Select Comments From Thrutch

This page shows a selection of comments made at Thrutch. At the moment it is updated manually, so to be sure to see the latest comments, or to comment on a comment, please go directly to: amitghate.blogspot.com

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Craig J. Bolton has left a new comment on your post "Paul McKeever - Freedom Party of Canada":

There are several good points made by the debaters in this thread, but others that are not so good.

Yes, libertarianism is primary a negative point of view, aimed at exposing the defects and limitations of government. Some persons may reasonably conclude from examining those defects and limitations that a social order without government [anarchy] is a better state of affairs to one with government. Objectivists seem to be unwilling to take that alternative seriously and head on, but, like the Lutheran Church Lady, they just wring their handkercheifs and whine "OWWWW, ANAAAARCY" and then go on to another topic.

Second, yes libertarianism has become a "big tent" movement. In some ways it always was, even when it wasn't libertarianism but was Radical Englightenment or Classical Liberalism. Yes, that is undesirable because it sometimes results in a lack of clarity regarding what libertarians favor and disfavor. In those respects it is much better to have a tightly disciplined cult whose members tow a particular slogan line with rigor. In other respects, however, the cult is not to be favored.

I find it odd for Objectivists to be criticizing libertarians for being unfamiliar with Philosophy. No Objectivist I have ever personally known has ANY training in philosophy, and as far as I know there are less than a hand full of Philosopher Objectivists in the entire world. Now why should that be? Objectivism is objectively [demonstrably] superior to every other philosophic point of view, isn't it? It has been around for about 50 years now. So why the utter lack of Objectivists with rigorous training in philosophy?

As someone with some of that rigorous training [at least to the extent of a B.A. in history of philosophy, philosophy of science and logic], let me suggest an answer. Objectivism is simply a hodgepodge of slogans. It isn't systematic. It isn't a philosphy at all. It is based, if on anything, on silly equivocations ["definition shifting" in your cult language]. So Objectivists really don't want to play this card of systematic philosophic grounding with those who know better.

Posted by Craig J. Bolton to Thrutch at 10:04 AM