Libertine vs Libertarian

The Romans had a radical view of freedom, unique in the world and history, that few today can comprehend.  The founding fathers understood it to some degree, they being the beneficiaries of the Spanish scholastics who recovered our ancient heritage from their Islamic betters, and passed it on through France to Scotland and England.

The Romans exercised very little direct control, peoples all over the known world welcomed the Romans as administrators.  The Romans were invited into Palestine, they did not conquer it, although they eventually levelled it.  England built its empire on freedom, and Thomas Sowell notes that USA blacks who emigrated from English territories ended up the wealthier segment of blacks in USA, and those blacks who emigrated from French territories ended up the poorer segment in USA.  The English shared power and offered freedom, the French do not share power with the locals.  (Slave rebellions were under French rule).

There are many self-proclaimed libertarians, some of which actually subscribe to the radical Roman model that is the experiential basis for libertarianism, but very often people claiming to be libertarian are simply libertine.  Libertarians argue for freedom short of force and fraud, and assume an ethical responsibility to others.  The libertines argue for freedom, with no ethical standards.  Since they both esteem freedom, confusion between the two ensues.

Objectivism, under leader Ayn Rand, is the home of the libertine ethic.  They praise the "rugged individual" who is able to heroically achieve great things, and abjure government intervention.  Here again, spurning government intervention sounds like libertarian.  But there is a difference.

Here is her acolyte:

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis

There is an internal contradiction between rugged individual and achieving great things.  Greatness takes tremendous cooperation, with an ethical basis around which people can confidently associate.  The rugged individual necessarily cripples his ability to accomplish anything good.

Although the objectivist spurn government intervention, it is selective, as opposed to libertarians, where it is axiomatic.  And whereas objectivists spurn government control, they also spurn the intervention of any mediating organizations, such as church or union.

These internal contradictions cause a hash where objectivism features personality cults, purges and strange hypocrises, such being pro-pre-emptive war, which is decidedly non-libertarian.  Here read their views on war, and a quote:

Government is not optional. 

The objectivists are not libertarian, they are mere libertines.  They do not object to government control, they merely object they are not in control of government.  Everybody except libertarians wants control of government.  Libertarians want no government.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post