One obstacle for Objectivists who want to work in politics is a lack of realism about the requirements of compromise in American politics. The two-party system requires coalition politics. This means tolerating apparent compromise with polices one otherwise actively resists.

This same obstacle - the quest for purity in an impure system - also haunts the LP. Thus, the anarchist wing, most memorably founded by Murray Rothbard, advocates abolition of government in parallel to William Lloyd Garrisson's abolition of slavery. The other segment advocates an incrimental approach, such as Milton Friedman's voluntary military and voucher system for education, and thus has much less conflict about compromise. Policies that expand human choice are the instruments of political persuasion instead of a party of "pure" principle.

The premise of the Libertarian Party is that we don't need agreement on general philosophical principles first. Instead, all that's needed is agreement against the initiation of the use of force. This commonality allows collective lobbying and the joint pursuit of political goals. American politics is a social tool, not a philisophical one.

The issue of consistent principle and confronting the radical anti-statism of anarchist libertarianism like Murray Rothbard led Harvard's Robert Nozick to write "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." Here, Nozick subjected the anarchist hypothesis that all legitimate government services could be provided for privately to a thought experiment. The result, he argued, is that some services are natural monopolies. Further debate in the 70s and early 80s led to different consensus: we really don't know what is or isn't practical. It depends upon the character of the people and institutional limitations of the culture attempting it. (Which affirms what the Founders believed, and soothes Objectivists who value the systematic support of proper metaphysics and ethics in politics.)

It isn’t clear who Valliant claims the “critics” are -- Nathaniel Branden, Barabara Branden, LP officials, all of them, some of them? Does Niell suggest someone should better reconstruct Valliant's point?

Rand's insistence on consistent principles speaks to her depth of vision - not realism about how politics functions in the US and its inherent limitations.

Whatever NB/BB/or AR thought of Libertarians, the same dilemmas and trade-offs that confronted them confront Objectivists today. Will we learn from their experience and debates or not? Richard Lawrence' list of links to these matters may be helpful for further thinking and discussion on this thread.

Kenny - you write, "Rand supported them and (ironically) was more libertarian than the LP's Presidential candidate."

Why ironically? Genuine radicalism requires coherence - and political coherence is not reachable without a coherent philosophical foundation.

From his perspective below curb level, Neil the Ant asks, "What is your proof that Barbara Branden believes Rand's position with respect to the LP was unreasonable?...Branden might in fact agree with Rand on this. Incidentally, NB in Judgment Day discusses Rand's position vis-a-vis the LP and doesn't critcize her for it"

First, NB, " today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as “a libertarian philosopher.” Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it.

About ten years ago, I came across a saying from the Talmud that impressed me profoundly. I have not been able to stop thinking about it. I have often wondered what might have happened if I’d had the chance to discuss the idea with Ayn—if there would have been any way to break through. Who knows what might have been different in the years that followed?

The line that so impressed me was: 'A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy.' "

NB

Onto BB, "Neo-Objectivists...have diverged from Rand with respect to libertarianism. They have been willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley..., Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden ...Nathaniel Branden has approved of Kelley's efforts..."

BB

In addition BB has addressed libertarian conferences, e.g.

BB

I would be surprised if NB hasn't also addressed similar conferences.

Jim,

What is your proof that Barbara Branden believes Rand's position with respect to the LP was unreasonable? Nothing in PAR claims that Rand was improper for refusing to endorse the LP.

The section I quoted "In the opinion of many people, the anarchist wing has deeply undermined the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party in recent years" indicates to me that Branden might in fact agree with Rand on this. Incidentally, NB in Judgment Day discusses Rand's position vis-a-vis the LP and doesn't critcize her for it (p. 231).

Your claim about the Brandens and other concening Rand and the LP goes way beyond the evidence you provide (which as I mention is virtually none).

The ARI focuses on Rand's statements that libertarians her plagiarised her, lacked a moral basis for their politics and that a large proportion were anarchists. I would disagree with her generalisations.

At the risk of being accused of psychologising, I would offer the additional possibility that her opposition could have also been fueled by breaks with leading LP figures. John Hospers was nominated as the LP's Presidential candidate several years after his break with Rand. Murray Rothbard was also involved in the LP in its early years.

Incidentally, Hospers' recent article in Liberty magazine recalls his differences with Rand. She was more radical than him. Hospers opposed private roads, Rand supported them and (ironically) was more libertarian than the LP's Presidential candidate.

Gosh, for a minute there, Neil, I thought you were going to argue that Ms. B. thinks Rand's position on the LP was reasonable.