Economía
Estos foros están cerrados. Podéis debatir en Red Liberal.
Objetivismo Vs Libertarianismo
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 05:23
La película 'La Rebelión de Atlas' posiblemente saldrá en poco tiempo. Y si bien es cierto que es muy liberal, es bueno aclarar las diferencias entres los objetivistas y los liberales.
El objetivismo es un culto, y
Los objetivistas no defienden consistentemente el axioma de 'no agresión' de los liberales.
-----------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
... The next criticism that Schwartz levels at libertarianism is that we differ among ourselves. “There are so many disagreements on basic questions of liberty within the libertarian movement. That is why libertarianism readily accommodates a conglomeration of mutually incompatible groups.”
In contrast of course, the Randians don’t disagree on anything [this applies only to the pre-split days]. The explanation for this state of affairs is that Objectivism is a cult. Branden (1986) denies this, but she defines cults in religious terms, and obviously objectivism cannot be considered a religious cult. All members are very definitely atheists, and outspoken ones at that. But, apart from that one issue, it cannot be denied that they are cultish. There is the godhead or godheadess who holds forth. Anyone who disagrees with her view is purged. There is intellectual bullying, there is irrationality in the name of rationality. When Branden and Rand split, Rand asked all of her followers to take her side without explaining to them so much as what the issues were. She asked them to take her on faith even though she preaches against anyone taking anything on this basis. This is irrationality in the name of rationality.
This was the Randian cult. On a personal note, when I would ask my Randian acquaintances for their view on an event or issue, they would often not reply. Instead, they would say they had to think about it and would get back to me in a few days. All too often I was told privately, they had to check back with the head office because if they got caught saying something at variance with the cult leader, it was out of the Randian movement for them.
Has this cultism vanished? Not at all within the Piekoff part of the movement. Consider the June 26, 1986 publication of their cult periodical, the so called Intellectual Activist: “Robert Hessen (until this issue, a leading Randian) is no long associated with the Intellectual Activist in any manner whatsoever.” Period. That was it. No explanation whatsoever. I telephoned him, and asked, “What happened? Did he think that two plus two was five? Perhaps that A doesn’t equal A or something?” No, he told me, he liked Barbara Branden’s (1986) book.
...
El objetivismo es un culto, y
Los objetivistas no defienden consistentemente el axioma de 'no agresión' de los liberales.
-----------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
... The next criticism that Schwartz levels at libertarianism is that we differ among ourselves. “There are so many disagreements on basic questions of liberty within the libertarian movement. That is why libertarianism readily accommodates a conglomeration of mutually incompatible groups.”
In contrast of course, the Randians don’t disagree on anything [this applies only to the pre-split days]. The explanation for this state of affairs is that Objectivism is a cult. Branden (1986) denies this, but she defines cults in religious terms, and obviously objectivism cannot be considered a religious cult. All members are very definitely atheists, and outspoken ones at that. But, apart from that one issue, it cannot be denied that they are cultish. There is the godhead or godheadess who holds forth. Anyone who disagrees with her view is purged. There is intellectual bullying, there is irrationality in the name of rationality. When Branden and Rand split, Rand asked all of her followers to take her side without explaining to them so much as what the issues were. She asked them to take her on faith even though she preaches against anyone taking anything on this basis. This is irrationality in the name of rationality.
This was the Randian cult. On a personal note, when I would ask my Randian acquaintances for their view on an event or issue, they would often not reply. Instead, they would say they had to think about it and would get back to me in a few days. All too often I was told privately, they had to check back with the head office because if they got caught saying something at variance with the cult leader, it was out of the Randian movement for them.
Has this cultism vanished? Not at all within the Piekoff part of the movement. Consider the June 26, 1986 publication of their cult periodical, the so called Intellectual Activist: “Robert Hessen (until this issue, a leading Randian) is no long associated with the Intellectual Activist in any manner whatsoever.” Period. That was it. No explanation whatsoever. I telephoned him, and asked, “What happened? Did he think that two plus two was five? Perhaps that A doesn’t equal A or something?” No, he told me, he liked Barbara Branden’s (1986) book.
...
Objetivismo Vs Libertarianismo
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 05:24
Here is another statement by Piekoff which appeared in the May 26, 1986 issue of that publication: “The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relationships with Mrs. Branden in 1968 regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s long time hostility to Miss Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death, attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation, I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate with her on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a truthful representation of Ayn Rand’s life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advanced reports from several readers of the book in galley form, have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so.” How is that for thinking for yourself?
Libertarians disagree with each other because we are individuals. We are bright, but imperfect. We think for ourselves and the world is complex. We’re a political movement, not a cult. That’s why we disagree with each other, on occasion. Disagreements, fights, splits, even hatreds, yes. But no one party line. We have a healthy diversity.
If there is any person in the libertarian movement who could be considered a candidate for cult leader, it would be Murray Rothbard (“Mr. Libertarian”). He was certainly a leading thinker in the libertarian movement. As a matter of fact, Murray and I were good personal friends; yet I have disagreed with him in private, and in person and in writing and in public on several issues including voluntary slavery, immigration, the flat tax, and star wars (Block, 1968, 1998, 1999A, forthcoming). But, there has never been even any hint of a purge. Were Schwartz to disagree with Rand or Peikoff or any other top Objectivist disciple on any issue, no matter how picayune, he would be summarily dismissed from the elect.
Libertarianism is a growing vital, viable, intellectual concern and in such contexts people disagree with each other. We argue these things out. It is a market of ideas. There is nothing to be ashamed about in disagreeing with each other; the very contrary is true.
