I work in technology, which one might think is relatively 'cut and dry', just look at the facts and follow a proper course of action...any yet, I observe that there is a constant disagreement, on almost any project, on the key issues, the choice of risks, the essential capabilities of a process. In my career, I have only met a few people that I would be willing to authorize to speak for me on the technical projects for which I have been responsible...while others are welcome to speak on their own behalf, I would almost never want them to speak in my stead and for myself. Similarly, there is almost no one that I would want to process my experiments or measure the results....too many times a simple mistake is made that leads to a mess...which might take weeks to sort out, or perhaps never be noticed at all, but sliding a project into an entirely different direction.
Such is the situation with Libertarianism and Objectivist politics. Libertarianism rests on the principle that liberty is the essential aspect of a good society, and that government plays no role in a just society. Some simple examples show that this approach to society is a disaster... such as one in which traffic laws are not enforced. At every intersection, folks would be constantly running redlights, to the point that the signals would be ignored altogether...even now, when enforcement is available, one can frequently observe hasty drivers proceeding on thru a redlight. When an accident occurs, in the absence of enforcement, those at fault would simply leave the scene, not paying for damages or liable for injuries. Speeding is commonplace even with enforcement, without it folks would be constantly speeding thru neighborhoods, unconcerned with liability for damages or injuries to others.
In contrast to Libertarianism, Objectivism holds that life is the fundamental value, not liberty. We value liberty because it is a key enabler for successful life (ie, we use free action to create the property we need in order to live). We value property, as well, because it is the physical means by which we sustain our lives. From an Objectivist point of view, we need a government in order to provide protection for our free action from interference by others, and to protect our property from theft or destruction by others. Libertarianism would leave us vulnerable to anarchy, with life and property actually at risk from the unrestrained choices of others. Liberty under law is the Objectivist point of view, while a simple unrestrained liberty is the Libertarian point of view. There is no reconciliation possible between these viewpoints...so Ayn Rand chooses not to engage in action with them, but simply to avoid them. In the same way, I would not ask a co-worker to speak for me, or to join me in a technical project, if we had a fundamental disagreement about the physics behind the process.
Similarly, Ayn Rand did not want close adherents who did not understand and share the fundamentals of her philosophy....
Ron Paul is a good example of an individual who is superficially attractive from an Objectivist viewpoint, but when one looks at the details of his view, he is very wide of the mark. In his final speech to the congress, he did not stress the role of property rights, or the right to life, or the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, productiveness, pride...he completely ignored these in favor of compassion as the foundation of virtue and the golden rule as the key to social intercourse...it is hopeless to try and outline or defend a proper government from his foundation, and Ayn Rand would never want him to be a spokesman or representative for her.
rp |
