Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian

[Liberal]

Phil

Lib, considering what took place a mere page ago concerning what Objectivism is and isn’t, the irony here is somewhat striking. If Objectivism as defined by Objectivists and, indeed, the founder of Objectivism, is in fact atheistic, doesn’t it behoove you to call yourself something else?

No, Phil.

The founder of Objectivism herself defined it this way (while standing on one foot, no less):

Metaphysic: Objective Reality

Epistemology: Reason

Ethic: Self-interest

Politics: Capitalism

Now, I can kick and scream, and demand that she redefine Objectivism, but as it happens, I find my own world-view described by those four aspects.

What would you suggest I do? I have already clarified that my Objectivism is tempered by Libertarianism and Christianity. Others might interpret what Rand defined differently than I interpret what she defined, but so what?

[Kimstu]

How delightfully loaded!
Number one, I am trying to intimidate no one.

A fair rebuke, and I apologize for that crack.

And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn’t it?

By that logic, we could define anything to include just about anything. I can say that “socialists, by definition, are those who believe in helping the poor.” Since you have stated on this thread that you feed the poor, you, sir, are a socialist. If you consider that a dirty rhetorical trick, then your attempt to sweep everyone who “opposes initiation of force” under the libertarian umbrella is equally unjustified.

And your analogy with attacking a man who calls himself gay is incorrect. I have no quarrel with what you or anyone else chooses to call him- or herself; I simply dislike the tactic of applying the same label to people who find most of what you stand for unconvincing or distasteful.

Kimstu

[Liberal]

Kimstu

With respect to libertarianism, I stand for nothing more nor less than opposition to the initiation of force.

How then can a person who says that he, too, opposes the initiation of force, find “most of what I stand for” unconvincing or distasteful?

[pldennison]

Fair 'nuff. I never claimed to be particularly sophisticated when it comes to matters philosophical. My understanding was that Objectivism was necessarily atheistic; if I am mistaken, so be it.

[Kimstu]

With respect to libertarianism, I stand for nothing more nor less than opposition to the initiation of force.

How then can a person who says that he, too, opposes the initiation of force, find “most of what I stand for” unconvincing or distasteful?

Libertarian, in the brief time since this thread was started, you have said the following things (to select just a few) about libertarianism:

• For Libertarianism, I had to realize that neither God nor nature had conferred upon any man (including me) any authority over the lives and property of other men, and that God or nature had conferred authority upon all men (including me) over their own.

• [Jesus is] the consummate libertarian

• a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people

• Libertarian governments do not “rule” in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.

• If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.

Therefore, someone who holds different views of the world and humanity has every reason, and every right, to reject the label “libertarian” as applied to him- or herself. Defining the label very narrowly so that it applies to almost everyone and then using it very broadly so that it implies positions that many people disagree with is, as I keep saying, a dirty rhetorical trick.

I am opposed to the initiation of force. I disagree with most of the ideas and premises that you have characterized in the above remarks as “libertarian.” Therefore, I do not wish to identify myself as a libertarian; please don’t call me one.

Kimstu

[Gilligan]

Yes, Kim, you’re not, but don’t forget you did marry one.

[djwalker]

**
DJWalker

B

Jesus did not speak to “society”, but to individuals, in particular their hearts. He never called upon government to make a law, but rather, called upon men to make a decision.

There are matters moral and matters civic. Jesus is concerned about the former. When you refuse to help the poor, you must answer to God, not government.

**

There are also matters ecclesiastical, which tend to cause society as well as individuals to become intermixed with questions of morality and civics. That’s the reality. If we did find ourselves in a libertarian society, those conflicts would be moot. Working through the church to help the poor often involves interaction with coercion-based government. The options are working alone to help the poor, which is less efficient, or working solely with government to help the poor, which is ludicrous. Takes some getting used to.

Also, part of being Catholic is looking at Christianity perhaps more ecclesiastically than some other Christians.

I seem to be veering away from the direction this thread is taking, though, so I think I’ll lurk for a while.

[Liberal]

Phil

Well, Rand herself was an atheist, as are most of her worshippers. And she certainly preached an atheism of an almost mystical variety, despite her constant disclaimers that she despised mysticism. (Trog through the John Galt speech and you’ll see what I mean.)

And yes, later she added such weirdness as an official esthetic for Objectivism (and guess what that was — yep, classical realism). Her defenders have never ceased to claim the high ground and declare that anyone outside their cabal, including anyone they’ve excommunicated, is not an Objectivist.

But that’s their problem, not mine.

Kimstu

[sigh…]

Okay. Let’s take them one at a time, shall we?

