RoR: Forum

Joe,

This is an excellent assessment of the libertarian fog surrounding NIOF.

Post 1

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:48am

Amen. Excellent job, Joe.

The absence of a shared philosophical groundwork requires libertarians to base their points of agreement on political ideas, like NIOF, that become "floating abstractions" -- rules, rather than validated principles.

One other consequence of this: When the overarching goal becomes following some arbitrary rule apart from any considerations of context, then the most extreme or fanatical advocate of that rule appears to be the "most principled." This explains the rise of anarchism in the libertarian movement: If the NIOF rule trumps all, then considerations of context -- e. g., the epistemological and ethical considerations that would lead to limited government -- are not considered as relevant.

Rather than ask, "What social system is most in accordance with the protection and furtherance of individual life and well-being?," the libertarian asks only: "What social system is most in accordance with the rule against the use of force?" And that latter, out-of-context rule seduces him toward anarchism, rather than toward limited government, i.e., a system that addresses man's social requirements for an objective (constitutional) rule of law, for mechanisms that distinguish epistemologically between the initiation of force and its retaliatory use, and for a final legal arbiter of disputes.

Post 2

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 1:29pm

Robert D., thanks for your comment.

Robert B., good point about the "most principled". I have to agree, and empirically have heard this position many times.

In my "All or Nothing" speech, I made some similar points. The rule-based thinking leads to the instant and total certainty that comes with not having to actually understand anything. Concern with context and details just appears to weaken the argument, since its an admission that the argument is dependent on them. It's seductive because anyone can claim to be an expert without having to actually learn any details.

Post 3

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 1:29pm

The accusation that fidelity to the principle of the non-initiation of force somehow demonstrates ivory tower irrationalism won't withstand close scrutiny. The NIOF principle is based on the recognition that individuals have rights by nature that no person or organization ought to violate. The rights principle is itself based on a thorough consideration of man's nature, of his requirement for freedom to live and flourish, of the source and nature of his moral values, and of the ethical norms necessary for him to advance his life. To claim, as both Joe and Bob do, that upholding this respect for rights represents agnosticism regarding these considerations is, to put it politely, unconvincing.

A quick reading identifies two other erroneous and unanounced assumptions contained in the arguments of Joe and Robert. First, they equate opposition to the invasion of Iraq as opposition to the right to retaliatory force. However, this equation asssumes that hawks and doves agree as to essential facts surrounding the invasion. However, we don't agree; the invasion is certainly not a retaliation for 9/11, because Saddam Hussein and the 30,000 Iraqi dead did not crash the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Proper retailiation requires that one direct retaliatory force against the perpetrator of the crime, not against his sister or his cousin. Since Osama Bin Laden was directly responsible, retaliatory efforts should be focused on apprehending him and bringing him to trial in the United States, not on bombing and killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Second, both commentators display what I consider to be a cavalier disregard for enormous suffering imposed on helpless innocent people far from their personal proximity. Both write as though killing and maiming innocent people in pursuit of justice is a routine part of life, like the necessity of washing one's dishes or mowing the lawn; when in fact, such wrongful killing ought to be the outcome of rare and tragic circumstances. The purpose of individual rights is obviously to proscribe such patently unjust assaults by restricting war to defensive engagement. Mass murder of innocent indivduals occurs, not when repelling an invasion, but when conducting an invasion.

And finally, there is the issue of blowback. By murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis and destroying huge swaths of property and infrastructure, the war obviously spreads bitter resentment against the United States. Before the invasion, high percentages of Middle Easterners liked the US, whereas today, something like 5% poll favorable opinions about America. In addition to gradually bankrupting and enslaving Americans, this great state program is insuring a groundswell of support for the worst elements in the Middle East.

Post 4

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:04pm

Mark, as opposed to the enormous amount of suffering inflicted on the people of Iraq under a repressive regime - and the fact that no hope has been replaced with some real hope for change - something crucial. The number one goal of these repressive elites (Saddam, Osama, etc...) is to maintain their coercive, force-based control over all of the individuals who have the ill fortune to live near their influence, and people like you would do nothing.

The US made every possible attempt to keep loss of civilian life to a minimum in this war vs. any other ever waged in history, so much so that at times soldiers took risks because of it - and I think that overall a good balance was achieved (and I do believe a balance of risk vs. destruction is reasonable to make).

The rest of your post was bullshit hyperbole from moveon.org - join the collectivists, they want individuals like you.

