectual integrity among those whom you easily denounce. Most of the others were no better or worse than any other group in society. A couple were deeply disappointing. I had a graduate class in international economics taught by a committed Marxist. Also in the class was another "conservative Republican" (for lack of a better label). The three of us were more often on the same page, while the rest of the class seemed not to understand what the professor was saying.

Mostly, you get out of it what you put into it, which is what you would expect, anyway.

Brant, as an incoming college student, there are many reasons why finding others with similar interests and values can be of tremendous benefit. Entering into a new, academically rigorous environment can be extremely stressful, especially if the environment you are entering is notoriously controlled by liberal ideology. I am not suggesting my life would be ruled by this group or any group, but it would be a great way for me to make new friends and participate in political and philosophical discussions/events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One chief value of college is the opportunity to take action and find what you want to do. I think if you have an interest you should attend. Perhaps you'll find it boring or just silly, or perhaps you'll find young adults trying to understand ideas. Only one way to find out.

My rule is if you have an interest, an inclination and the time to join something then go for it. Too much time is wasted in ethereal thoughts disconnected from what it would really be like to walk over to the local meeting and start talking to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now