---

For Libertarianism, I had to realize that neither God nor nature had conferred upon any man (including me) any authority over the lives and property of other men, and that God or nature had conferred authority upon all men (including me) over their own.

How, if I may not initiate force, will I seize authority over the lives and property of other men? And how, if they may not initiate force, will they make me pay them a tax, or claim eminent domain over my home, or throw me in jail if I consume one of the verboten substances?

---

[Jesus is] the consummate libertarian

The entire context for the snippet you lifted was this: “Actually, [Jesus was] the consumate libertarian. He never initiated force or fraud, but rose to defend His house when trespassers and vandals despoiled it.”

Now, a libertarian might disagree that Jesus did that, or he might disagree that Jesus even existed, but how will he disagree that a man who never initiated force is not the consumate libertarian?

---

a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people

And so? How exactly will you take the property of a peaceful honest man against his will without initiating force or fraud?

---

Libertarian governments do not “rule” in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.

And how exactly would a libertarian government secure rights even as it usurps them?

---

If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.

How will a government that initiates no force rule you without your consent?

---

People are asking me questions here, Kimstu. Different people ask different questions. I do not wish to paste identical responses to every one of them. Instead, I answer their specific question with an appropriate response that is drawn from a single principle.

How utterly disingenuous, not only to complain about my consistency, but to go on and on nagging me about it. Endlessly. Not that that’s what you’ve done.

[manhattan]

Hi Libertarian. Sorry it took so long to respond. I had a project that if I did not finish today would have caused my boss to go all honest and no peaceful on me, if you get my drift.

I know that you dislike what you understand of my philosophy, but I also know that you do not dislike me personally. It would never even cross my mind that you might be trolling.

Thanks. I’m not unaware that my occasional curtness can be misinterpreted; I’m glad that you have not done so.

Do you eschew banks because of high coercion on them and you by the Feds, or do you resign yourself to “what is” until the “what can be” becomes?

Are you asking whether I play God? No, I do not.

You focused on the second part of my sentence when my intended emphasis was on the first. Reviewing my construction, I can not see how you possibly could have done otherwise. I apologize. I guess I’m asking to what extent you participate in current, tyrannical (to you, obviously) institutions. For example, I recall that you personally don’t believe that limited-liability corporations are a good thing. But here in the U.S., that’s pretty much the only kind available. Do you own stock to plan for your retirement? Federal regulations have coerced banks to issue Private Mortgage Insurance with many mortgages (the banks, in turn, have made PMI a highly profitable enterprise at the expense of middle-income homeowners, but that is a different thread). So then do you refuse to obtain a mortgage so as not to help perpetuate the tyranny?

The myriad laws of our country that are clearly coercive and do not even purport to protect against coercion; do you feel bound by them?

Of course not <snip> It is not the laws that I fear, but the guns.

Fair enough. I do feel bound by the laws absent a compelling and specific ethical revulsion. But we both fear the guns.

OK, the last bit was a little bit facetious, but I hope you can see what I’m getting at.

I’m afraid I can’t.

Well, to be honest, I’m concerned for your personal happiness here. When I read your posts, I get a vision of a person continually frustrated and befuddled that the world’s people don’t see things as you do. I further imagine that one possible outcome of this is an unhappy and frustrated person. I’m hoping that you exercise enough expedience in your life to enjoy your leisure time, to own a home, to play softball in a state-owned park and to do all the normal middle-class stuff that I think is an important contributor to happiness.

[Kimstu]

Gilligan:

Yes, Kim, you’re not, but don’t forget you did marry one.

lol…You bet, and proud of it, honey!

Kimstu

[vanilla]

So name me some famous libertarians, please?

[Tymp]

Dearest Libertarian Objectivist Christian,

Now that I’ve gotten over the whole monarchist thing, I’d like to address some conflicts that I perceive between objectivism and Christianity.

In a more detailed explanation of the famous speech on one foot, Rand had the following to say in “Introducing Objectivism,” TON, Aug. 1962, 35.:

1. [Metaphysics: Objective Reality] Reality exists as an objective absolute - facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, hopes or fears.

How do you reconcile matters of Christian faith with such a hard description of objectivist metaphysicics? Surely the personal experience of accepting the testament of the apostles does not mesh well with the objectivist description of how reality should be experienced.

2. [Epistemology: Reason] Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guidance to action, and his basic means of survival.

Again, this surely conflicts with the idea of divine inspiration, does it not? Do you not see this as calling into question the source and value of the New and Old Testaments?

