In Defense of Liberty

by Vince Daliessio

I'm on a mailing list for a rock band, and on the list I occasionaly espouse the ideals of liberty.
I received an email from a member of the list in reply to a mild defense I made of Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged"
and of Ayn herself. I am not a Rand fan, and am only aware of her books by reference. But I had
to counter his email because it contains so many good intentions wrapped in so many wrongheaded government-mediated ideas;

Vince,

I hope my smart-assed pot shots haven't offended you ...

I've always been fascinated by libertarianism - which I have to say I've always felt is wrong-headed - I mean who could be against public education? - and Ayn Rand - though I recognize there are differences between libertariansm and objectivism...

I don't see however why anyone would fault the basic motives and aims of the
free speech movement at Berkeley. They were being prevented from exercising
their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and free speech on the
grounds of a publicly funded institution by the university administration...
... to suggest that the students should have acquiesced in this
theft of their liberty just isn't coherent or consistent with either your
views (or with my understanding of libertarianism) OR with mine...

I've just been perusing aynrand.org and if you think i'm going to show any
sympathy to a "philosophy" that espouses tripe like "multiculturalism:
the new racism" you're mistaken ...

...(W)hatever merits Rand may have had, objectivism today
is indistinguishable from the far right - pro white/euro "pride" (oh sorry
that's "pride in the individual" - at the expense of ethnic pride of
course), pro Israel, anti affirmative action, anti multiculturalism - why
don't they just merge with the John...Birch Society and get it over
with?...

I find these apologias for (or denials of - they tend to want it both ways)
the genocidal thrust of western colonialism grotesquely obscene....

... (W)estern civilization is inherently superior, or so the
claim goes, and therefore has the right to take what it wants. Might (the
individual's, the state's) makes Right - that's objectivism - which to me is
indistinguishable from fascism. and that's wrong: might might get what might
is willing to take, but it does not and cannot make right.

I realize libertarianism doesn't equal objectivism. so take it with a grain
of salt. I will say however (having aimed all my fire at objectivism) that
I've never understood exactly what it is libertarians are against. 

I reject the notion that the individual is the "basic" unit of social analysis  or
understanding - groups, cultures, worldviews, genes, memes, etc - they all
shape reality, they all constrain and enable our choices and perceptions...

Government is not an inherently "dangerous institution" - governments
CAN be dangerous - but - in democracies at least - they're basically as dangerous
as the people who elected them let them be. ...

bruce

Hi Bruce!

I'm pretty hard to offend, as you have probably guessed by now. And I appreciate
the time you invested in your thoughtful reply.

I am not a Rand fan, as my comments may have shown. I never read anything she wrote.
But I can appreciate the influence of the basic good ideas behind "Atlas Shrugged",
which, as I see it, is that governments in all times and places are evil (although
a small government is a necessary one). They are thus because government is force.
Libertarians oppose the initiation of force on principle, believing that force initiated
against a person is evil no matter whether the force belongs to a robber, a rapist,
or a government bureaucrat.  That's my take on it.

For more definitive descriptions of what libertarianism is, try;

 www.libertarianism.com

Every libertarian I know is vitally concerned that all children have the best educational
opportunities possible, given their ability. We also are painfully aware that having
government provide those opportunities is the least efficient, lowest quality, and
least freedom-enhancing way to do it.

This description would apply to almost any other thing that government does. Harry
Browne has written a very good essay (short book, really) on "Why Government
Doesn't Work" - a classic. You can find it here for download for $9.95 US;

http://www.harrybrowne.com/

There isn't anything wrong with understanding and enjoying other cultures. In fact
the multibillion dollar world tourism industry is based in part on it! But when government
employs force to achieve any ends, whether it is education or racial harmony, it
does violence to even the best good intentions. Government coercion used to somehow
create a "multicultural" or "diverse" environment in a school
or a workplace is like fighting wars for peace - absurd, and ineffective. We only
have to look at the news to see the result of a war of "liberation" -
photos of captives humiliated and abused, and innocent people murdered in retaliation.

