Reed, check out "Philosophy: Who Needs It" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" from the SOLO store. If epistemology really interests you (it does me) then check out "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (usually abbreviated IOTE in O-ist circles).

Reed, what is knowledge? Why do we have a field in philosophy called epistemology? Check out this article from the archives

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

Thanks for that Kenny, it appears to be more an issue about evidence and method than a philosophical disagreement. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that America is not acting in its own self interest.

My own thinking on the issue is that I am happy for governments to deal with tyrannical rulers of other countries in much the same way that you would deal with murderers and violent offenders. This is probably opposed to the objectivist view on altruism but my thinking is clouded by caring for others.

Without trawling through the ARI website, my impression (from articles, letters etc emailed to me) is that the ARI supported the invasion of Iraq but believes that the Bush adminstration has failed to deal with the insurgents etc. Yaron Brook has proposed military strikes against targets in Iran.

There is no doubt, IMO, that key ARI staff have advocated and supported the initiation of force. They would argue that it is justified by self-defence. That is the real issue for debate - whether Saddam's Iraq and Iran have posed a real threat to the United States. My view is that they did/have not and that the real enemy is Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, e.g. in Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda has gained support and recruits both within Iraq and other countries, e.g. Britain, as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq.

We can know ...
that objects fall without knowing how gravity works.
that the sun is hot without knowing how the heat is produced.
that stuff exists without know what stuff is.
how to use a car without understanding how it works.
how to use computers without knowing how they work.
that eating junk food makes us sick/fat without knowing the process.

Some knowledge is hierarchical while other knowledge is independant.

I would like to have used the real world example but I haven't figured out Ayn Rands hierachy of knowledge yet.

Where can I find this hierarchy?

All knowledge is hierarchical. While it is true that many people today only have a rationalistic understanding of the concepts they use this doesn't negate the fact that concepts depend on other concepts (except axiomatic concepts of course). To say otherwise is rationalism of the highest order. Yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Many libertarians will argue for laissez-faire capitalism. Without a properly integrated philosophy regarding the nature of reality, a theory of knowledge and the concepts of man as a rational animal you end up with Anarchists using your same arguments to argue for no government or 'competing' governments (since governments represent a geo-political monopoly on force, they can only compete with force).

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

Some knowledge is hierarchical while other knowledge can be arrived at with incomplete information.

A=B-B+1

We can assume any value for B, or ignore B altogeather, and still come to the same conclusion.

reed, since knowledge is hierarchical it is not enough to string together political beliefs you are unable to defend philosophically and hope a public shackled by an irrational collectivist political philosophy will vote for you. That is putting the cart before the horse. Rand was criticizing the fact that the Libertarians were advocating a grab bag of political ideas but could not defend those ideas at the fundamental level.

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

This article says to me that Ayn Rand opposed "libertarians" because they either aren't true libertarians or didn't give her credit for the philosophy.

It looks like Ayn Rand didn't think that other people were capable of thinking for themselves and thought people could only get to the libertarian conclusion through her reasoning.
She also indicates that she opposes libertarians who have different morals - isn't this a hypocritical position?

First impressions of the ARI is that they have surrendered their minds to Ayn Rand. Do ARI members treat Ayn Rands words like the words of a prophet?

""Orthodox" Objectivists, especially those associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, despise libertarians due to philosophical differences. They also tend to differ with libertarians on foreign policy, i.e. they advocate the initiation of the use of force - such as the invasion of Iraq."

Did the ARI really advocate this? I'd thought they were pretty consistently since before the Iraq invasion on an attack-Iran, maybe Syria+Saudi Arabia track rather than Iraq.

This article explains the ARI's and Rand's attitude to libertarians. I disagree with Rand on several points but don't have time to explain at the moment.

I won't tell anyone you're a libertarian if you don't tell anyone I just quoted the Bible on an Objectivist site. I don't mind making waves every now and again, but even I think I may have gone too far...!

Unfortunately I can't blame Hellen Clark for this.

The bad thinking goes like this...

Libertarians are labelled liberal.
People who want to promote/impose their immoral activities are labelled liberal.
Therefore libertarians want to promote/impose their immoral ideas.

This error can lead christians to oppose everyone labelled liberal (including libertarians).

A simple form of this error is... cats have four legs therefore fido is a cat.

I see a similar error in other discussions on this site, I think their thinking goes like this...

Conservatives are usually christians.
Conservatives want to impose their version of morality on to everyone.
Therefore christians want to impose their version of morality on to everyone.

This error can lead libertarians to oppose everyone labelled christian (including christian libertarians).

Kenny -
I am working my way through the list in Tools for the busy activist? Surprisingly most of what I have read lines up with my own ideas (so objectivists must be right on those points).
My understanding was "objectivists are libertarians but libertarians may not be objectivists" but that can't be true if ARI objectivists "despise libertarians" how do you normally term libertarian objectivists or do ARI objectivists just have a slightly different libertarian view?

Michael -
I don't really take offence at being labelled a libertarian but can we keep it a secret, some people might get the wrong idea.
Don't concern yourself about the bible quote, I have seen eclesiastes paraphrased in objectivists reasoning - "Eat, drink and enjoy the fruits of your labour".

I'm going to quote... the Bible... (now THAT is a shudder - turn your eyes if you must from my post!)

Samuel 8:10-18 (New International Version):

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain (A *TENTH!?!?* the Israelites had it easy!!!) and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day."

Libertarianism and it's specifically secular philosophical corollary, Objectivism issues a similar warning to the prophet Samuel's. The irony being, our warnings are coming AFTER SAMUEL'S PROPHECY HAS BEEN FULFILLED A THOUSAND TIMES, and yet people still don't want to hear!

Don't be annoyed with your testing 100/100 on the libertarian meter, Reed, it's not a bad thing (I've never been anything but a '100/100' libertarian and I turned out ok... no, really...).

Libertarians do have morals but not seek to impose them morality on others. You should read more about libertarianism on the site of Advocates for Self-Government.

Objectivists are atheistic, rather than Christian, libertarians. IMO, Objectivists and libertarians share the same politics (i.e. laissez faire capitalism and/or minarchism) but can or often differ on philosophy (ethics, metaphysics and epistimology).

"Orthodox" Objectivists, especially those associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, despise libertarians due to philosophical differences. They also tend to differ with libertarians on foreign policy, i.e. they advocate the initiation of the use of force - such as the invasion of Iraq. Ironically, Ayn Rand advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy.

"So why does the term libertarian make me think of people who want to impose their (immoral) morals or amorality on to others?"

Because you've been under a misapprehension as to what "Libertarian" means? You've probably been led astray by the likes of Helen (gigantic shudder)Clarke.

It's more like Christian (shudder)... not that I'm trying to impose my metaphysics on you...