[QUOTE]
3. [Ethics: Self-Interest] Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

I read this, not just as a denial of the existence of a god, but as a denial of the value of a god. Do you accept this ethic of self-interest by tacking on a phrase such as “God excluded, of course?” How then would you reconcile this with numbers 1 & 2?

BTW, LIb, I do admire you for opening this thread and sharing what must be a very complex and elaborate philosophy. I have often wondered about many of these issues and I am glad to see them addressed. Thank you.

[Tymp]

Oops. I forgot to close my quote. It would have ended at “. . . of his life.”

Sorry about that.

[2sense]

Hello Libertarian,

I misunderstood your answer to vanila to be an oversimplification. I have seen the error of my ways.

Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox. *

Now I am trully intrigued. I am interested in paradox. How would you feel if I adopted this quote as a sig line?

Assuming that I accepted the appellation of libertarian, what would be the problems associated with my deciding that economic libertarianism was ornamental and discarding it?
( I ask this question in all seriousness. )
(( And I am not a mathmatician. ))

My understanding is that the followers of Jesus abandoned personal property and lived communally. I have heard him, half seriously, described as a communist. I understand that libertarianism does not exclude communism, I just want to know your feelings on this statement.

Also, if the only qualification for libertarianism is opposing initiating fraud or force, then mustn’t Jesus’ qualification be the same as every other libertarian’s?
If so, then wouldn’t it be more correct to refer to him as a consummate libertarian, rather than the consummate libertarian?

Gilligan:

Thank you for the reply. I think that our definitions are essentially the same; however, I prefer yours.

[Liberal]

Manny

I apologize. I guess I’m asking to what extent you participate in current, tyrannical (to you, obviously) institutions. For example, I recall that you personally don’t believe that limited-liability corporations are a good thing. But here in the U.S., that’s pretty much the only kind available. Do you own stock to plan for your retirement? Federal regulations have coerced banks to issue Private Mortgage Insurance with many mortgages (the banks, in turn, have made PMI a highly profitable enterprise at the expense of middle-income homeowners, but that is a different thread). So then do you refuse to obtain a mortgage so as not to help perpetuate the tyranny?

Okay, so you weren’t asking whether I play God. You were asking whether I play Patrick Henry. More to the point, you wonder whether I find my participation in The System to be as hypocritical as you do.

Sorry, no. Why should a prisoner cut off his fellow inmates simply because they are being coerced? I give The Great Nanny only what it forces me to give it. It doles out the loot to all the politicians behind the curtain who pull its knobs and levers.

Why do the Liberals always blame the man at the hollow end of a gun for the tyranny he endures?

Well, to be honest, I’m concerned for your personal happiness here. When I read your posts, I get a vision of a person continually frustrated and befuddled that the world’s people don’t see things as you do. I further imagine that one possible outcome of this is an unhappy and frustrated person. I’m hoping that you exercise enough expedience in your life to enjoy your leisure time, to own a home, to play softball in a state-owned park and to do all the normal middle-class stuff that I think is an important contributor to happiness.

Mercy.

Everytime a Liberal or Cosnervative becomes “concerned” for me, my load gets just a little heavier. I know, I know. It’s for my own good. The common good. The good of society. It is fascinating that you perceive my frustration that “the world’s people don’t see things” as I do, even as you support the mechanism that forces them to see things the way you do.

Thanks, Manny, but no thanks. Your only obligation in life, libertarianly speaking, is to yourself, your family, and those with whom you’ve contracted. I’m none of those. The best thing you could possibly do for me concern-wise is just to put it out of your mind.

[TwistofFate]

Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian,

1. how would libertatian Objectivist Christians organize State funded programmes that benefit the public?

2. What would be a LOC solution to the current issues surrounding funding Medicaid and Medicare?

3. Is brown really the new black this season?

[Liberal]

Vanilla

So name me some famous libertarians, please?

Well, famous is relative, I guess. You might never have heard of Yassir Seirawan, but serious chess players the world over have. Some people whom you might recognize who have said they are libertarian include Clint Eastwood, Bill Maher, John Stossel, and Roy Innes (president of the Congress for Racial Equality). If you’re an economist, you’ve heard of Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. If you’re a Eruopean history buff, you’ve heard of John Locke, David Hume, Francois de Voltaire, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith. If you you’ve studied the 19th century, you know of John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Henry David Thoreau, and Alexis de Tocqueville

Of course, if you actually go the link I gave you, you could find many others, including the earliest fore-fathers of “classical liberalism”, like Lao Tzu and Aristotle.