Government doesn't work, as Harry Browne says, and he's right. Government is what
has gotten us to this sorry point. Governments in the 20th century have racked up
more murders (Germany >50 million, Soviet Union 200 million, China 200 million,
Cambodia 11 million, US at least a couple million more) than all the individual
evil people in all of recorded history before that time.

The next time you think to yourself "You know, the government really should
do something about (fill in the blank)", ask yourself "Do I really want
to involve an institution in my cause that is only really, REALLY good at killing
people?"

Peace,
Vince

Posted 5/13/2004 12:37:43 PM by Vince Daliessio

Hence my tepid defense of Rand. Progress toward liberty in an unfree world is accomplished by baby steps as well as bold leaps. As far from the libertarian ideal as Rand was, kids in high school and college could be (are) reading things far more detrimental to the development of their conceptions of liberty-

Posted 5/14/2004 10:05:08 AM by Vince Daliessio

Welcome, Bruce. I didn't mean to sound as though I am attacking. I just think that it wasn't fair that you were steered toward Objectivism by Rand. I loved "Atlas Shrugged" but Ayn falls short of being a libertarian and therefore short of being the capitalist she always though she was. A real libertarian doesn't believe in the use of coercive force to accomplish anything (especially "social good"). That's why I suggested Rothbard to fill the gaps. We yanks have already seen what a mess a well-intentioned (?) government can make!

Posted 5/13/2004 7:17:56 PM by Joe Pulcinella

hi all - my letter to vince was never meant to be a public document. in addition to my day job, i'm a writer and a journalist, trained in research and argument, so i know when i'm spouting a lot of unsupported (though not, please note, unsupportable) invective and when i'm not, and my letter is obivously not a closely argued, well-researched piece of work but rather a late night screed meant as a (mostly) friendly gambit in a (mostly) private debate. vince and i subscribe to a music mailing list and most of the time the conversation's about music. i admit to stirring the pot once in a while, but most of the time the give and take, while it might get heated, is friendly. after a exchanging a few verbal grenades i thought i owed it to vince a a couple of others to explain where i'm coming from, but i certainly wasn't attempting to sway anyone. it certainly wasn't meant as a full-scale attack on libertarianism. that said, vince obviously took the letter in the friendly and open spirit in which it was offered, so maybe it's not so surprising that he wanted to share it with the world. so now i'm debating the merits of libertarianism with real, living breathing libertarians (apart from vince, of course). wow. and i'm still in my underwear (it's not yet 8 am here in melbourne, where i'm currently living). i'm willing to put more effort into this and to engage with you more thoughtfully, and despite the impression given by my letter i'm willing to accept that the similarities between libertarians and the objectivists are strictly superficial - though i'm not entirely convinced yet that they may be deeper than you think. regards, bruce

Posted 5/13/2004 5:43:45 PM by bruce

"If a group works toward something that is blatantly not in our own self-interest, would we not disassociate ourselves from that group (such as quitting a union)?" Or a PARTY, perhaps?

Posted 5/13/2004 4:35:42 PM by Vince Daliessio

In a nutshell, this guy is confusing Rand's objectivism with libertarianism. Rand and her shrill, nutso disciple, Leonard Piekoff, are what would today be called neo-cons or pro-war libertarians (which is an oxymoron). However, the individual is the ultimate sovereign but this is totally consistent with the idea of naturally-occuring groups and cultures. If a group works toward something that is blatantly not in our own self-interest, would we not disassociate ourselves from that group (such as quitting a union)? And any group that we belong to by birth (race) is in reality a non-factor in what we do in our own self-interest. In any case, as long as the will of one individual or group is not imposed on any other through coersive force, what is there to fear? If this guy wants to feel better about libertarianism, he should put down Rand and pick up Murray Rothbard. Lots of his stuff is available for free at mises.org.

Posted 5/13/2004 1:43:39 PM by Joe Pulcinella