Post 5

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:29pm

Kurt, Mark does have a point underneath some of the more collectivist sounding-rhetoric within his first post. Part of the reason for going to war was to defend American and British soil against possible attacks from Iraq, even when everyone knew the risk was minimal.Can you honestly say that you think after the American/British military withdrawal (Whether it be in 1/10/100 years time) peace and democracy will be intact? What about capitalism? If our purpose was to achieve the establishment of individual rights (As You seem to be claiming it should have been) then surely if this can't be acheived then our mission was doomed to fail from the beginning?

I'd rather have my tax-money back as well as my country's soldiers - I don't believe it to be possible to bring democracy to Iraq any more than I do believe it to be possible to change 500 years of it's oppressive history. Given that we have no chance of success, it seems that losing soldier's lives is the least successful way of promoting sense of life among people - Sacraficing the brave for the sake of some people who do not wish for our help. As much as I'd like to see a capitalist and free Iraq, can anyone here honestly see it happening after a military withdrawal?

Post 6

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:42pm

This is a good discussion. The other side of the coin that Joe and Robert B have described is those Objectivists who claim that we are being self sacrificial if we fail to use the most powerful weapons possible to destroy the enemy even if that means nuking entire cities and countries to avoid the possibility of risking the death of even a single soldier on our own side. This is a clear case of people attempting to be the "most principled" followers of a rule without regard to several other major considerations and ethical principles.

I remember David Elmore, a former member of SOLOhq claiming very seriously on one thread that we ought to immediately begin the wholesale nuking of China (and several other countries) because their existence is a threat to our self interest and that to not do it would be an act of self sacrifice and an (implicit) sanction of our enemies. When those of us who disagreed pressed him on this he simply claimed that we weren't being principled enough.

NOIF libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and nuke happy Objectivists would seem to be guilty of the same set of errors.

- Jason

Post 7

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:44pm

Mark, thanks for the post. I was thinking of posting a similar response, but now I don't have to. I will question you saying that Bob and Joe "equate opposition to the invasion of Iraq as opposition to the right to retaliatory force." They might, but this particular article didn't mention Iraq, so I'm not sure it's relevant here.

Bob: "Rather than ask, 'What social system is most in accordance with the protection and furtherance of individual life and well-being?,' the libertarian asks only: 'What social system is most in accordance with the rule against the use of force?'"

Based on my personal experience, that's not true for most libertarians. Most libertarians, I believe, ask themselves the first question, and then rationally answer, "A system that prohibits aggression (initiation of physical force)." And most aren't anarchists, either.

Kurt: "The rest of your [Mark's] post was bullshit hyperbole from moveon.org - join the collectivists, they want individuals like you."

Good argument from intimidation, Kurt. You should try addressing the actual points that Mark made sometime.

Post 8

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 4:18pm

Jon,

That was directly aimed at his use of the same hyperbole used by people of that ilk:

1) saying that the Iraq war is "gradually bankrupting and enslaving Americans"

2) stating the author and Robert B. have a "cavalier disregard for enormous suffering "

3) ...and that the war was "Mass murder of innocent indivduals "

Those remarks were not what I call arguments....

Now as to the rest, realize that terrorist attacks will occur from any place that is a safe haven for existing and future terrorists - and those places included Afghanistan and Iraq. Saying that Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and its people are "unable to be free" because of "500 years of it's oppressive history" sounds collectivist to me - no, they are individuals who, left on their own and not oppressed by evil elites, will be more than happy to join the world for a better life.

Look at say North Korea vs. South Korea - same country for centuries, same people, one is underneath a cabal run by an insane man, and the other is free as a result of US efforts. HUGE difference, and people said the same thing then that they do now. In fact, let us look at North Korea - they have not (directly) attacked us, but they provide funding for terrorists, deadly weapons, they create instability in the region that harms economic progress and even establishment of more freedom, they counterfeit our currency, and they treat people like cattle, literally.

In today's world, we cannot "firewall" these people off - and doing so in the long run is a losing battle and we will pay the price for it. For the people there, they live in hell, and any deaths experienced as a result of a hot war are as nothing compared to the dead and diminished lives of enslaved citizens.

Ask the French - should the US have left them under the Nazis because we killed (and we did - a heck of a lot more than in Iraq) French civilians in the war to liberate them? Despite the fact they don't much care for the US now, I doubt you will find many saying it should not have been done. AND it was better for US security AND it was better for the future.

Post 9

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 6:24pm

I don't know if Joe and Robert are cavalier in their attitudes about the issue of wrongful killing or not; I really do not know their respective states of mind. And my reference to dish washing and lawn mowing was wrong.

I wish I had omitted entirely any reference to their attitudes, because I basically think they're both good people. However, I'd like to arouse them to pay more attention to the consequences of the policy they support.

