Another rewrite artist: Peter Schwartz and his peculiar capitalizing

[Robert Campbell]

Irfan Khawaja recently noted a peculiar phenomenon in "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty":

http://felician.academia.edu/IrfanKhawaja/Papers

and scroll down to his 2009 review of Brian Doherty's book.

PS, September 18, 2012: My review contains one serious error that will have to be noted as an erratum in a forthcoming issue of Reason Papers. The long quotation from Murray Rothbard on p. 154 of my review incorrectly capitalizes the word "libertarianism" throughout the passage (cf. Murray Rothbard, "Frank S. Meyer, The Fusionist as Libertarian Manque," Modern Age 25:4, p. 355). In fact, Rothbard uses the lower case "l" throughout his essay. I seem to have made this mistake by imprudently relying during the copyediting stage on the version of the Rothbard quotation in Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" (in Leonard Peikoff ed., The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, p. 315). In that essay, Schwartz—in compliance with his dogma that the word "libertarianism" must always be capitalized—falsifies Rothbard's text, capitalizing the "l." This misrepresentation is repeated in Schwartz's pamphlet by the same name (a longer version of the same essay published by the Ayn Rand Bookstore, n.d., p. 11). I regret the error. The review was, however, based on a reading of the whole of Rothbard's paper in its original location. The error doesn't affect the content of my claims. (The error is serious not because it affects the content of my claims but because it inadvertently abets Schwartz's falsifications—falsifications that I regard as deliberate.)

PPS, September 21, 2012. Having looked more closely at Schwartz's essay, I've come to realize that he's falsified many of the passages from Rothbard, and possibly others, not just capitalizing the "l's" from the Modern Age piece, but capitalizing "l's" in several other quotations from Rothbard's book "For a New Liberty" (Rothbard's book is now available in its entirety in a free online format). I'm surprised that these falsifications haven't been noticed or discussed before (assuming they haven't; I don't happen to be aware of any such discussion). They seem to me prima facie evidence of intellectual fraud on Schwartz's part, as well as on the part of anyone, including his editor, who might have had knowledge of the falsifications. The falsifications are more obvious and egregious in the case of the longer booklet version of the essay, which contains more direct quotations, than the reprint version. I intend at some point in the near future to document as many of Schwartz's falsifications as I can confirm, but for now, my postscripts should serve as notice to readers of Schwartz's essay—caveat lector.

Robert Campbell

[PDS]

I remember haning a banner for a Peter Schwartz talk in the 80's and a thoroughly unpleasant evening with the man.

Has he published anything since writing this infamous screed, or is he another Objectivist "One Hit Wonder"? Some of these guys sure seem to have gotten tired easy. [Cough...Binswanger...]

[Reidy]

What's the issue here? Is it simply that Schwartz alters quoted texts without telling his readers, or does it go further than that?

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

A recent dodge at ARI has been to claim that the past blasts at libertarians were really just aimed at the Libertarian Party.

They weren't, of course, but since high-level ARIans are not now proposing any collaborations with the remnant LP, a few suckers may follow along with this.

I would imagine Schwartz had a quite different motive in the 1980s: to create the impression that any libertarian, of any sort, had to be affiliated with the Libertarian Party—which Ayn Rand had singled out for condemnation in several of her question and answer sessions.

Capitalizing "libertarian" where Rothbard hadn't, and not informing readers about the change, was and is dishonest.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

A recent dodge at ARI has been to claim that the past blasts at libertarians were really just aimed at the Libertarian Party.

The dodge I’ve encountered (see OO) is that Schwartz’s target was strictly the “Rothbardian Anarchists”, then from there they claim that the RA’s controlled the LP in the 70’s-80’s. In fact Schwartz’s argument was that if you “sanction” a Rothbardian, you may as well be a Rothbardian, morally speaking. As Robert Bidinotto put it in Hunter, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is an enabler", and you, Objectivist, by interacting with RA's, are doing just that, enabling the evul that will destroy liberty faster than an army of Alinskite Maoists.

I would imagine Schwartz had a quite different motive in the 1980s: to create the impression that any libertarian, of any sort, had to be affiliated with the Libertarian Party—which Ayn Rand had singled out for condemnation in several of her question and answer sessions.

I think a major motivation was to garner support for the nascent ARI, by luring dollars and man-hours away from other libertarian organizations, including the LP. One point had to be established as axiomatic and self-evident: it is too soon for political action, and to disagree with this is prima facie irrational. This last point is subject to reversal with time, however, and that’s how present day ARI will probably spin it to save face. Publicly dumping Allison is a path of much greater resistance, methinks.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Publicly dumping John Allison would be the path of greater resistance, if it comes down to a decision made by Yaron Brook.

But it won't be just Brook's decision.

Allison is credited in the acknowledgments to The DIM Hypothesis, which means that Leonard Peikoff is going to be in the loop, personally.

Whether that will make it easier or harder for Allison to stay in the ARI orbit I don't pretend to know.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Peter Schwartz's notion of sanction was even broader than you've described.

As in the title, "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," makes clear.

For Schwartz in the 1980s, sanction was iterative and recursive. If you sanction anyone who sanctions anyone who sanctions anyone (repeat as many times as you wish) who sanctions the evul thing, movement, or person X, then you have sanctioned X.

So the precise position, in the chain of sanctioners of sanctioners of sanctioners of sanctioners..., no longer matters. Libertarian, Shmibertarian, Rothbardian, Shmothbardian—they're all in the series somewhere, so all must be shunned.

Robert Campbell