h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The entry states that: "It would be fair to say that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists." This is not true.

The entry also says that libertarians believe that: "Government exists to protect the individual from abuses by big companies or from physical harm."

Objectivists like myself, on the other hand, hold that government has only three legitimate functions: the police, to protect men from criminals - the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders - the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws. Each of these three legitimate functions of government is necessary to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Abuses by big companies"? Like false advertising? This does not violate the one fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How about toxic waste dumping in your drinking water? Certainly this would violate your basic rights.

Nothing you've said yet convinces me that you aren't libertarian.

Well, Mr. Mugwump, if the water was YOUR drinking water - say, if it was a stream that ran through your property - then it would be a violation of your rights.

So you're saying we have the right to protect our property from damage, but we don't have any right to protect the quality of water that the water company delivers to our homes?

See... this sort of thing is why I am a libertarian, but not an objectivist.

It is your right to switch to another water company if you are not happy with the quality of their service. Unless, of course, you live in a socialized country in which utilities are granted monopolies.

It is impossible to switch water companies, because the companies own the pipes, pumps, meters, and other means of delivery that bring it to your home. Socialism has nothing to do with it. Where you live determines your water company, electric company, local telephone company, gas company, and cable tv company (although you can opt out of the last and get satellite).

So unless a higher power oversees these companies, you're pretty much screwed. California found that out over the last couple of years, after they deregulated the electric companies. We're still paying gouging prices.

You're just used to utilities monopolies. The free market can be and should be applied to all matters of trade. COMPLETE DEREGULATION would mean that utilities companies are subject to the laws of the free market. If their service is substandard in some way, another company will spring into existence and offer competition.

How do you deregulate the utility when you can only get delivery from one source?

I don't see how you can only get delivery from one source. There can be multiple lines for telephone and hydro access, multiple pipes for water, etc.

So a new company is going to come into being and build a whole new infrastructure to compete? They're going to dig up the entire city to run a redundant pipe system?

I haven't looked into the question of privatized utilities in depth, but I know that the free market works.

In the case of utilities companies that's just nonsense, simply because of the cost of the infrastructure. As a UK resident I have the "right" to switch to a different water supplier - but I have to pay the full cost of the new mumblety hundred mile long pipeline - a "bit" beyond my means. I can also buy my gas and electricity from the company of my choice - but it's the SAME gas, coming through the SAME pipeline - and I simply don't have the time to do a daily check of comparitive prices and change my supplier accordingly.

The "laws" of the free market? What are THEY exactly? Do you mean the legal laws, enacted by government? Or the inevitable outworkings of a free for all?

The free market ideology assumes that all players have perfect knowledge - in real life they don't have anything of the kind.

Noggin

So what you have is some dogma, and you haven't really considered the practicalities involved.

I'm a strong believer in the free market myself. But I'm also a realist. There are some businesses where a monopoly is an unfortunate necessity. In those areas, monopoly cannot be allowed to be unchecked. Some power must prevent it from abusing its customers, and the only capable power is government.

The laws of the free market mean that companies have to compete (try to offer the best quality service) in order to retain customers.

My original point about Objectivists not being Libertarians is still valid, even if I have got involved in an argument on a tangent which I am not very well informed about.

<...according to objective laws.> Who decides what's objective?

Noggin

Very well, then. I think we've resolved this particular tangent amicably. And even if you still promoted complete deregulation, your ideals would still fit within the libertarian doctrine. Because I oppose deregulation of utilities, I consider myself a moderate libertarian. Harry Browne, the perennial libertarian candidate for US presidency, would agree with your position.

So, why don't you give it another shot? Tell us another way in which objectivists are not libertarian.

I will let Dr. Michael J. Hurd speak for me. He is a modern Objectivist. This piece appeared in the Objectivist internet publication Capitalism Magazine.

