nonserviam Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5

[David McDivitt]

>From: Emeka Nweze <enweze at gmail.com>
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:37:15 -0500
>
>i don't think it is possible to be an egoist and a libertarian.

Emeka,

Randian egoists differ from Stirner egoists. It's well known that
objectivism (Rand) and libertarianism don't mix, but Stirner and
libertarianism get along better. The problem with libertarianism is, that to
be a libertarian means something, with an ideology, and if an ideology then
also a morality. Stirner egoism is not anti-morality so much as putting
morality second to self, or making morality convenient. Does not putting
morality first then become moral? You be the judge.

To me, self interest and selfishness is doing what I want to do when I want
to do it. Rand invokes consequentialism by implying long term results
represent selfishness better than short term results, and for that reason it
isn't in a person's self interest to kill, because it destroys society, and
the end result of ruining society does not ultimately represent self
interest. Then she gets into reason and how selfishness is based on reason,
etc., etc. Give me a break. Go to church instead.

The moral principle of freedom is that society as a whole is better off the
more people are able to do whatever they want to do, without regard to what
those actions are. This does not mean people should always do what they
want, but as a society we should move toward that. Rand conflates this by
starting with freedom, as in anti-statism, but then removes selfishness from
individual choice and preference and places it in the realm of reasoned
selfishness. But reasoned in what regard? According to how Rand reasons, of
course. It is no wonder objectivists and libertarians don't get along.

--
yes, I dare to be subjective!