Post 10

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:18pm

If someone creates a situation where the lives of two people are in opposition, where survival of one requires killing of the other, it is the person who created the situation that is to blame.

This quote made me think back to a debate from a while back on the CHUD boards about the end of Batman Begins. The site's co-creator, Devin Faraci, argued that Batman was a killer (MURDERER!) because he didn't save Henri Ducard's life "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you." I wish I could've used your line of reasoning as refutation: it's airtight.

Post 11

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:00pm

Joe, you wrote:

...libertarians do not have a common philosophical base that they agree on. So while some may accept certain ideas, there's no reason to expect all of them to. In other words, any particular point may not be attributable to every libertarian. Another limitation to this analysis is that there is no necessary difference between the Objectivist and libertarian views, so this discussion is aimed at identifying actual existing differences, and not trying to imply that they are inevitable.

If that is the case, then why was David Kelley excommunicated for speaking to a libertarian group? It was my understanding that his message was precisely the need for a rational philosophical base (viz., Objectivism) for libertarianism. Isn't that the message we want libertarians to get? If so, who better to tell them than Objectivists? Or are "good Objectivists" supposed to write off libertarians?

Do you think that Peikoff et al were justified in kicking David Kelley out of ARI for this reason? Was this even the real reason, or was it just an excuse (in your opinion)? I think the latter, because Peikoff himself attended two book signing events at a known libertarian organization, Laissez Faire Books, and no one excommunicated him!

Is it possible that Objectivism will survive, with the Keepers of the Flame continuing to shoot themselves in the foot like this?

Post 12

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:40am

Quotes from Joe (quoted by a guy who -- due to insufficient civilian information -- was squarely against the START of "Operation Iraqi Freedom") ...

=================
... you can't accept the Objectivist politics without the philosophical base.
=================

Darn tootin', you can't.

=================
... libertarians do not have a common philosophical base that they agree on.
=================

Darn tootin', they don't.

=================
there is no necessary difference between the Objectivist and libertarian views
=================

Darn tootin', there isn't.

=================
Libertarians tend to start with politics, ignoring ethics in order to be more inclusive.
=================

Sho' enuff', many do.

=================
Without the ability to relate the NIOF principle to a wider standard of value, it turns into a context-free rule.
=================

Inherently true (by properly defined terms).

=================
Obviously the NIOF principle is an important part of our lives, but it aims to further our lives. If a context appears where it doesn't further our lives, following it would be suicide.

The case that comes up the most is in a war situation where innocent civilians may be killed in the process.
=================

Internally valid, sure, but its external validity rests on facts not usually available to average citizens ("we" haven't necessarily "known" when "following it" would've been "suicide" -- so we often "trust" our leaders).

=================
Without a connection to a wider moral standard, violations of the NIOF cannot be compared with one another. That means all rights violations would have to be treated as equally bad.
=================

Great (not merely "good") point.

=================
To give an example, some people suggest that the United States is a police state without freedom of speech, comparing it to totalitarian regimes.

Others suggest that the US is less free than China, because we have seat-belt laws while they don't. The fact that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of reproduction are violently repressed in China is ignored because you can ride around without a bicycle helmet.
=================

Shameful Libertarians, to be sure.

=================
The next major difference between libertarian and Objectivist politics is the Objectivist position that the deaths of innocent people in the process of exercising retaliatory force is the blame of the person who created the situation.
=================

True enough, but this proposition is hampered by a subtlety -- that same subtlety previously mentioned regarding contextual enforcement of NIOF (the contextual enforcement of "retaliatory force").

=================
The immoral act was made by the one who created this situation and who destroyed the harmony of interests that the NIOF principle is based on.
=================

Right again, but if it's taken as a twin-dictum that these dictators are both immoral, and have destroyed humanity's rightful harmony (ie. mitigated our own pursuit of value), then the party line retort would include a utilitarian setting-up of a hierarchy of repressive regimes, and then attacking those that are most repressive to the most "potential trading partners." Cuba, sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, North Korea, China, Russia, and every Islamic country in the Middle East -- are all begging to be invaded in an objective pecking order (due to the twin facts of: Their immorality, and: Our potential benefit from their country's freedom).

Of all these "choices" -- Russia and China appear to offer the most "expected value" (or at least, higher than could ever be expected from invading Iraq). From the limited access of average citizens then, it appears that the Iraq invasion wasn't the best use of our military potential. A more enlightening explanation (from those "in the know") may rectify this conundrum -- but we (taxpayers) haven't yet been given a more enlightening explanation to date. Instead, we've been asked to look at Iraq altruistically -- and that request doesn't even deserve comment in an Objectivist forum. The invasion of Iraq may have been the right thing to do at the time -- but it has not been "shown" to have been the right thing to do at the time.