LIBERTARIANISM: IN THE PURSUIT OF NO GOVERNMENT
by Michael J. Hurd (May 1, 2001)

SUMMARY: The Libertarians are even worse, in a way, than the conservatives. It’s not that they support the wrong philosophic base for a free society. They don’t support any at all. They are, in effect, agnostic subjectivists. This is why their party and their movement are essentially going nowhere, even in times where (for a brief moment, here and there) there is more of an openness towards the idea of limited government. Why?

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] Q: What about the Libertarians? They seek the same role for government as people such as yourself. You cannot complain that there is not a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal when the Libertarians are present.

A: Yes I can. Because the Libertarians are the classic example of how you cannot primarily pursue a negative value: that is, you cannot pursue the absence of something rather than the presence of something. Libertarians, like conservatives, primarily want to get the government out of our lives. But they are helpless to bring this about. Government controls continue to expand and grow, even under the new Bush Administration, who brags that its budget “only” grows the government by 4 percent a year. Libertarians, even if they managed to gain power, would get no further. Why? Because Libertarians, like conservatives, have no rational philosophy upon which to base their assertions.

If you’re going to favor a limited government -- defined as a government which does nothing except uphold contracts and protect individuals from physical force -- then you must have a rationale for doing so. This is especially true today, since this philosophy of limited government is as far outside the mainstream (especially the intellectual mainstream) as can be imagined.

The conservatives make some feeble attempt at a philosophic base, but it’s the wrong one: religion. Claiming that we must have a free country because God wants us to have one is not a rational case. It’s not convincing, even to people who are somewhat religious. Also, it’s a contradiction to favor a free country but then, for reasons of religious faith alone, oppose the legality of controversial sex acts between consenting adults, the legality of abortion, and even the legality of birth control, as some conservatives do.

The Libertarians are even worse, in a way, than the conservatives. It’s not that they support the wrong philosophic base for a free society. They don’t support any at all. They are, in effect, agnostic subjectivists. This is why their party and their movement are essentially going nowhere, even in times where (for a brief moment, here and there) there is more of an openness towards the idea of limited government. Why? Because people don’t take them seriously. You can’t take someone seriously if they don’t root themselves in any kind of serious philosophic rationale for what they’re doing. Libertarians come across as saying, “We don’t want Big Government, and that’s that.” Some of them are even outright anarchists, further harming the cause of rationally limited government. The conservatives at least make some kind of attempt to provide a philosophic and ethical base, contradictory and erroneous and ultimately unconvincing as it is. This is why they can hang onto some credibility, while the Libertarian party remains in the single digits decade after decade.

People such as myself are attempting to correct the Libertarian error, not expand it. It is a huge endeavor to first educate and eventually change the hearts and minds of the people. It might even take centuries. People such as myself recognize that there must be a philosophic basis for capitalism, individual rights, and a free country. The philosophic base cannot be religion, but rather an approach based upon reason, reality, and self-interest (as initially articulated by Ayn Rand, and expanded upon by the growing number of people who agree with her but don’t necessarily speak for her). This is the alternative which must be presented if we are ever to enjoy a truly free country. It's a long-range approach, not a quick fix to seize power for a year or two; but it's the only one which will work.

If you want a country which respects individual rights, then you must fight not primarily for individual rights, but for rationality, individualism, self-interest, and respect for objective reality. As a psychologist, I also stress the importance of sound mental health rooted in a rational philosophy of life. Until more people improve their psyches, they’re not even going to want freedom. The Libertarians, in my experience, tend to sneer at such an approach. Yet they do so at their own peril.



About the Author: Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychologist, psychotherapist and author of Effective Therapy (New York: Dunhill, 1997) and Grow Up America! Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

So, who decides what counts as reason and reality?

Noggin

Nobody decides what counts as reason and reality. Reason and reality are. Existence, conciousness, and identity are axioms, perceptual self-evidencies upon which every concept depends.

Reason and reality are what?

Existence, consciousness and identity may be axioms, but reason and reality constitute a lot more besides. Is money "real"? Is the free market "real"? Is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat "real"?

Noggin