...
Libertarians disagree with each other because we are individuals. We are bright, but imperfect. We think for ourselves and the world is complex. We’re a political movement, not a cult. That’s why we disagree with each other, on occasion. Disagreements, fights, splits, even hatreds, yes. But no one party line. We have a healthy diversity.
If there is any person in the libertarian movement who could be considered a candidate for cult leader, it would be Murray Rothbard (“Mr. Libertarian”). He was certainly a leading thinker in the libertarian movement. As a matter of fact, Murray and I were good personal friends; yet I have disagreed with him in private, and in person and in writing and in public on several issues including voluntary slavery, immigration, the flat tax, and star wars (Block, 1968, 1998, 1999A, forthcoming). But, there has never been even any hint of a purge. Were Schwartz to disagree with Rand or Peikoff or any other top Objectivist disciple on any issue, no matter how picayune, he would be summarily dismissed from the elect.
Libertarianism is a growing vital, viable, intellectual concern and in such contexts people disagree with each other. We argue these things out. It is a market of ideas. There is nothing to be ashamed about in disagreeing with each other; the very contrary is true.
...
Re: Objetivismo Vs Libertarianismo
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 19:16
Ya habìa escuchado que el movimiento de Rand se volviò sectario, me parece una contradicciòn total con el liberalismo que dice sostener. Una verdadera decepciòn teniendo en cuenta que la Rebeliòn de Atlas fue el primer libro liberal que leì.
Ah, y volvièndome màs intrascendente (comosiempre) quisiera recordar un capìtulo de los simpsons en que llevan a la bebè a un jardìn de infantes estilo militar llamado "Ayn Rand", con frases como "A=A" en la pared. Recièn ahora lo entiendo ja.
Ah, y volvièndome màs intrascendente (comosiempre) quisiera recordar un capìtulo de los simpsons en que llevan a la bebè a un jardìn de infantes estilo militar llamado "Ayn Rand", con frases como "A=A" en la pared. Recièn ahora lo entiendo ja.
Re: Re: Objetivismo Vs Libertarianismo
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 20:08
Yo recomiendo que busquen y lean el artículo de Rothbard "Robert Nozick and the Inmaculate Conception of State"
Nozick justifica un estado mínimo, al igual que Rand; una variante del intento intelectual lockeano:
Partiendo de una situación natural anarquista de libre mercado, Nozick describe al estado como emergiendo en virtud de un proceso guiado por una mano invisible que no viola ningún derecho, primero bajo la forma de una agencia protectora dominante, luego como un "Estado ultramínimo" y, finalmente, como Estado mínimo.
Rothbard, en ese artículo, lleva a cabo una detallada crítica de las varias fases de Nozick, empezando por analizar las bases de partida que demuestra falaces, cada una de las cuales basta por echar por tierra su intento de justificación del estado.
Primero porque históricamente ningún Estado ha surgido al modo nozickiano, de lo que se concluye que ninguno de los estados actuales tiene justi.
En segundo lugar, aún admitiendo que algún Estado contemporáneo haya tenido esa concepción "inmaculada", esto no basta para justificar su existencia actual. Todas las teorías del estado basadas en el contrato social adolecen de una falacia endémica radicada en que los contratos basados en promesas sean vinculantes y de ejecución forzosa.
Una correcta teoría contractual sostiene que el único contrato válido y, por tanto, vinculante, es aquél en que se hace entrega de algo que sea filosóficamente enajenable, y no lo son los atributos humanos de la autoposesión de la voluntad y del propio cuerpo, además de los derechos de la persona y la propiedad, de modo que pueda cederse a otras personas su posesión. Aquellos son inalienables y no pueden ser entregados bajo contrato vinculante; menos para el futuro.
Nozick justifica un estado mínimo, al igual que Rand; una variante del intento intelectual lockeano:
Partiendo de una situación natural anarquista de libre mercado, Nozick describe al estado como emergiendo en virtud de un proceso guiado por una mano invisible que no viola ningún derecho, primero bajo la forma de una agencia protectora dominante, luego como un "Estado ultramínimo" y, finalmente, como Estado mínimo.
Rothbard, en ese artículo, lleva a cabo una detallada crítica de las varias fases de Nozick, empezando por analizar las bases de partida que demuestra falaces, cada una de las cuales basta por echar por tierra su intento de justificación del estado.
Primero porque históricamente ningún Estado ha surgido al modo nozickiano, de lo que se concluye que ninguno de los estados actuales tiene justi.
En segundo lugar, aún admitiendo que algún Estado contemporáneo haya tenido esa concepción "inmaculada", esto no basta para justificar su existencia actual. Todas las teorías del estado basadas en el contrato social adolecen de una falacia endémica radicada en que los contratos basados en promesas sean vinculantes y de ejecución forzosa.
Una correcta teoría contractual sostiene que el único contrato válido y, por tanto, vinculante, es aquél en que se hace entrega de algo que sea filosóficamente enajenable, y no lo son los atributos humanos de la autoposesión de la voluntad y del propio cuerpo, además de los derechos de la persona y la propiedad, de modo que pueda cederse a otras personas su posesión. Aquellos son inalienables y no pueden ser entregados bajo contrato vinculante; menos para el futuro.
Re: Re: Re: Objetivismo Vs Libertarianismo
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 21:02
Acà va el link:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.as...
Buen artìculo, es increìble cuàn vigente està el Leviathan aùn.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.as...
Buen artìculo, es increìble cuàn vigente està el Leviathan aùn.