complaint to Peter Schwartz (1985)

[Roger Bissell]

[i sent the following correspondence to Peter Schwartz regarding his essay "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty."]

June 26, 1985

Peter Schwartz, editor and publisher

The Intellectual Activist

131 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101

New York, NY 10003

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

As a faithful reader of your newsletter--and a long-time-subscriber to the philosophy of Objectivism--I would like to register a complaint about your May 10, 1985 issue.

If I had written a piece like your "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty," I would by now have received a deluge of criticism containing phrases such as "whim-worshipping, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment psycho-epistemology." Or: "Mr. Bissell, your views on libertarianism are a perfect example of what happens when Objectivism loses its reason--i.e., its reasoner, Miss Rand."

Perhaps your mailbox has already been graced with such spleen-venting. In any case, I don't find that terribly productive or just.

You have written what would be a sound critique of various irrational and dangerous trends within the libertarian movement, except for one thing: your frequent reference to libertarians and libertarian ideology. Every time you do this, almost without exception, you are committing an egregious inductive fallacy. In other words, you are making faulty generalizations--lots of them.

Rather than insulting you by recommending an intensive round of tutoring sessions with Dr. Peikoff in remedial Aristotelian logic, I would suggest that you read or re-read (as I did) Lionel Ruby's The Art of Making Sense. Especially note the chapters on "How Not to Argue" and "Are All Generalizations False?" And in particular, the following passage:

Hasty generalizing is perhaps the most important of popular vices in thinking. It is interesting to speculate on some of the reasons for this kind of bad thinking. One important factor is prejudice. If we are already prejudiced against [libertarians], then one or two instances of bad conduct by members of these groups will give us the unshakeable conviction that "they're all like that." It is very difficult for a prejudiced person to say, "Some are, and some aren't."

I hope that in the second (and following?) installments of this essay, you will direct your emphasis away from all libertarians and libertarian ideology per se and onto the specific culprits that you and I both abhor. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Roger Bissell

[i received no response to this letter, though in fairness, my subscription was not cancelled.]

[Barbara Branden]

Roger, you are a saint of patience and calm.

Barbara

[Roger Bissell]

Barbara -- on my good days, maybe. But thanks for the kind words.

I'm sure you noticed that that letter to Schwartz was written 20 years ago. Since then, I have tangled with a number of other "loyalists" (?) who cannot conceive that Objectivism is a (more consistent) form of Aristotelianism, or that the Objectivist ethics is a species of ethical egoism, or that the Objectivist politics is a species of libertarianism. The same kind of thinking denies that human beings are animals. Wacky folks out there. (I hope they're all out there! But if the shoe fits, wear it! ) And you may recall my losing my patience at times with some of those folks over on the original Atlantis list. Now, that was a loony bin! :roll:

However, I notice that my off-kilter days are fewer and further between, while some of my previous nemeses (no names) are still indulging in scathing, vitriolic denunciations and put-downs of their opponents. It must be bitter torment to be so intelligent and to have to put up with people who are so darned dumb, in order to have a forum on which to share one's ideas. These days, if I run into such folks (the nasty ones), I remind myself that I am trying to clarify my thoughts for myself and whoever else might be reading along quietly, and that they (not my harsh or oily interlocutors) are my real audience.

Happy holidays!

REB