I was once a proud member of the Libertarian Party. I, and not a few other former members, have left the party in response to the rise within the party of those whom Anthony Gregory has labeled "neolibertarians." These people are the ultimate contradiction: pro-war libertarians.
The initial response, by Jay Eckl and myself, to the original "Big Three" neolibertarian US House candidates in the 2004 California Congressional elections, was to form the Libertarian Party of California (LPC) Peace Caucus. The idea was to generate enough of an interest in defeating the "Big Three" (D. A. "Art"Tuma, Brian Holtz, and Bruce Cohen) in the 2006 LPC Congressional primary elections, that we could end the threat once and for all. Our effort generated little interest in the LPC and ultimately failed. These guys were not going away anytime soon. The gutting of the National Libertarian Party Platform at the 2006 National Convention and the nomination of conservative Bob Barr for president at the 2008 National Convention were the final straws.
Now the Libertarian Party has all the disadvantages of a minor party but none of the advantages of one. It has no power, no influence, and no principles. The descent of the LP into xenophobic warmongering has broken my heart. No longer can I vote for candidates without holding my nose.
While there is an effort to reclaim the Party of Principle by a group called the LP Radical Caucus, I believe the LP is finished by the bad Karma of the its last four years.
How does one call himself a "libertarian" yet advocate the murder of innocents abroad? A movement composed of those types of persons can never succeed at producing anything remotely resembling liberty because the very foundation of liberty, the belief in the Golden Rule, is absent from the actors. That inherent contradiction will doom any such movement, as people can see the inherent hypocrisy in saying "I believe in inalienable individual rights...except for innocent Iraqis, who must die to depose Hussein." Such a movement will never gain broad based support among people of good will, yet Bruce Cohen, in particular, deludes himself into believing that peace is a losing issue and that only advocacy of aggressive warfare can win votes for "liberty."
Unless and until the LP is restored to its former degree of principle, I will shake the dust off my boots and won't look back.
Is it hopeless? Is America through? Not on your life! There's a new game in town: a loose coalition of paleoconservatives and libertarian fusionists surrounding the political fortunes of Congressman Ron Paul and his Campaign for Liberty. This movement is neither philosophically nor morally consistent, yet it is at this time more consistently libertarian than the LP, and stands poised to take advantage of the growing economic and political malaise to an extent that could introduce millions of Americans to the ideas of liberty. I will deal with this movement in future posts, and while I welcome the spirit of liberty within it, I will not pull my punches when analyzing its inherent contradictions and the hypocrisy of most of its activists.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Ayn Rand, Objectivism, And The God That Failed
No social/political philosopher in history illustrates both the successes and failures of Enlightenment rationalism more effectively than Ayn Rand. Her philosophy of Objectivism, which reached a mass audience through her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," had a significant influence on the contemporary liberty movement. In my opinion, this influence had both positive and negative attributes in terms of the progress of the movement.
On the positive side, it is unlikely that the ideas of radical capitalism could have reached as large an audience in such an inspiring manner if she had never immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union. And it is unlikely that so many fine minds of the modern libertarian movement would have collaborated, networked and given each other moral support without her as the catalyst.
On the negative side, her towering ego and lack of critical self examination led to the ultimate oxymoron -- a personality cult led by a supposed advocate of individualism in which strict adherence to the ideology of the leader was demanded and no dissent tolerated. The twin gods of ontological materialism (which she and her followers accepted on faith) and the perfectibility of humankind allowed some of the most irrational, collectivist doctrine to be asserted as being unquestionably objective truth.
Here is the problem with Enlightenment rationalism untempered by a humane element, in my opinion: Two people can observe the same phenomenon and apply supposedly the same tools of rational thought and come to vastly different conclusions about the nature of the phenomenon. Those who understand modern physics will explain this quandary in the following manner -- even if there is an objective reality, it can be known only to God (or nature, if you will) and can never be directly perceived by a human being. This is a limitation of the nature of reality, and no amount of self aggrandizement can alter that.
As a couple of examples illustrate, Ayn Rand was not the perfect arbiter of objective reality she claimed to be. One example is that she believed cigarette smoking to be life enhancing, and she had little tolerance for non-smokers (she ultimately died of lung cancer). Another is that she genuinely believed an 80% tax to fund military expenditures was less onerous than a 5% tax to support social welfare programs.
Whether one is ultimately influenced by Ayn Rand in a positive manner instead of a negative manner (or influenced by anyone for that matter) ultimately depends on his heart and not his mind.
At one extreme is the true libertarian, the person who genuinely has human well being as his main consideration - i.e. one who exhibits profound self restraint with regard to the use of violence. What does this person take from the Ayn Rand experience? He learns tolerance, civility, productivity, responsibility, and even a sense of charity, along with an inspirational appreciation for the theme of the triumph of the human spirit.
At the other extreme is the real life example of Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff. This man has so twisted the notions of individualism into a form of rampant collectivism that he justifies in print killing every single person in the nation of Iraq.
While I think the Ayn Rand phenomenon has been a net accelerator of the progress of the liberty movement, I believe doctrinaire Objectivists are a burden on the movement, and their steadily waning influence on it is still holding back its progress among the people at large. This should surprise no one, as most intelligent people of good will can see through the inconsistencies and absurd assumptions of Objectivism.
