Michael Mitchell: Archive

Why are Objectivists not Libertarians? It's on full display here.

Ayn Rand wasn't against all forms of coercion. She was against a specific form of it: the initiation of physical force, such as theft, fraud, assault, murder. She wasn't opposed to chopping down trees or killing and eating animals or consenting to force privately, such as sports or kinky sex. "Coercion" or "force" is just (obvious) shorthand for her principle. You can't judge or accept beliefs out of the context that validates them, but that's exactly what Libertarians do.

Whether you're interested in it or not, there's no escaping philosophy. They're literally laughing (in the video) at an Objectivist's political beliefs because they think those beliefs are illogical and immoral, while actually being illogical and immoral for not also laughing at themselves, because they don't even know they're being illogical and immoral. That's why Libertarians distance themselves from Ayn Rand -- and why she distanced herself from them: moral cowardice. How can you stand for "non-aggression" if you can't or won't morally defend your belief? Libertarians actually support their enemies, as if a law or regulation could stop a bullet.

(And when I say you can't take her belief out of context, I don't mean I or Ayn Rand won't allow it. I mean I believe, as I think she did, that it's impossible and only an idiot can't see that, so if I don't bother explaining that every time I say you can't do something, I'm actually respecting your autonomy and independence, expecting you to not think of yourself as an idiot who needs to have autonomy and independence explained to you. So much for the "cult of Ayn Rand".)

Working for a business is the same as owning one as far as the free market is concerned. It's a trade like any other, only the "business" is you. Even when you work for someone else's business, you're still working for yourself. You can't dick around with subtle distinctions in the ownership of property without keeping the full context. (Hmm? Why do I keep coming back to that?) Reality isn't forcing you to work. You can kill yourself. We're not slaves to reality. Life itself is a choice. And businesses aren't forcing you to work for them. You can start your own. In nature, the law of the jungle is the law of the jungle. In society, it's individual rights or mob rule. Guess what just happens to be the only way to violate someone's rights? Come on. You can do it. Let me have it. I promise I won't tell.:)

And if we the people know that the overuse of antibiotics reduces their effectiveness, why do we need the government to limit their use? If you were sick and needed antibiotics to heal and you were holding some in your hand, would you not take them because a hundred years from now someone in the same situation will have to choose another option? What if limiting their use leads to no innovation in medicine, because would-be scientists and doctors choose more lucrative and less regulated career paths, such as technology, and now we're stuck rationing shit that stops working as effectively over time rather than creating better and better shit? Is that really what's best for society? Was that choice in any individual's rational self-interest?

Look around you. That's the world you live in. That's also why it has to be forced on you. Because "smart" people wouldn't accept the choice "dumb" people thought was best for them, because dumb people who think they're smart can't see they're creating a worse problem than the potential (and usually imaginary) one they're trying to solve.

Check your history. From a kid stealing candy from a convenience store to the worst genocidal dictator, every single social/political problem is caused by the initiation of physical force, by coercing people to act against their judgment. People aren't perfect, but the free market's record is spotless, because whether you fail or succeed is determined by reality, not by idiots at war with it. You can't force a mind.