=================
The emphasis by libertarians is on the lack of initiation of force. As I've mentioned in my article "Two Sides of Libertarianism", this position wouldn't successfully differentiate libertarianism with pacifism. That means retaliatory force is seen as not entirely immoral, but probably not virtuous.

It also has the problem that it focuses on what you shouldn't do, instead of giving you options. It doesn't address the issue of how you go about securing freedom at all. It's more concerned with moral judgment than with life-directed action. Securing your freedom is less important than absolutely avoiding accidentally violating someone's rights. The result is that it worships inaction in the face of rights violators.
=================

Again, there are damned, shameful Libertarians out there. And good on you, Joe, for bringing their shamefulness to light. Overall, I really liked this essay. I learned from it. I grew from it.

Thanks for that,

Ed

Post 13

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:35am

Thanks for commenting everyone. Let me try to respond to some of them.

Mark, we have many disagreements here. First, I don't suggest a respect for rights represents agnosticism. What I suggest is that certain libertarians sever the moral basis of the rights and treat them as blind rules. The ethical equivalent is showing through a long and precise argument that your own life should be the standard of your values, and that leads to rational self-interest. And then using that argument to mean you should be able to walk all over other people, rob, steal, and kill if you feel it benefits you. Libertarians are not respecting rights when they divorce the concept from reality and treat it as a self-evident truth.

Take a simple example of a defensive war, which you imply can be morally justified. The anarcho-libertarian argues that a single innocent death invalidates the morality of the war. You are only allowed to fight that defensive war if you can be absolutely sure you won't hurt any innocent people, such as human shields. Is this a respect for rights? Doesn't it flip the whole concept upside-down? We argue for rights because they are necessary to advance our lives. And yet, this argument claims we must sacrifice our lives to the concept of rights. It completely ignores the fundamental facts that give rise to the concept of rights. It ignores the fact that rights are needed for us to live. The concept is severed from its purpose, and is used in opposition to life. I do not consider this a "respect for rights".

As for your discussion of the Iraq war, I found it all to be so non-objective, there's nothing to comment on. The only point I can see is that you think Bin Laden should be brought to trial, while denying the means.

As far as cavalier disregard for enormous suffering, I see your position as the embodiment of that. Anarcho-libertarians, while maybe theoretically opposed to brutal dictators, consider it completely immoral for anyone to topple them. They don't consider that the oppressed people have rights that are being violated. For them, rights only enter the equation when the US enters the picture. And then they are told that they have no right, since that dictator didn't attack the US (or isn't a threat to our national security...that's the best one, since the anarchists rely on nationalistic arguments), and innocent people may die. Yes, I consider that to be a cavalier disregard for suffering. Making the claim that it may not be in our self-interest to free a particular slave-pen is one thing, but saying that we have no right to...that's cavalier.

Kurt, good comments all around.

Jason, excellent example of that mindset. He was a rule-worshipper. The nuke idea is just another form of non-thinking cloaked in "principle". Some people want automatic, certain knowledge without having to do any legwork. Whether that's dismissing all wars as immoral, or suggesting we should nuke everyone. This method is found all over, and is one of my biggest problems with discussions of the Iraq war. From the beginning, I stated my position as fairly ambivalent towards the war. I was quickly associated with the pro-war position because I argue against the mindlessness that comes from the anti-war side, which have been the most blatant in their simple-minded "principled" approach. It's that mindlessness parading as virtue that is the real problem. It exists on both sides, as you point out. The difference is, the pro-war people attack the "nuke them all" drones, whereas the anti-war people praise the most mindless statements. The few sane people that oppose(d) the war are lost in the irrational shrieking.

Justin, glad you found the argument useful.

Artemis, I wasn't around when all of that happened, and don't know what the real motivations were (the one's given are crazy, but there are plenty of crazy people in Objectivist circles). I can only say that I'm sure Objectivism will survive, because the "Keepers of the Flame" don't matter. There's more and more competition, there are growing number of independent activists, there are more resources available allowing people to learn it on their own and deal with those they want to. I'm sure they'll try to hold on to their throne, but eventually nobody will care. They have to compete with everyone else.

Post 14

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:07am

Joe, the great thing about having you around to write posts like these is that I don't have to. You consistently write exactly what I think -- or have said or written elsewhere.

So how about I just give you a blanket "amen" in advance for anything you might write in the future on any subject? That way I can go off and edit my magazine, secure in the knowledge that this place is in good hands.

Post 15

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:01am

Kurt, I appreciated the more thoughtful comments of yours in Post 8. I'll just respond to a couple of them here.