On the positive side, it is unlikely that the ideas of radical capitalism could have reached as large an audience in such an inspiring manner if she had never immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union. And it is unlikely that so many fine minds of the modern libertarian movement would have collaborated, networked and given each other moral support without her as the catalyst.
On the negative side, her towering ego and lack of critical self examination led to the ultimate oxymoron -- a personality cult led by a supposed advocate of individualism in which strict adherence to the ideology of the leader was demanded and no dissent tolerated. The twin gods of ontological materialism (which she and her followers accepted on faith) and the perfectibility of humankind allowed some of the most irrational, collectivist doctrine to be asserted as being unquestionably objective truth.
Here is the problem with Enlightenment rationalism untempered by a humane element, in my opinion: Two people can observe the same phenomenon and apply supposedly the same tools of rational thought and come to vastly different conclusions about the nature of the phenomenon. Those who understand modern physics will explain this quandary in the following manner -- even if there is an objective reality, it can be known only to God (or nature, if you will) and can never be directly perceived by a human being. This is a limitation of the nature of reality, and no amount of self aggrandizement can alter that.
As a couple of examples illustrate, Ayn Rand was not the perfect arbiter of objective reality she claimed to be. One example is that she believed cigarette smoking to be life enhancing, and she had little tolerance for non-smokers (she ultimately died of lung cancer). Another is that she genuinely believed an 80% tax to fund military expenditures was less onerous than a 5% tax to support social welfare programs.
Whether one is ultimately influenced by Ayn Rand in a positive manner instead of a negative manner (or influenced by anyone for that matter) ultimately depends on his heart and not his mind.
At one extreme is the true libertarian, the person who genuinely has human well being as his main consideration - i.e. one who exhibits profound self restraint with regard to the use of violence. What does this person take from the Ayn Rand experience? He learns tolerance, civility, productivity, responsibility, and even a sense of charity, along with an inspirational appreciation for the theme of the triumph of the human spirit.
At the other extreme is the real life example of Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff. This man has so twisted the notions of individualism into a form of rampant collectivism that he justifies in print killing every single person in the nation of Iraq.
While I think the Ayn Rand phenomenon has been a net accelerator of the progress of the liberty movement, I believe doctrinaire Objectivists are a burden on the movement, and their steadily waning influence on it is still holding back its progress among the people at large. This should surprise no one, as most intelligent people of good will can see through the inconsistencies and absurd assumptions of Objectivism.
What Is A Borg?
Some of you may associate the word "Borg" with the race of half-biological, half-machine beings from "Star Trek: The Next Generation." However, the truth is, I am a Borg, and I was a Borg many years before there even was a "Star Trek: TNG."
I am THE Borg, or more specifically, I am the StroBorg, a term first used in a fictional story written by my High School buddy, William Gene Armintrout, about a man with a bionic brain. The term "StroBorg" was a play on my real life Swedish surname, Stroberg. Back in High School, I was quite a nerd and was very good at mathematics, and after Bill wrote the story about the StroBorg, several of my classmates started referring to me simply as "the Borg."
While I wore the term Borg as a badge of honor, I now realize, many years later, that the people who called me that were making fun of me (seriously, I can be quite dense at times). But if you can't laugh at yourself, life can be pretty sad all around, so I think I'll make the most of it.
Now, you may be asking, "What is this blog about?" It is about my critiques of the liberty movement in these United States, written from the perspective of a consistent libertarian anarcho-captitalist who sees both positives and negatives in the explosion in the number of people referring to themselves as "libertarians."
Why do I call it "The Reluctant Borg?" Because I run the risk of guilt by association with self-described advocates of liberty who cannot see their own inconsistencies in applying the Golden Rule to the policies they advocate. Neither Jesus Christ nor Gandhi would have gotten anywhere with the movements they founded if they had not consistently applied the Golden Rule to their actions. So it is with the liberty movement: All that take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Thus, if we are not true to the humanity of our cause, we will fail.
I will attempt to post daily, with several posts on this opening day on various topics to begin. Happy reading!
I am THE Borg, or more specifically, I am the StroBorg, a term first used in a fictional story written by my High School buddy, William Gene Armintrout, about a man with a bionic brain. The term "StroBorg" was a play on my real life Swedish surname, Stroberg. Back in High School, I was quite a nerd and was very good at mathematics, and after Bill wrote the story about the StroBorg, several of my classmates started referring to me simply as "the Borg."
While I wore the term Borg as a badge of honor, I now realize, many years later, that the people who called me that were making fun of me (seriously, I can be quite dense at times). But if you can't laugh at yourself, life can be pretty sad all around, so I think I'll make the most of it.
Now, you may be asking, "What is this blog about?" It is about my critiques of the liberty movement in these United States, written from the perspective of a consistent libertarian anarcho-captitalist who sees both positives and negatives in the explosion in the number of people referring to themselves as "libertarians."
Why do I call it "The Reluctant Borg?" Because I run the risk of guilt by association with self-described advocates of liberty who cannot see their own inconsistencies in applying the Golden Rule to the policies they advocate. Neither Jesus Christ nor Gandhi would have gotten anywhere with the movements they founded if they had not consistently applied the Golden Rule to their actions. So it is with the liberty movement: All that take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Thus, if we are not true to the humanity of our cause, we will fail.
I will attempt to post daily, with several posts on this opening day on various topics to begin. Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
