I’m not the right person to put this eloquently, nor am I even particularly good at doing so in the first place. Instead, I’ll spell the objectivist rejection of libertarianism out, as I personally understand it.
Objectivism rejects libertarianism because at it’s core, libertarianism is not a philosophy, nor even a political philosophy, but an anti-philosophy. This is seen most clearly when libertarianism is described as a “united front” for liberty. While that sounds nice enough, what it actually means is anything and everything goes, so long as it is for liberty.
So in theory, you could be a devout altruist/collectivist, completely reject the supremacy of man’s mind, and you would still be welcomed with open arms to libertarianism — simply because you believe liberty is a value worthy of “the common good” that you do your best to serve, every day.
In this case, a person’s highest moral value is serving others, and not his own happiness. An individual’s right to life is of no major consequence — only his freedom is important because his freedom is how he best serves others*.
*It’s worthy to note that this is primarily how republicans defend capitalism and free markets. It is how individuals best serve everyone else, be it “America”, “God”, or “society”. The important point is anyone and everyone, except you.
Basically, libertarianism takes man’s supreme right to his life, and replaces it with his derivative right to liberty — opening the door to a wide range of nonsense.
It’s sort of like taking
and coming up with
and forgetting all about 1.
While there’s more to it than that, this is largely why the libertarian party has been such a colossal failure over the decades. They started a third party and “forgot” to build a real platform, and decided instead to accept anyone and everyone, just like the anti-philosophy itself, libertarianism.
While the term itself, libertarian, could have been useful to globally describe a real party, with a real moral and philosophical grounding, it has been tarnished well beyond repair, and is worthy of complete abandonment.
While I do not agree with the objectivist rejection of Ron Paul — who is not a libertarian or republican — I largely agree with the objectivist rejection of libertarianism.
“Anything goes”, as is in libertarianism, is the fundamental problem itself, and is not a part of the solution.
— Anthony Dream Johnson