Kurt: "Saying that Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and its people are 'unable to be free' because of '500 years of it's oppressive history' sounds collectivist to me - no, they are individuals who, left on their own and not oppressed by evil elites, will be more than happy to join the world for a better life."

Do you (and other similar-minded Objectivists) truly believe that a country's socioeconomic system is the outgrowth of its underlying philosophy? After all, Objectivists believe that we can't achieve pure capitalism until we achieve a culture of reason and individualism.

If you agree with this standard Objectivist viewpoint, then how could you think that overthrowing particular Middle Eastern regimes would create a free Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran? A US military operation can remove a dictator, but it can't change the philosophical base of a predominantly primitive, irrational society.

To wit: the US gov. ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan, but now the country is in the grips of rival warlords. And the US gov. ousted the tyrant Hussein, but now the country is poised to become an oppressive theocracy. Have you read any part of the new Iraqi constitution? It's scary stuff.

Kurt: "Ask the French - should the US have left them under the Nazis because we killed (and we did - a heck of a lot more than in Iraq) French civilians in the war to liberate them? Despite the fact they don't much care for the US now, I doubt you will find many saying it should not have been done. AND it was better for US security AND it was better for the future."

Well, off the top of my head, I can think of one person who disagrees with you. Her name was Ayn Rand.

That's not an argument from authority, just a point of fact.

Post 16

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:17am

About 10 years ago, a good friend of mine, whom I consider to be highly intelligent completely, fucked my world by asking me if I was a relativist or an absolutist. Ever since then, discussions like this seem to bring me to an impasse. If I hold a belief but my decision as to whether or not to stand by my belief depends on the context of the situation, what I�m really saying is that my belief is contingent on circumstances and as such can't really be described as a belief. On the other hand, if I am resolutely absolutist about my belief and say that circumstances are irrelevant, am I not discounting objective reality and relegating my so-called belief to the realm of the abstract. Just like the tempering of musical notes from the mathematical theory of music, abstract concepts need to be tweaked to work in the real world. Is this a concession to relativism?

Post 17

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:19am

One other quick point: Even if you think that US military involvement in WWII was necessary to defeat Hitler (it wasn't; his fate was sealed as soon as the German Army invaded Russia before America entered the war), there's a huge contextual difference between a dictator like Hussein and one like Hitler. At the time of the US invasion of Iraq, Hussein wasn't the leader of a powerful military that had conquered almost an entire continent and threatened US security. Not even close.

Post 18

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:59am

Ok, Jon, I believe that the people in the Middle East (of various groups be they Persians or Arabs or anything else) do share some basic understanding about the fundamentals of life with everyone else - that is the start - and that no, they won't over night create anything that comes close to what we have now in the West, which itself is flawed. However, it is a process - and the increasing interconnectivity - of ideas, of trade, of people - is going to speed the process up inevitably, once certain conditions are met. Opposing this process are not the majority of people in these lands, but the people who have the most to lose, the people who hold the power. They want us to withdraw and leave their slave feifdoms alone, but even if we do it won't solve our problems but exacerbate them. Their people will continue to spawn terrorism of one form or another because they have nothing else to hope for, and they will be manipulated by those who want to keep, wrest, and or hold the reigns of power. The greater powers will still need their resources, notably China and India, but Europe and the US will also, and this has the danger of creating competing, colonial-like power blocks the same way we saw before WW II and in the 19th Century. This leads to more wars, even if the US stays out as much as possible, and it leads to much more economic instability, less wealth, and that is not even to consider the plight of the people who live there - if we want to be totally callous about that.

So to summarize - new governments have to crawl before they can walk, and walk before they can run, but as long as they are moving in the right direction and connecting with the world rather than the opposite, time is on our side.

Also - as to overall terrorism, go back to 1944 and ask the Allies how is the fighting after years of all-out war against Japan and Germany going? Is resistance less or greater? It is greater, as it often is when you are going to lose,

I am not 100% sure of Ayn Rand's conclusions on WW II, but she may well have been wrong. Keep in mind she made her remarks and comments affected by:
1) Personal experience with Russia
2) The inroads communism had made in the US
3) No 20/20 hind-sight - i.e. no time for historical perspective on the issue, and it does matter.

I did hear her remarks about the propoganda and I agree with her on that - I don't believe Russia should have been propogandized as we did, even if helping them was necessary to win. And no, I believe they would have beaten Russia sans US intervention, and I can provide very strong evidence to support that. Then, all those Nazi scientists with their advanced super weapons would never have been ours to catch up on, and the world would have been majorly screwed - basically until the Nazi system fell from within.

Post 19

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:38pm