[Liberal]

Tymp

Reality exists as an objective absolute - facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, hopes or fears.
How do you reconcile matters of Christian faith with such a hard description of objectivist metaphysicics? Surely the personal experience of accepting the testament of the apostles does not mesh well with the objectivist description of how reality should be experienced.

What’s to reconcile? You’ve presumed my experience with God to be manifested via proxy (“the testament of apostles”) when in fact, God has spoken to me directly. Would you have me deny my own experience?

Yes, reality does exist as an Objective Absolute, independent of man’s feelings, hopes, or fears. But God is the Objective Absolute. Of course, I’ve said that already in one of the posts above.

Rand’s fatal flaw (aside from the claims that she failed to practice what she preached) was her insistence on belief in a NoGod. Why do you think she so despised Immanuel Kant (whose work it is quite clear she never read, or at least never comprehended)?

She knew full well that what she saw as objective reality can only be subjectively discerned. In other words, if reality is the atoms, then there is nothing objective in our experience, because the atoms are perceived through our senses.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guidance to action, and his basic means of survival. Again, this surely conflicts with the idea of divine inspiration, does it not? Do you not see this as calling into question the source and value of the New and Old Testaments?

On the contrary, reason was exactly what prepped my limbic system for the apprehension of God. You will likely note that when theists (excluding the Bible Thumpers) and atheists (excluding the Hand Stabbers) debate, the result is a stalemate. And this is as it should be. God can be apprehended by the brain, but comprehended only by the heart.

If there truly is an Objectivity, then your senses alone will never reveal it to you. But reason can.

Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. I read this, not just as a denial of the existence of a god, but as a denial of the value of a god. Do you accept this ethic of self-interest by tacking on a phrase such as “God excluded, of course?” How then would you reconcile this with numbers 1 & 2?

No, I, unlike Rand, tack on nothing. It is the altruists, that is, the politicians of every discipline — religion, government, business — who call upon men to sacrifice, ostensibly for the greater good, but in reality for the good of the politicians.

That’s why God despises religion. It is infested with politicians (read people who control other people).

If my happiness is derived from my relationship with God, then who is Rand to deny me my “highest moral purpose”? Unless, of course, she is herself a god.

BTW, LIb, I do admire you for opening this thread and sharing what must be a very complex and elaborate philosophy. I have often wondered about many of these issues and I am glad to see them addressed. Thank you.

Thank you, Tymp. You’ve just made the entire experience worthwhile.

[Liberal]

2Sense

Now I am trully intrigued. I am interested in paradox. How would you feel if I adopted this quote as a sig line?

Dispassionate, I suppose.

Assuming that I accepted the appellation of libertarian, what would be the problems associated with my deciding that economic libertarianism was ornamental and discarding it?

The same as those associated with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You would have to decide that coercion is okay in matters economic.

But you needn’t traverse the circuitous route of becoming a libertarian and ripping out your soul. You can just become a Liberal. Liberals like keeping their hands on your wallet, just as Conservatives like keeping their hands on your zipper.

My understanding is that the followers of Jesus abandoned personal property and lived communally. I have heard him, half seriously, described as a communist. I understand that libertarianism does not exclude communism, I just want to know your feelings on this statement.

Jesus cautions us not to strain gnats and swallow camels the way religious leaders do. (He further explained, for the metaphor impaired, that this means they insist that we follow the tiniest laws like tithing, while they themselves ignore the far greater laws like loving their neighbor.)

A rich man came to him once and said, “Master, I obey all the laws and commandments.” The man then proceeded to list some of them quite proudly, and asked, “What more must I do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Jesus replied, “Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.” Well, clearly, if the material itself were a concern, Jesus might have had him throw it away. Instead, Jesus had him give it to someone else. Why? Because it wasn’t the suff that was a problem, but rather, the man’s love for the stuff.

Those who hole away in communes, thinking they are pleasing God by their altruism, are straining gnats and swallowing camels.

Also, if the only qualification for libertarianism is opposing initiating fraud or force, then mustn’t Jesus’ qualification be the same as every other libertarian’s? If so, then wouldn’t it be more correct to refer to him as a consummate libertarian, rather than the consummate libertarian?

Perhaps, except for two things: (1) He, unlike we, never initiated force, and (2) He, unlike we, is the Owner of all that exists. I think those have earned Him a “the”.

[Liberal]

JohnLarrigan

1. how would libertatian Objectivist Christians organize State funded programmes that benefit the public?

We wouldn’t.

2. What would be a LOC solution to the current issues surrounding funding Medicaid and Medicare?

The elimination of Medicaid and Medicare.

3. Is brown really the new black this season?

Possibly. Try asking the Teenager.